MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415781119 · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-jrtx9

The Sixth CACHE Challenge – A Comprehensive Drug Discovery Workflow to Discover Potential Inhibitors of the Triple Tudor Domain of SETDB1

2025· article· W4415781119 on OpenAlex
Agathe Fayet, Ahmed T. Ayoub, Anthony P. Fejes, Matej Janežič, Yi‐Hsuan Lin, Antoine Moitessier, Nicolas Moitessier, M. Neal, Joshua Pottel, Ophélie Rostaing, Benjamin Weiser, Jonah Zoldan, Mihai Burai Patrascu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChemRxiv · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Mechanisms and Therapy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacophoreWorkflowCacheDOCKDrug discoveryKey (lock)Leverage (statistics)Virtual screening

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our main objective for the CACHE Challenge #6 was to identify novel inhibitors of SETDB1 that bind to its distinctive triple Tudor domain (TTD). As CACHE challenges are inherently collaborative, we partnered with HTuO Biosciences Inc., a Vancouver-based company developing advanced physics-based computational drug discovery technology, to share knowledge and expertise. Together, we developed a comprehensive drug discovery workflow focused on a structure-based approach. First, we carried out in-depth structural analysis on the existing SETDB1 crystal structures to identify key structural elements that we could leverage in a prospective screening campaign. Then, we carried out a retrospective benchmarking study (i.e., self-, cross-docking) of our docking program Fitted on a select number of structures, followed by extensive pharmacophore modeling. We implemented the learnings from previous CACHE challenges by considering a relatively large library of small molecules (Enamine REAL Diversity Set, ~67M compounds) for screening. We filtered this library according to CACHE and medicinal chemistry guidelines and screened it against our pharmacophore models, obtaining ~263K hits. We used Fitted to dock and score these compounds against several SETDB1 structures and our in-house protein-ligand analysis platform to identify those compounds that interacted with key amino acids identified in our structural analysis (~26K compounds). We further trimmed down the list using a combination of ranking by dock score and clustering, to arrive at a final list of 629 compounds for visualization. We developed a thorough visual inspection scheme that focused on aspects such as key protein-ligand interactions, ligand conformation, favorable and unfavorable contacts, and overall pocket fit. Compounds were scored by each team member on a scale of 1-10 and statistics were gathered; the compounds were assigned to different confidence tiers (low, medium-low, medium-high, high), depending on the standard deviation of the visual scores. The compounds from the (medium-)high tiers with a mean score ≥ 5.5 were automatically advanced to rescoring with AtomForge, a highly accurate polarizable general-purpose forcefield developed by HTuO Biosciences for use in drug discovery. Compounds in the (medium-)low tiers were debated as a group and included in the selection for rescoring if arguments for their inclusion were persuasive. Overall, 186 compounds were rescored. The selection of the preliminary list of 150 compounds focused primarily on compounds with good docking/visual scores and AtomForge affinity ranking better than positive controls. However, we also sampled compounds with different combinations of docking scores, visual scores, and AtomForge affinity ranking, which will allow us to critique our different evaluation metrics. From this list, we selected 100 compounds for purchase and testing based on practical considerations of cost, availability, and synthetic feasibility.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.243 · 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