MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579472951 · doi:10.1080/15592294.2017.1279371

Chemical probes targeting epigenetic proteins: Applications beyond oncology

2017· review· en· W2579472951 on OpenAlexaff
Suzanne Ackloo, Peter J. Brown, Susanne Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenetics · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsEpigeneticsBiologyComputational biologyBromodomainMethyltransferaseChemical biologyEpigenesisGenomicsProfiling (computer programming)BioinformaticsGeneticsMethylationDNA methylationGenomeGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic chemical probes are potent, cell-active, small molecule inhibitors or antagonists of specific domains in a protein; they have been indispensable for studying bromodomains and protein methyltransferases. The Structural Genomics Consortium (SGC), comprising scientists from academic and pharmaceutical laboratories, has generated most of the current epigenetic chemical probes. Moreover, the SGC has shared about 4 thousand aliquots of these probes, which have been used primarily for phenotypic profiling or to validate targets in cell lines or primary patient samples cultured in vitro. Epigenetic chemical probes have been critical tools in oncology research and have uncovered mechanistic insights into well-established targets, as well as identify new therapeutic starting points. Indeed, the literature primarily links epigenetic proteins to oncology, but applications in inflammation, viral, metabolic and neurodegenerative diseases are now being reported. We summarize the literature of these emerging applications and provide examples where existing probes might be used.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.319 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpigeneticsSame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207