MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3049295315 · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-70704-9

Influence of ligand’s directional configuration, chrysenes as model compounds, on the binding activity with aryl hydrocarbon receptor

2020· article· en· W3049295315 on OpenAlexafffund
Taewoo Kim, Juyuan Zhen, Jung‐Hyun Lee, Robert P. C. Bauer, Changkeun Lee, Bong-Oh Kwon, Keun Hwa Chae, Seongjin Hong, John P. Giesy, Gap Soo Chang, Jong Seong Khim

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsAryl hydrocarbon receptorArylHydrocarbonLigand (biochemistry)ChemistryReceptorStereochemistryFunction (biology)Combinatorial chemistryOrganic chemistryBiologyBiochemistryGeneticsTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding what and how physico-chemical factors of a ligand configure conditions for ligand-receptor binding is a key to accurate assessment of toxic potencies of environmental pollutants. We investigated influences of the dipole-driven orientation and resulting directional configuration of ligands on receptor binding activities. Using physico-chemical properties calculated by ab initio density functional theory, directional reactivity factors (DRF) were devised as main indicators of toxic potencies, linking molecular ligand-receptor binding to in vitro responses. The directional reactive model was applied to predict variation of aryl hydrocarbon receptor-mediated toxic potencies among homologues of chrysene with structural modifications such as the numbers of constituent benzene rings, methylation and hydroxylation. Results of predictive models were consistent with empirical potencies determined by use of the H4IIE-luc transactivation bioassay. The experiment-free approach based on first principles provides an analytical framework for estimating molecular bioactivity in silico and complements conventional empirical approaches to studying molecular initiating events in adverse outcome pathways.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207