MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134291427 · doi:10.1039/d0sc05788f

Defining and navigating macrocycle chemical space

2021· article· en· W3134291427 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren A. Viarengo‐Baker, Lauren E. Brown, Anna A. Rzepiela, Adrian Whitty

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
FundersGenentech
KeywordsChemical spaceChemotypeSpace (punctuation)Combinatorial chemistryChemistryDrug discoveryNanotechnologyComputational biologyComputer scienceStereochemistryBiologyMaterials scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Macrocyclic compounds (MCs) are of growing interest for inhibition of challenging drug targets. We consider afresh what structural and physicochemical features could be relevant to the bioactivity of this compound class. Using these features, we performed Principal Component Analysis to map oral and non-oral macrocycle drugs and clinical candidates, and also commercially available synthetic MCs, in structure-property space. We find that oral MC drugs occupy defined regions that are distinct from those of the non-oral MC drugs. None of the oral MC regions are effectively sampled by the synthetic MCs. We identify 13 properties that can be used to design synthetic MCs that sample regions overlapping with oral MC drugs. The results advance our understanding of what molecular features are associated with bioactive and orally bioavailable MCs, and illustrate an approach by which synthetic chemists can better evaluate MC designs. We also identify underexplored regions of macrocycle chemical space.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations42
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical ScienceSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207