In Silico Identification of Tripeptides as Lead Compounds for the Design of KOR Ligands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kappa opioid receptor (KOR) represents an attractive target for the development of drugs as potential antidepressants, anxiolytics and analgesics. A robust computational approach may guarantee a reduction in costs in the initial stages of drug discovery, novelty and accurate results. In this work, a virtual screening workflow of a library consisting of ~6 million molecules was set up, with the aim to find potential lead compounds that could manifest activity on the KOR. This in silico study provides a significant contribution in the identification of compounds capable of interacting with a specific molecular target. The main computational techniques adopted in this experimental work include: (i) virtual screening; (ii) drug design and leads optimization; (iii) molecular dynamics. The best hits are tripeptides prepared via solution phase peptide synthesis. These were tested in vivo, revealing a good antinociceptive effect after subcutaneous administration. However, further work is due to delineate their full pharmacological profile, in order to verify the features predicted by the in silico outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".