Open gglusman opened 3 months ago
Digging via ARAX interface, I see this from Unsecret: The two support edges shown appear to be identical.
From Aragorn:
So it looks like the two ARA assertions are based on exactly the same source information.
Just to make more explicit a point that may have been a bit obscure above. BindingDB is tagged in the EPC as primary_knowledge_source, but it in fact points at ChEMBL for its source. It is not entirely clear to me whether ChEMBL is the primary source, either...
tagging Unsecret and EPC for their review of the findings, which are thorough and much appreciated.
MVP2, what drugs may increase expression of human DHODH:
The top answer (score=5) is 5'-(Cyclopropylmethyl)spiro[cyclohexane-1,1'-furo[3,4-c]pyridine]-3',4'-dione. This is a lookup edge: , supported by one paper and one source, BindingDB.
I looked into the full text of the paper and couldn't really find mention of the molecule. Various related and similar things are mentioned, but I couldn't clearly match it to this molecule.
The EPC link to BindingDB sends me to the wiki page, from which I went to BindingDB's homepage, where I searched for the molecule by name... unsuccessfully. So I used its ChEMBL identifier instead (CHEMBL4795021) - it was offered as a synonym by the PubChem page, as linked from the result in the UI. The BindingDB page indeed claims that this compound targets human DHODH: The evidence it provides for this assertion is "Curated by ChEMBL", with a link to ChEMBL's homepage. So I went to ChEMBL and searched for this compound (easy given I have the ChEMBL identifier). In the compound report card, I scroll down to the "Target Predictions" section, where I find a small table with 339 predicted targets. Among them, I see: Since the content of the table is rather obscure (three levels of % confidence, and an unclear Activity Threshold), I went to the suggested paper to educate myself. In the Data Preparation section of the paper, I read that, apparently, there is a "default activity threshold of 6.5 logarithmic value units" for classifying things into active or inactive, which this prediction doesn't meet... so I probably shouldn't give much credence to things labeled 'Inactive'.
So, in summary, after much digging through obscure EPC rabbit holes, the top result seems to be based on a weak prediction, and on results from just one paper - that I'm still not sure even talks about this molecule.
Addendum: There is no indication on which actor provided this result. All I can tell (via the UI) is that it goes away when I filter out results from either Aragorn or Unsecret, but not when filtering out results from imProving or BTE. (But see below...)