Reversible Covalent Inhibition─Desired Covalent Adduct Formation by Mass Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Covalent inhibition has seen a resurgence in the last several years. Although long-plagued by concerns of off-target effects due to nonspecific reactions leading to covalent adducts, there has been success in developing covalent inhibitors, especially within the field of anticancer therapy. Covalent inhibitors can have an advantage over noncovalent inhibitors since the formation of a covalent adduct may serve as an additional mode of selectivity due to the intrinsic reactivity of the target protein that is absent in many other proteins. Unfortunately, many covalent inhibitors form irreversible adducts with off-target proteins, which can lead to considerable side-effects. By designing the inhibitor to form reversible covalent adducts, one can leverage competing on/off kinetics in complex formation by taking advantage of the law of mass action. Although covalent adducts do form with off-target proteins, the reversible nature of inhibition prevents accumulation of the off-target adduct, thus limiting side-effects. In this perspective, we outline important characteristics of reversible covalent inhibitors, including examples and a guide for inhibitor development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".