MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6976227175 · doi:10.60692/vpr08-bkq77

Lessons from assembling a microbial natural product and pre-fractionated extract library in an academic laboratory

2023· article· en· W6976227175 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural productDrug discoveryBlueprintPharmaceutical industryCheminformaticsAntimicrobialNatural Product ResearchIn silico

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Microbial natural products are specialized metabolites that are sources of many bioactive compounds including antibiotics, antifungals, antiparasitics, anticancer agents, and probes of biology. The assembly of libraries of producers of natural products has traditionally been the province of the pharmaceutical industry. This sector has gathered significant historical collections of bacteria and fungi to identify new drug leads with outstanding outcomes—upwards of 60% of drug scaffolds originate from such libraries. Despite this success, the repeated rediscovery of known compounds and the resultant diminishing chemical novelty contributed to a pivot from this source of bioactive compounds toward more tractable synthetic compounds in the drug industry. The advent of advanced mass spectrometry tools, along with rapid whole genome sequencing and in silico identification of biosynthetic gene clusters that encode the machinery necessary for the synthesis of specialized metabolites, offers the opportunity to revisit microbial natural product libraries with renewed vigor. Assembling a suitable library of microbes and extracts for screening requires the investment of resources and the development of methods that have customarily been the proprietary purview of large pharmaceutical companies. Here, we report a perspective on our efforts to assemble a library of natural product-producing microbes and the establishment of methods to extract and fractionate bioactive compounds using resources available to most academic labs. We validate the library and approach through a series of screens for antimicrobial and cytotoxic agents. This work serves as a blueprint for establishing libraries of microbial natural product producers and bioactive extract fractions suitable for screens of bioactive compounds. One-Sentence Summary Natural products are key to discovery of novel antimicrobial agents: Here, we describe our experience and lessons learned in constructing a microbial natural product and pre-fractionated extract library.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis→French-language works237,207→