MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990229207 · doi:10.1039/c9np00054b

Biologically active marine natural products and their molecular targets discovered using a chemical genetics approach

2019· review· en· W2990229207 on OpenAlexafffund
David E. Williams, Raymond J. Andersen

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Product Reports · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCanadian Cancer Society
KeywordsChemical geneticsComputational biologyNatural (archaeology)Chemical biologyMolecular geneticsBiologyGeneticsGeneSmall molecule

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Covering: 2000 to 2019The discovery of new natural products that have some combination of unprecedented chemical structures, biological activities of therapeutic interest for urgent medical needs, and new molecular targets provides the fuel that sustains the vitality of natural products chemistry research. Unfortunately, finding these important new compounds is neither routine or trivial and a major challenge is finding effective discovery paradigms. This review presents examples that illustrate the effectiveness of a chemical genetics approach to marine natural product (MNP) discovery that intertwines compound discovery, molecular target identification, and phenotypic response/biological activity. The examples include MNPs that have complex unprecedented structures, new or understudied molecular targets, and potent biological activities of therapeutic interest. A variety of methods to identify molecular targets are also featured.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations33
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural Product ReportsSame topicMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFrench-language works237,207