Advances in fungal chemical genomics for the discovery of new antifungal agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Invasive fungal infections have escalated from a rare curiosity to a major cause of human mortality around the globe. This is in part due to a scarcity in the number of antifungal drugs available to combat mycotic disease, making the discovery of novel bioactive compounds and determining their mode of action of utmost importance. The development and application of chemical genomic assays using the model yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae has provided powerful methods to identify the mechanism of action of diverse molecules in a living cell. Furthermore, complementary assays are continually being developed in fungal pathogens, most notably Candida albicans and Cryptococcus neoformans, to elucidate compound mechanism of action directly in the pathogen of interest. Collectively, the suite of chemical genetic assays that have been developed in multiple fungal species enables the identification of candidate drug target genes, as well as genes involved in buffering drug target pathways, and genes involved in general cellular responses to small molecules. In this review, we examine current yeast chemical genomic assays and highlight how such resources provide powerful tools that can be utilized to bolster the antifungal pipeline.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".