Species | Target name | Source | Bibliographic reference |
---|---|---|---|
Rattus norvegicus | Sodium channel protein type X alpha subunit | Starlite/ChEMBL | No references |
Species | Potential target | Raw | Global | Species |
---|---|---|---|---|
Plasmodium falciparum | glutathione reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Wolbachia endosymbiont of Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase E3 component | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Leishmania major | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase, putative | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.271 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | mercuric reductase, putative | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase, LpdB | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | flavoprotein disulfide reductase | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | glutathione reductase, putative | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Leishmania major | 2-oxoglutarate dehydrogenase, e3 component, lipoamidedehydrogenase-like protein | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.271 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase, mitochondrial precursor, putative | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.1234 |
Giardia lamblia | NADH oxidase lateral transfer candidate | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Leishmania major | trypanothione reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Wolbachia endosymbiont of Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase E3 component | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Treponema pallidum | NADH oxidase | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus granulosus | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.271 |
Brugia malayi | Thioredoxin reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | glutathione reductase, putative | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Toxoplasma gondii | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | thioredoxin reductase, putative | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | glutathione reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | thioredoxin glutathione reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Echinococcus granulosus | thioredoxin glutathione reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.271 |
Leishmania major | acetoin dehydrogenase e3 component-like protein | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.271 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 0.5 |
Trypanosoma cruzi | trypanothione reductase, putative | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Plasmodium falciparum | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Mycobacterium leprae | DIHYDROLIPOAMIDE DEHYDROGENASE LPD (LIPOAMIDE REDUCTASE (NADH)) (LIPOYL DEHYDROGENASE) (DIHYDROLIPOYL DEHYDROGENASE) (DIAPHORASE | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Chlamydia trachomatis | dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium tuberculosis | NADPH-dependent mycothiol reductase Mtr | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Leishmania major | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase, putative | 0.0202 | 0.271 | 0.271 |
Trypanosoma brucei | trypanothione reductase | 0.0583 | 1 | 1 |
Activity type | Activity value | Assay description | Source | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
IC50 (binding) | = 330 nM | BindingDB_Patents: Electrophysiology Assay. Patch clamp electrophysiology was used to assess the efficacy and selectivity of sodium channel blockers in dorsal root ganglion neurons. Rat neurons were isolated from the dorsal root ganglions and maintained in culture for 2 to 10 days in the presence of NGF (50 ng/ml) (culture media consisted of NeurobasalA supplemented with B27, glutamine and antibiotics). Small diameter neurons (nociceptors, 8-12 µm in diameter) were visually identified and probed with fine tip glass electrodes connected to an amplifier (Axon Instruments). The voltage clamp mode was used to assess the compound's IC50 holding the cells at -60 mV. In addition, the current clamp mode was employed to test the efficacy of the compounds in blocking action potential generation in response to current injections. | ChEMBL. | No reference |
Many chemical entities in TDR Targets come from high-throughput screenings with whole cells or tissue samples, and not all assayed compounds have been tested against a single a single target protein, probably because they get ruled out during screening process. Even if these compounds may have not been of interest in the original screening, they may come as interesting leads for other screening assays. Furthermore, we may be able to propose drug-target associations using chemical similarities and network patterns.