MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399770419 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49493-6

Chemogenomics for NR1 nuclear hormone receptors

2024· article· en· W4399770419 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura Isigkeit, Espen Schallmayer, Romy Busch, Lorène Brunello, Amelie Menge, Lewis Elson, Susanne Müller, Stefan Knapp, Alexandra Stolz, Julian A. Marschner, Daniel Merk

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInnovative Medicines InitiativeEuropean CommissionDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsDiamond Light SourceMcGill University
KeywordsNuclear receptorComputational biologyTranscription factorReceptorHormoneDrug discoveryBiologyGeneBioinformaticsChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear receptors (NRs) regulate transcription in response to ligand binding and NR modulation allows pharmacological control of gene expression. Although some NRs are relevant as drug targets, the NR1 family, which comprises 19 NRs binding to hormones, vitamins, and lipid metabolites, has only been partially explored from a translational perspective. To enable systematic target identification and validation for this protein family in phenotypic settings, we present an NR1 chemogenomic (CG) compound set optimized for complementary activity/selectivity profiles and chemical diversity. Based on broad profiling of candidates for specificity, toxicity, and off-target liabilities, sixty-nine comprehensively annotated NR1 agonists, antagonists and inverse agonists covering all members of the NR1 family and meeting potency and selectivity standards are included in the final NR1 CG set. Proof-of-concept application of this set reveals effects of NR1 members in autophagy, neuroinflammation and cancer cell death, and confirms the suitability of the set for target identification and validation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207