MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395663417 · doi:10.59720/23-222

Computational analysis and drug repositioning: Targeting the TDP-43 RRM using FDA-approved drugs

2024· article· en· W4395663417 on OpenAlexaff
Siran Zhang, Longjiang Wu, Xiaoying Zhang, Mei Dang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emerging Investigators · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicChemical Reactions and Isotopes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrug repositioningApproved drugDrugPharmacologyDrug approvalMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

TAR DNA binding protein-43 (TDP-43) aggregation is a hallmark for many neurodegenerative diseases including amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, frontotemporal dementia and Huntington’s disease. These protein aggregates can disrupt neuronal function and contribute to neurodegeneration. Previous studies have uncovered that adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is a promising molecule to dock onto the TDP-43 RNA recognition motif (RRM) region to reduce amyloid-like aggregation. This provides a potential therapeutic strategy in which chemicals with similar binding properties could be selected as drugs. Under normal physiological conditions, TDP-43 RRM region mediates the binding of nucleic acid with TDP- 43. Therefore, we hypothesized that molecules such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), which can bind to ATP-binding sites or competitively bind to other nucleic acid binding regions, including different variants of RRM domains, are of great screening interest. We conducted in silico simulations using molecular dynamic simulation and virtual screening, in which the ATP-binding pocket is introduced in docking model. Our results supported our hypothesis because five of ten selected binding chemicals were TKIs. From the result, we then selected the two molecules under maximum concentration in bloodstream by conducting further screening strategies such as long-term molecular dynamic simulation, and Lipinski’s rules testing.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.345 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Emerging InvestigatorsSame topicChemical Reactions and IsotopesFrench-language works237,207