A Series of 2‐((1‐Phenyl‐1H‐imidazol‐5‐yl)methyl)‐1H‐indoles as Indoleamine 2,3‐Dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) Inhibitors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Indoleamine 2,3‐dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is a promising therapeutic target in cancer immunotherapy and neurological disease. Thus, searching for highly active inhibitors for use in human cancers is now a focus of widespread research and development efforts. In this study, we report the structure‐based design of 2‐(5‐imidazolyl)indole derivatives, a series of novel IDO1 inhibitors which have been designed and synthesized based on our previous study using N 1‐substituted 5‐indoleimidazoles. Among these, we have identified one with a strong IDO1 inhibitory activity (IC 50 =0.16 μM, EC 50 =0.3 μM). Structural‐activity relationship (SAR) and computational docking simulations suggest that a hydroxyl group favorably interacts with a proximal Ser167 residue in Pocket A, improving IDO1 inhibitory potency. The brain penetrance of potent compounds was estimated by calculation of the Blood Brain Barrier (BBB) Score and Brain Exposure Efficiency (BEE) Score. Many compounds had favorable scores and the two most promising compounds were advanced to a pharmacokinetic study which demonstrated that both compounds were brain penetrant. We have thus discovered a flexible scaffold for brain penetrant IDO1 inhibitors, exemplified by several potent, brain penetrant, agents. With this promising scaffold, we provide herein a basis for further development of brain penetrant IDO1 inhibitors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it