Species | Target name | Source | Bibliographic reference |
---|---|---|---|
Homo sapiens | phosphoinositide-3-kinase, regulatory subunit 1 (alpha) | Starlite/ChEMBL | No references |
Species | Potential target | Raw | Global | Species |
---|---|---|---|---|
Loa Loa (eye worm) | hypothetical protein | 0.0411 | 1 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | expressed conserved protein | 0.0099 | 0.1305 | 0.4802 |
Echinococcus granulosus | expressed conserved protein | 0.0099 | 0.1305 | 0.4802 |
Trypanosoma cruzi | trypanothione reductase, putative | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | thioredoxin reductase, putative | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | thioredoxin glutathione reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Wolbachia endosymbiont of Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase E3 component | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium leprae | DIHYDROLIPOAMIDE DEHYDROGENASE LPD (LIPOAMIDE REDUCTASE (NADH)) (LIPOYL DEHYDROGENASE) (DIHYDROLIPOYL DEHYDROGENASE) (DIAPHORASE | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase regulatory subunit | 0.0105 | 0.1473 | 0.5424 |
Plasmodium falciparum | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Echinococcus granulosus | phosphatidylinositol 3 kinase regulatory subunit | 0.0105 | 0.1473 | 0.5424 |
Plasmodium falciparum | glutathione reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Echinococcus granulosus | thioredoxin glutathione reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | glutathione reductase, putative | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Giardia lamblia | NADH oxidase lateral transfer candidate | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Leishmania major | trypanothione reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Brugia malayi | Thioredoxin reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 0.2717 |
Mycobacterium tuberculosis | NADPH-dependent mycothiol reductase Mtr | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Toxoplasma gondii | thioredoxin reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Schistosoma mansoni | hypothetical protein | 0.0099 | 0.1305 | 0.4802 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | flavoprotein disulfide reductase | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Brugia malayi | glutathione reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 0.2717 |
Chlamydia trachomatis | dihydrolipoyl dehydrogenase | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Wolbachia endosymbiont of Brugia malayi | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase E3 component | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | mercuric reductase, putative | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Trypanosoma brucei | trypanothione reductase | 0.0149 | 0.2717 | 1 |
Treponema pallidum | NADH oxidase | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | glutathione reductase, putative | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase, LpdB | 0.0052 | 0 | 0.5 |
Activity type | Activity value | Assay description | Source | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
IC50 (binding) | = 105 nM | BindingDB_Patents: Binding Assay. The efficacy of compounds of the invention in inhibiting the PI3K induced-lipid phosphorylation may be tested in the following binding assay. The assay combines the scintillation proximity assay technology (SPA, Amersham) with the capacity of neomycin (a polycationic antibiotic) to bind phospholipids with high affinity and specificity. The Scintillation Proximity Assay is based on the properties of weakly emitting isotopes (such as 3H, 125I, 33P). Coating SPA beads with neomycin allows the detection of phosphorylated lipid substrates after incubation with recombinant PI3K and radioactive ATP in the same well, by capturing the radioactive phospholipids to the SPA beads through their specific binding to neomycin. To a 384 wells MTP containing 5 ul of the test compound of Formula (I) (solubilized in 2% DMSO; to yield a final concentration of 20, 5, 1.25, 0.3125, 0.0781, 0.0195, 0.0049, 0.0012, 0.0003 and 0.00075 uM of the test compound). | 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.