MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389397244 · doi:10.1093/jimb/kuad042

Lessons from assembling a microbial natural product and pre-fractionated extract library in an academic laboratory

2023· article· en· W4389397244 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael A. Cook, Daniel Pallant, Linda Ejim, Arlene D. Sutherland, Xiaodong Wang, Jarrod W. Johnson, Susan McCusker, Xuefei Chen, Sommer Chou, Kalinka Koteva, Wenliang Wang, Christian Hobson, Dirk Hackenberger, Nicholas Waglechner, Obi Ejim, Tracey Campbell, Ricardo Medina, Lesley T. MacNeil, Gerard D. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNatural productBiotechnologyDrug discoveryPharmaceutical industryAntimicrobialBlueprintComputational biologyIn silicoBiologyBiochemical engineeringBiochemistryEngineeringGeneMicrobiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microbial natural products are specialized metabolites that are sources of many bioactive compounds including antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, anticancer agents, and probes of biology. The assembly of libraries of producers of natural products has traditionally been the province of the pharmaceutical industry. This sector has gathered significant historical collections of bacteria and fungi to identify new drug leads with outstanding outcomes-upwards of 60% of drug scaffolds originate from such libraries. Despite this success, the repeated rediscovery of known compounds and the resultant diminishing chemical novelty contributed to a pivot from this source of bioactive compounds toward more tractable synthetic compounds in the drug industry. The advent of advanced mass spectrometry tools, along with rapid whole genome sequencing and in silico identification of biosynthetic gene clusters that encode the machinery necessary for the synthesis of specialized metabolites, offers the opportunity to revisit microbial natural product libraries with renewed vigor. Assembling a suitable library of microbes and extracts for screening requires the investment of resources and the development of methods that have customarily been the proprietary purview of large pharmaceutical companies. Here, we report a perspective on our efforts to assemble a library of natural product-producing microbes and the establishment of methods to extract and fractionate bioactive compounds using resources available to most academic labs. We validate the library and approach through a series of screens for antimicrobial and cytotoxic agents. This work serves as a blueprint for establishing libraries of microbial natural product producers and bioactive extract fractions suitable for screens of bioactive compounds. ONE-SENTENCE SUMMARY: Natural products are key to discovery of novel antimicrobial agents: Here, we describe our experience and lessons learned in constructing a microbial natural product and pre-fractionated extract library.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Industrial Microbiology & BiotechnologySame topicMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFrench-language works237,207