ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2020
Comparing a Query Compound with Drug Target Classes Using 3D-Chemical Similarity.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-driven pipeline discovers ombuin as a novel M1 macrophage polarization inhibitor for sepsis treatment.Acta pharmacologica Sinica · 2026Article
- NO classifier prediction of anti neuroinflammatory agents using text mining of 3D molecular fingerprints.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- GPCR-IPL score: multilevel featurization of GPCR-ligand interaction patterns and prediction of ligand functions from selectivity to biased activation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Feasibility of the inhibitor development for cancer: A systematic approach for drug design.PloS one · 2024Article
- Prediction of chemical warfare agents based on cholinergic array type meta-predictors.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Therapeutic target database update 2022: facilitating drug discovery with enriched comparative data of targeted agents.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
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
3D similarity is useful in predicting the profiles of unprecedented molecular frameworks that are 2D dissimilar to known compounds. When comparing pairs of compounds, 3D similarity of the pairs depends on conformational sampling, the alignment method, the chosen descriptors, and the similarity coefficients. In addition to these four factors, 3D chemocentric target prediction of an unknown compound requires compound-target associations, which replace compound-to-compound comparisons with compound-to-target comparisons. In this study, quantitative comparison of query compounds to target classes (one-to-group) was achieved via two types of 3D similarity distributions for the respective target class with parameter optimization for the fitting models: (1) maximum likelihood (ML) estimation of queries, and (2) the Gaussian mixture model (GMM) of target classes. While Jaccard-Tanimoto similarity of query-to-ligand pairs with 3D structures (sampled multi-conformers) can be transformed into query distribution using ML estimation, the ligand pair similarity within each target class can be transformed into a representative distribution of a target class through GMM, which is hyperparameterized via the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. To quantify the discriminativeness of a query ligand against target classes, the Kullback-Leibler (K-L) divergence of each query was calculated and compared between targets. 3D similarity-based K-L divergence together with the probability and the feasibility index, (F
Indexed as
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.