Rational design of small-molecules to recognize G-quadruplexes of c-MYC promoter and telomere and the evaluation of their <i>in vivo</i> antitumor activity against breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA G4-structures from human c-MYC promoter and telomere are considered as important drug targets; however, the developing of small-molecule-based fluorescent binding ligands that are highly selective in targeting these G4-structures over other types of nucleic acids is challenging. We herein report a new approach of designing small molecules based on a non-selective thiazole orange scaffold to provide two-directional and multi-site interactions with flanking residues and loops of the G4-motif for better selectivity. The ligands are designed to establish multi-site interactions in the G4-binding pocket. This structural feature may render the molecules higher selectivity toward c-MYC G4s than other structures. The ligand-G4 interaction studied with 1H NMR may suggest a stacking interaction with the terminal G-tetrad. Moreover, the intracellular co-localization study with BG4 and cellular competition experiments with BRACO-19 may suggest that the binding targets of the ligands in cells are most probably G4-structures. Furthermore, the ligands that either preferentially bind to c-MYC promoter or telomeric G4s are able to downregulate markedly the c-MYC and hTERT gene expression in MCF-7 cells, and induce senescence and DNA damage to cancer cells. The in vivo antitumor activity of the ligands in MCF-7 tumor-bearing mice is also demonstrated.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".