Pharmacokinetics and drug-likeness of anticancer phytoconstituents: ADMET, Molecular docking, and Simulation studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> Breast cancer (BC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women around the world. Several genetic mutations tend to induce the risk of BC progression. SPDEF (Sam pointed domain containing ETS transcription factor) is a prostate-derived ETS factor that maintains homeostasis, differentiation of epithelial tissues, and heritable alterations in cancer. Plant secondary metabolites like flavonoids, terpenoids, and alkaloids have shown anticarcinogenic effect in several literatures. Therefore, in this study the SPDEF protein was used as potential breast cancer therapeutic target. Pharmacokinetic properties (ADMET), drug-likeness, and molecular docking of the fifteen phytoconstituents were assessed against SPDEF protein by various in silico approaches. The results showed that genistein, 2-hydroxychalcone, ajoene, and allicin had no toxicity. As per toxicological endpoints prediction study, the median lethal dosage (LD50) values vary from 159 to 3919 mg/Kg. All of the phytoconstituents derivatives taken into account in this investigation, are projected to be good candidates for P-glycoprotein (p-gp). Using <italic>in silico</italic> methods, the fifteen phytoconstituents identified from the different plants were predicted for their inhibitory actions against SPDEF protein, suggesting their breast cancer therapeutic potential. Silibinin, codonolactone and genistein have showed the lowest binding energy (-7.7, -6.1 and -6.1 kcal/mol) respectively and predicted to have the best inhibitory effect against SPDEF protein. We selected these three phytoconstituents for molecular dynamic simulation at 200 ns. In a comparison analysis, the Silibinin-receptor complex structure qualifies for the maximum parameters. The predictions about the pharmacokinetic properties of these phytoconstituents would form the basis for future <italic>in vivo,</italic> and <italic>in vitro</italic> experiments to identify the most appropriate therapeutic compound.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".