MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232466409 · doi:10.1002/ange.201410736

Identification of Structure–Activity Relationships from Screening a Structurally Compact DNA‐Encoded Chemical Library

2015· article· en· W4232466409 on OpenAlexaff
Raphael M. Franzini, T. Ekblad, Nan Zhong, Moreno Wichert, Willy Decurtins, Angela Nauer, Mauro Zimmermann, Florent Samain, Jörg Scheuermann, Peter J. Brown, Jonathan Hall, S. Gräslund, H. Schüler, Dario Neri

Bibliographic record

VenueAngewandte Chemie · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChemical Synthesis and Analysis
Canadian institutionsStructural Genomics ConsortiumUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNAComputational biologyAffinitiesBinding affinitiesChemistryDNA sequencingDrug discoveryCombinatorial chemistrySmall moleculeIdentification (biology)Chemical biologyBiochemistryStereochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Methods for the rapid and inexpensive discovery of hit compounds are essential for pharmaceutical research and DNA‐encoded chemical libraries represent promising tools for this purpose. We here report on the design and synthesis of DAL‐100K, a DNA‐encoded chemical library containing 103 200 structurally compact compounds. Affinity screening experiments and DNA‐sequencing analysis provided ligands with nanomolar affinities to several proteins, including prostate‐specific membrane antigen and tankyrase 1. Correlations of sequence counts with binding affinities and potencies of enzyme inhibition were observed and enabled the identification of structural features critical for activity. These results indicate that libraries of this type represent a useful source of small‐molecule binders for target proteins of pharmaceutical interest and information on structural features important for binding.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAngewandte ChemieSame topicChemical Synthesis and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207