Species | Target name | Source | Bibliographic reference |
---|---|---|---|
Homo sapiens | solute carrier family 22 (organic anion/urate transporter), member 12 | Starlite/ChEMBL | No references |
Species | Potential target | Known druggable target | Length | Alignment span | Identity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Brugia malayi | major facilitator superfamily protein | solute carrier family 22 (organic anion/urate transporter), member 12 | 519 aa | 541 aa | 26.4 % |
Species | Potential target | Raw | Global | Species |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mycobacterium ulcerans | flavoprotein disulfide reductase | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Trypanosoma brucei | trypanothione reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Mycobacterium leprae | DIHYDROLIPOAMIDE DEHYDROGENASE LPD (LIPOAMIDE REDUCTASE (NADH)) (LIPOYL DEHYDROGENASE) (DIHYDROLIPOYL DEHYDROGENASE) (DIAPHORASE | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Wolbachia endosymbiont of Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase E3 component | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium tuberculosis | NADPH-dependent mycothiol reductase Mtr | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Leishmania major | trypanothione reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 0.5 |
Plasmodium falciparum | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Treponema pallidum | NADH oxidase | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Trypanosoma cruzi | trypanothione reductase, putative | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Chlamydia trachomatis | dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Giardia lamblia | NADH oxidase lateral transfer candidate | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus granulosus | thioredoxin glutathione reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Wolbachia endosymbiont of Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase E3 component | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase, LpdB | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | mercuric reductase, putative | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Brugia malayi | Thioredoxin reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Plasmodium falciparum | glutathione reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | glutathione reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 0.5 |
Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase, mitochondrial precursor, putative | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.1234 |
Plasmodium vivax | glutathione reductase, putative | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Toxoplasma gondii | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | thioredoxin reductase, putative | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | glutathione reductase, putative | 0.0078 | 0.1234 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | thioredoxin glutathione reductase | 0.0224 | 1 | 1 |
Activity type | Activity value | Assay description | Source | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
IC50 (binding) | = 385 nM | BindingDB_Patents: Inhibition Assay. Assay compound plates were prepared by diluting the compounds of formula (I) with chloride-free buffer (125 mM Na-gluconate, 4.8 mM K-gluconate, 1.3 mM Ca-gluconate, 1.2 mM KH2PO4, 1.2 mM MgSO4, 5.6 mM D-glucose, 25 mM HEPES, pH 7.4 with NaOH) in 100% DMSO to a final concentration of 1% DMSO. [14C]-Uric Uric acid working stock was made by addition of radiolabeled compound to a final concentration of 120 nM in chloride-free buffer. In all wells, the final assay concentration of solvent (DMSO) was 0.25%; the final assay concentration of [14C]-uric acid was 30 nM in chloride-free buffer and the final compound of formula (I) concentrations ranged from 0 to 10 uM. The vehicle comparator was DMSO (i.e. no inhibition of uric acid transport) and the pharmacological blockade (i.e. 100% inhibition of uric acid transport) was defined by benzbromarone at 10 uM final assay concentration.After pre-incubation, cells were washed with 50 uL of chloride-free buffer. | 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.