MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990537500 · doi:10.5539/ijc.v12n1p61

Molecular Docking Studies to Understand the Potential Role of Ginger Compounds (6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol) on Anti-Angiogenic and Anti-Lymphangiogenic Mechanisms

2019· article· en· W2990537500 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemistry · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicGinger and Zingiberaceae research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndian Council of Medical Research
KeywordsChemistryLymphangiogenesisAngiogenesisDocking (animal)PharmacologyIn silicoBiochemistryCancer researchMetastasisCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: 6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol are novel biologically active phenol compounds isolated from rhizomes of Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe), which has a potential role as anti-inflammatory, anti-oxidant and apoptotic. Till date there are no scientific reports on the functional properties of Ginger against the molecular mechanisms of angiogenesis, lymphangiogenesis, and metastasis. Hence, in the present study we have explored the feasibility of active ginger compounds (6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol) to validate their molecular mechanisms on angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in breast cancer progression through in silico approach. Methodology: Studies have been targeted to find the interactions between selected protein receptors, which play a pivotal role in angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis and ligands of Ginger compounds (6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol) by using Accelrys discovery studio 2.5, followed by analysis of data. Results: Based on the in silico approaches, we found the best interactions between ginger compounds (6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol) and targeted protein molecules as shown less than 3.10 A0H-bond distance to indicate higher binding affinity and stronger interactions and high docking scores. We demonstrate docking interactions of 6-Gingerol with the proteins involved in angiogenesis like VEGF-A (3QTK), VEGFR-1 (5ABD), VEGFR-2/VEGF-E COMPLEX (3V6B, Angiopoietin-2 (4JZC), PDGF-B (4QCI), KDR (5EW3) and with the proteins involved in lymphangiogenesis such as VEGF-C(2XIX), VEGF-C in complex with domains of 2 and 3 of VEGFR2 (2X1W), NRP2(4QDS) and Neuropilin-1/VEGF-A complex (4DEQ). Similarly, our data shows that 6-Shogaol also interacts with angiogenic specific proteins, like [VEGF-A (3QTK), VEGFR-1 (5ABD), VEGFR-2/VEGF-E COMPLEX (3V6B), Angiopoietin-2 (4JZC), PDGF-B (4QCI), KDR (5EW3)] and lymphangiogenesis [VEGF-C(2XIX), VEGF-C in complex with domains of 2 and 3 of VEGFR2 (2X1W), NRP2(4QDS) and Neuropilin-1/VEGF-A complex (4DEQ)]. Discussion: In silico approaches suggest a stronger binding affinity between the ginger compounds (6-Gingerol and 6-Shogaol) and selected proteins critical in angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis. The present study underlines the feasibility of neutraceuticals to target the pathways participating in breast cancer progression through neovascularization. Our results also advocate 6-Gingerol to be more potent inhibitor of lymphangiogenesis assessed by its binding efficacy with VEGF-C and NRP2 (4QDS) as compared against 6-Shogaol.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.362 · 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