ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2023
Building Block-Based Binding Predictions for DNA-Encoded Libraries.
Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2023. 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.
- Linkerability of Protein Ligands: Insights From Cocrystal Structures and Implications for DNA-Encoded Libraries.Molecular informatics · 2026Article
- Assessing the Generalizability of Machine Learning and Physics-Based Methods with DNA-Encoded Libraries.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Developments and challenges in hit progression within fragment-based drug discovery.Nature communications · 2026Review
- A hybrid unsupervised methodology on artificial intelligence filtering for automatically processing cellular DNA-encoded library (DEL) datasets.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Exploring Chemical Spaces in the Billion Range: Is Docking a Computational Alternative to DNA-Encoded Libraries?Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
- Building Block-Centric Approach to DNA-Encoded Library Design.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA-encoded libraries (DELs) provide the means to make and screen millions of diverse compounds against a target of interest in a single experiment. However, despite producing large volumes of binding data at a relatively low cost, the DEL selection process is susceptible to noise, necessitating computational follow-up to increase signal-to-noise ratios. In this work, we present a set of informatics tools to employ data from prior DEL screen(s) to gain information about which building blocks are most likely to be productive when designing new DELs for the same target. We demonstrate that similar building blocks have similar probabilities of forming compounds that bind. We then build a model from the inference that the combined behavior of individual building blocks is predictive of whether an overall compound binds. We illustrate our approach on a set of three-cycle OpenDEL libraries screened against soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH) and report performance of more than an order of magnitude greater than random guessing on a holdout set, demonstrating that our model can serve as a baseline for comparison against other machine learning models on DEL data. Lastly, we provide a discussion on how we believe this informatics workflow could be applied to benefit researchers in their specific DEL campaigns.
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.