Species | Target name | Source | Bibliographic reference |
---|---|---|---|
Homo sapiens | phosphodiesterase 2A, cGMP-stimulated | Starlite/ChEMBL | No references |
Homo sapiens | phosphodiesterase 10A | Starlite/ChEMBL | No references |
Species | Potential target | Known druggable target | Length | Alignment span | Identity |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trypanosoma brucei | cAMP-specific phosphodiesterase | phosphodiesterase 10A | 789 aa | 666 aa | 30.2 % |
Schistosoma mansoni | camp/cgmp cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase | phosphodiesterase 2A, cGMP-stimulated | 934 aa | 748 aa | 27.1 % |
Species | Potential target | Raw | Global | Species |
---|---|---|---|---|
Brugia malayi | Kinesin motor domain containing protein | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 1 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase, putative | 0.0103 | 0.0142 | 1 |
Toxoplasma gondii | kinesin motor domain-containing protein | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 0.5 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | hypothetical protein | 0.0256 | 0.0673 | 0.4282 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | calcium/calmodulin-dependent 3,5-cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterase, putative | 0.0103 | 0.0142 | 1 |
Mycobacterium tuberculosis | Two component sensor histidine kinase DevS | 0.0087 | 0.0087 | 0.5 |
Giardia lamblia | Kinesin-5 | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 0.5 |
Schistosoma mansoni | kinesin eg-5 | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 0.0924 |
Schistosoma mansoni | hypothetical protein | 0.257 | 0.8673 | 1 |
Plasmodium falciparum | kinesin-5 | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 0.5 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | hypothetical protein | 0.0297 | 0.0815 | 0.6128 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | kinesin family 1 | 0.2953 | 1 | 1 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | kinesin-like protein KLP2 | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | kinesin-5 | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 0.5 |
Entamoeba histolytica | kinesin, putative | 0.0384 | 0.1113 | 0.5 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | rod cGMP-specific 3,5-cyclic phosphodiesterase, putative | 0.0103 | 0.0142 | 1 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | two component sensor histidine kinase DevS | 0.0087 | 0.0087 | 0.5 |
Brugia malayi | Probable 3',5'-cyclic phosphodiesterase C32E12.2, putative | 0.0313 | 0.0869 | 0.684 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | conserved hypothetical protein | 0.0103 | 0.0142 | 1 |
Activity type | Activity value | Assay description | Source | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
IC50 (binding) | = 4 nM | Fluorescence Polarization Assay | BINDINGDB. | No reference |
IC50 (binding) | = 4 nM | Fluorescence Polarization Assay | BINDINGDB. | No reference |
IC50 (binding) | = 4 nM | Fluorescence Polarization Assay | BINDINGDB. | No reference |
IC50 (binding) | = 891 nM | BindingDB_Patents: Fluorescence Polarization Assay. The inhibition of PDE 2A or 10 enzyme activity was assessed using IMAP-Phosphodiesterase-cAMP fluorescence labeled substrate (Molecular Devices, Order No. R7506), IMAP TR-FRET screening express (Molecular Devices, Order No. R8160, the TR-FRET component will not be used) and PDE 2A or PDE10 protein expressed upon baculovirus infection in SF9 cells. The cells were incubated after infection for ~3 days and protein production was confirmed by Western Blot. The cells were collected by centrifugation and the pellet frozen in liquid nitrogen before it was resuspended in PBS containing 1% Triton X-100 and protease inhibitors. After 45 min incubation on ice, the cell debris was removed by centrifugation (13.000 rpm, 30 min). Since SF 9 cells do not express cAMP hydrolyzing enzymes to a high extent, no further purification of the protein was needed.All reactions were performed in 384 well plates, Perkin Elmer black optiplates and IMAP reaction buffer with 0.1% Tween20 (kit component). | ChEMBL. | No reference |
IC50 (binding) | = 2142 nM | BindingDB_Patents: Fluorescence Polarization Assay. The inhibition of PDE 2A or 10 enzyme activity was assessed using IMAP-Phosphodiesterase-cAMP fluorescence labeled substrate (Molecular Devices, Order No. R7506), IMAP TR-FRET screening express (Molecular Devices, Order No. R8160, the TR-FRET component will not be used) and PDE 2A or PDE10 protein expressed upon baculovirus infection in SF9 cells. The cells were incubated after infection for ~3 days and protein production was confirmed by Western Blot. The cells were collected by centrifugation and the pellet frozen in liquid nitrogen before it was resuspended in PBS containing 1% Triton X-100 and protease inhibitors. After 45 min incubation on ice, the cell debris was removed by centrifugation (13.000 rpm, 30 min). Since SF 9 cells do not express cAMP hydrolyzing enzymes to a high extent, no further purification of the protein was needed.All reactions were performed in 384 well plates, Perkin Elmer black optiplates and IMAP reaction buffer with 0.1% Tween20 (kit component). | ChEMBL. | No reference |
IC50 (binding) | = 5945 nM | BindingDB_Patents: Fluorescence Polarization Assay. The inhibition of PDE 2A or 10 enzyme activity was assessed using IMAP-Phosphodiesterase-cAMP fluorescence labeled substrate (Molecular Devices, Order No. R7506), IMAP TR-FRET screening express (Molecular Devices, Order No. R8160, the TR-FRET component will not be used) and PDE 2A or PDE10 protein expressed upon baculovirus infection in SF9 cells. The cells were incubated after infection for ~3 days and protein production was confirmed by Western Blot. The cells were collected by centrifugation and the pellet frozen in liquid nitrogen before it was resuspended in PBS containing 1% Triton X-100 and protease inhibitors. After 45 min incubation on ice, the cell debris was removed by centrifugation (13.000 rpm, 30 min). Since SF 9 cells do not express cAMP hydrolyzing enzymes to a high extent, no further purification of the protein was needed.All reactions were performed in 384 well plates, Perkin Elmer black optiplates and IMAP reaction buffer with 0.1% Tween20 (kit component). | 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.