MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157713462

*WINNER* Computational Design of Novel Inhibitors of Dihydrofolate Reductase in Three Bacterial Species

2021· article· en· W3157713462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of Student Research and Creative Inquiry Day · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDihydrofolate reductaseLipinski's rule of fiveBacillus anthracisDocking (animal)DruggabilityActive siteComputational biologyChemistryBinding siteStereochemistryBacteriaBiologyBiochemistryEnzymeIn silicoGeneticsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This project aims to design high affinity small molecule inhibitors of bacterial dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) for the purpose of obtaining broad-spectrum antibiotics against multiple bacteria, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Staphylococcus aureus, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Inhibitors were designed using MOE 2020 (Chemical Computing, Ltd., Montreal, Quebec, Canada) based on a previous ZINC Database search to target the active site of DHFR based on computational analysis of the energetic frustration and evolutionary importance of amino acid residues present. This analysis was conducted using the Protein Frustratometer (http://frustratometer.qb.fcen.uba.ar/; EMBNet Aargentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina) and Evolutionary Trace (http://lichtargelab.org/software/ETserver; Baylor College of Medicine, Baylor University, Houston, Texas USA). Evolutionary trace and frustration define the active site, by determining binding sites, and areas of the molecule in high energetic states, respectively. Designed inhibitors were docked into each protein using the Docking module of MOE 2020, and the binding residues were then compared to the areas of evolutionary trace and frustration to help determine if the molecules had favorable binding scores. 189 small molecules were designed to interact with these amino acid functional groups based on complementary, non-covalent functional group interactions. The ligand interactions for the top compounds in each bacteria were examined and these compounds were examined according to Lipinski’s Rule of Five, which helps to determine potential druggability. One compound was found to have favorable bonding across all three bacterial DHFR, and fourteen compounds were recognized as having favorable bonding across two bacterial DHFR.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of Student Research and Creative Inquiry DaySame topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207