Molecular docking-based interaction studies on imidazo[1,2-a] pyridine ethers and squaramides as anti-tubercular agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of new anti-tubercular agents is required in the wake of resistance to the existing and newly approved drugs through novel-validated targets like ATP synthase, etc. The major limitation of poor correlation between docking scores and biological activity by SBDD was overcome by a novel approach of quantitatively correlating the interactions of different amino acid residues present in the target protein structure with the activity. This approach well predicted the ATP synthase inhibitory activity of imidazo[1,2-a] pyridine ethers and squaramides (r = 0.84) in terms of Glu65b interactions. Hence, the models were developed on combined (r = 0.78), and training (r = 0.82) sets of 52, and 27 molecules, respectively. The training set model well predicted the diverse dataset (r = 0.84), test set (r = 0.755), and, external dataset (rext = 0.76). This model predicted three compounds from a focused library generated by incorporating the essential features of the ATP synthase inhibition with the pIC50 values in the range of 0.0508–0.1494 µM. Molecular dynamics simulation studies ascertain the stability of the protein structure and the docked poses of the ligands. The developed model(s) may be useful in the identification and optimization of novel compounds against TB.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".