Evaluating the Anticancer Properties of Novel Piscidinol A Derivatives: Insights from DFT, Molecular Docking, and Molecular Dynamics Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Cancer is characterized by uncontrolled cell growth and spreading throughout the body. This study employed computational approaches to investigate 18 naturally derived anticancer piscidinol A derivatives ( 1 – 18 ) as potential therapeutics. By examining their interactions with 15 essential target proteins (HIF-1α, RanGAP, FOXM1, PARP2, HER2, ERα, NGF, FAS, GRP78, PRDX2, SCF complex, EGFR, Bcl-xL, ERG, and HSP70) and comparing them with established drugs such as camptothecin, docetaxel, etoposide, irinotecan, paclitaxel, and teniposide, compound 10 emerged as noteworthy. In molecular dynamics simulations, the protein with the strongest binding to the crucial 1A52 protein exceeded druglikeness criteria and displayed extraordinary stability within the enzyme’s pocket over varied temperatures (300–320 K). Additionally, density functional theory was used to calculate dipole moments and molecular orbital characteristics, as well as analyze the thermodynamic stability of the putative anticancer derivatives. This finding reveals a well-defined, potentially therapeutic relationship supported by theoretical analysis, which is in good agreement with subsequent assessments of their potential in vitro cytotoxic effects of piscidinol A derivatives ( 6 – 18 ) against various cancer cell lines. Future in vivo and clinical studies are required to validate these findings further. Compound 10 thus emerges as an intriguing contender in the fight against 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".