MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Development of PROTAC Degrader Drugs for Cancer

2024· article· en· W4403911144 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vesna Vetma, Suzanne O’Connor, Alessio Ciulli

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Cancer Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Degradation and Inhibitors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOno PharmaceuticalStichting Kinderen KankervrijDirectorate for Biological SciencesEisaiEuropean Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and AssociationsMerck KGaAInstitut National Du CancerCancer Research UKMcGill UniversityEuropean CommissionAmgen
KeywordsCancerMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development of novel drug modalities is necessary to overcome the current critical issues in the treatment of cancer, namely toxicity, insufficient efficacy, and the development of resistance. Unlike classical small molecule inhibitors that only block a single function or interaction of a protein involved in oncogenic signaling, proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) degrade the entire protein, thus offering a potential paradigm shift. PROTACs are bivalent small molecules that recruit a target protein in proximity to an E3 ligase, promoting the transfer of ubiquitin, which marks the protein for proteasomal degradation. Because of their unique properties, PROTACs offer an attractive alternative as targeted therapeutics. The first PROTAC entered the clinic 5 years ago, and since then more than 30 have followed. In this review, we discuss the current compounds being investigated in the clinic, the key aspects of their design, and their potential for treating cancer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Cancer BiologySame topicProtein Degradation and InhibitorsFrench-language works237,207