4.7 Article

Inhibitors for the hepatitis C virus RNA polymerase explored by SAR with advanced machine learning methods

期刊

BIOORGANIC & MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 21, 期 11, 页码 3127-3137

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2013.03.032

关键词

NS5B; RdRp; HCV; SAR; HCV-796; RDKit; Random Forest; k Nearest Neighbor Simulated Annealing; Candesartan cilexetil; Computational drug repositioning

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health [N01-CO-12400]
  2. NIH, National Cancer Institute, Center for Cancer Research
  3. Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of Health, Department of Health and Human Services [HHSN272201100012I]
  4. National Institute of Health [CA153147]
  5. US National Science Foundation through the MRI program [CNS-0821258, CNS-1228778]
  6. SCREMS program [DMS-0821311]
  7. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  8. Division Of Computer and Network Systems [1228778] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) is a global health challenge, affecting approximately 200 million people worldwide. In this study we developed SAR models with advanced machine learning classifiers Random Forest and k Nearest Neighbor Simulated Annealing for 679 small molecules with measured inhibition activity for NS5B genotype 1b. The activity was expressed as a binary value (active/inactive), where actives were considered molecules with IC50 <= 0.95 mu M. We applied our SAR models to various drug-like databases and identified novel chemical scaffolds for NS5B inhibitors. Subsequent in vitro antiviral assays suggested a new activity for an existing prodrug, Candesartan cilexetil, which is currently used to treat hypertension and heart failure but has not been previously tested for anti-HCV activity. We also identified NS5B inhibitors with two novel non-nucleoside chemical motifs. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据