ArticleBMC chemical biology2009
Bioinformatic analysis of xenobiotic reactive metabolite target proteins and their interacting partners.
Article in BMC chemical biology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Vaping additives cannabinoid oil and vitamin E acetate adhere to and damage the human airway epithelium.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2023Article
- Alterations in the proteome of the respiratory tract in response to single and multiple exposures to naphthalene.Proteomics · 2015Article
- Improving the chances of successful protein structure determination with a random forest classifier.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography · 2014Article
- Random forest-based protein model quality assessment (RFMQA) using structural features and potential energy terms.PloS one · 2014Article
- Bioinformatic analysis of 302 reactive metabolite target proteins. Which ones are important for cell death?Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2013Article
- Article
- Synthesis of carbon-14, carbon-13 and deuterium labeled forms of thioacetamide and thioacetamideJournal of labelled compounds & radiopharmaceuticals · 2011Article
- Modulatory profiling identifies mechanisms of small molecule-induced cell death.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2011Article
- Managing the challenge of chemically reactive metabolites in drug development.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2011Review
- Evidence for cellular protein covalent binding derived from styrene metabolite.Chemico-biological interactions · 2010Article
- Formation of covalently bound protein adducts from the cytotoxicant naphthalene in nasal epithelium: species comparisons.Environmental health perspectives · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProtein covalent binding by reactive metabolites of drugs, chemicals and natural products can lead to acute cytotoxicity. Recent rapid progress in reactive metabolite target protein identification has shown that adduction is surprisingly selective and inspired the hope that analysis of target proteins might reveal protein factors that differentiate target- vs. non-target proteins and illuminate mechanisms connecting covalent binding to cytotoxicity.
resultsSorting 171 known reactive metabolite target proteins revealed a number of GO categories and KEGG pathways to be significantly enriched in targets, but in most cases the classes were too large, and the "percent coverage" too small, to allow meaningful conclusions about mechanisms of toxicity. However, a similar analysis of the directlyinteracting partners of 28 common targets of multiple reactive metabolites revealed highly significant enrichments in terms likely to be highly relevant to cytotoxicity (e.g., MAP kinase pathways, apoptosis, response to unfolded protein). Machine learning was used to rank the contribution of 211 computed protein features to determining protein susceptibility to adduction. Protein lysine (but not cysteine) content and protein instability index (i.e., rate of turnover in vivo) were among the features most important to determining susceptibility.
conclusionAs yet there is no good explanation for why some low-abundance proteins become heavily adducted while some abundant proteins become only lightly adducted in vivo. Analyzing the directly interacting partners of target proteins appears to yield greater insight into mechanisms of toxicity than analyzing target proteins per se. The insights provided can readily be formulated as hypotheses to test in future experimental studies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.