Species | Potential target | Raw | Global | Species |
---|---|---|---|---|
Echinococcus multilocularis | nmda type glutamate receptor | 0.0566 | 0.4666 | 0.3536 |
Mycobacterium tuberculosis | Probable glutamine-binding lipoprotein GlnH (GLNBP) | 0.0277 | 0 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus granulosus | nmda type glutamate receptor | 0.0566 | 0.4666 | 0.1439 |
Chlamydia trachomatis | arginine ABC transporter substrate-binding protein ArtJ | 0.0277 | 0 | 0.5 |
Treponema pallidum | amino acid ABC transporter, periplasmic binding protein | 0.0277 | 0 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | glutamate receptor NMDA | 0.051 | 0.377 | 0.245 |
Schistosoma mansoni | glutamate receptor NMDA | 0.0776 | 0.8068 | 0.5 |
Treponema pallidum | amino acid ABC transporter, periplasmic binding protein (hisJ) | 0.0277 | 0 | 0.5 |
Chlamydia trachomatis | glutamine binding protein | 0.0277 | 0 | 0.5 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | glutamine-binding lipoprotein GlnH | 0.0277 | 0 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | nmda type glutamate receptor | 0.0896 | 1 | 1 |
Activity type | Activity value | Assay description | Source | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Analgesic efficacy compared to epibatidine (functional) | = 182 % | Analgesic efficacy of the compound is expressed as percentage of that epibatidine , done on mouse. | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Analgesic efficacy compared to epibatidine (functional) | = 182 % | Analgesic efficacy of the compound is expressed as percentage of that epibatidine , done on mouse. | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Analgesic efficacy compared to morphine (functional) | = 149 % | Analgesic efficacy of the compound is expressed as percentage of that morphine , done on mouse. | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Analgesic efficacy compared to morphine (functional) | = 149 % | Analgesic efficacy of the compound is expressed as percentage of that morphine , done on mouse. | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 14.7 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured before treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 14.7 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured before treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 15.1 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured before treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 15.1 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured before treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 18.7 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 45 min treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 18.7 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 45 min treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 20.3 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 15 min treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 20.3 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 15 min treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 20.5 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 30 min treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 20.5 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 30 min treatment (at dose=5 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 36.5 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 45 min treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 36.5 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 45 min treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 40.8 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 15 min treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 40.8 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 15 min treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 43.8 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 30 min treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
Licking latency (functional) | = 43.8 s | Licking latency of the compound was measured after 30 min treatment (at dose=25 mg/kg) by using mouse hot plate test | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
MAD (functional) | = 5 mg kg-1 | MAD: minimal dose able to induce a statistically significant increase of the pain threshold, done on mouse; sc | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
MAD (functional) | = 5 mg kg-1 | MAD: minimal dose able to induce a statistically significant increase of the pain threshold, done on mouse; sc | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
MNTD (functional) | = 30 mg kg-1 | MNTD:Maximal nontoxic dose of the compound, done on mouse; sc | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
MNTD (functional) | = 30 mg kg-1 | MNTD:Maximal nontoxic dose of the compound, done on mouse; sc | ChEMBL. | 9513595 |
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.
1 literature reference was collected for this gene.