Species | Target name | Source | Bibliographic reference |
---|---|---|---|
Rattus norvegicus | Niemann-Pick C1-like protein 1 | Starlite/ChEMBL | References |
Species | Potential target | Raw | Global | Species |
---|---|---|---|---|
Echinococcus granulosus | Niemann Pick C1 protein | 0.0161 | 0.3116 | 0.2967 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | sugar transporter | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8902 |
Echinococcus granulosus | dihydrofolate reductase | 0.0345 | 1 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | dihydrofolate reductase | 0.0345 | 1 | 1 |
Plasmodium vivax | hexose transporter | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 1 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | hypothetical protein | 0.0093 | 0.0572 | 0.0367 |
Echinococcus granulosus | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8902 |
Schistosoma mansoni | hypothetical protein | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.844 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | Niemann Pick C1 protein | 0.0161 | 0.3116 | 0.3116 |
Toxoplasma gondii | facilitative glucose transporter GT1 | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | solute carrier family 2, facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8926 |
Brugia malayi | Dihydrofolate reductase | 0.0345 | 1 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | General substrate transporter | 0.0272 | 0.7263 | 0.7263 |
Echinococcus granulosus | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8902 |
Schistosoma mansoni | glucose transport protein | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.844 |
Trichomonas vaginalis | conserved hypothetical protein | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 1 |
Echinococcus granulosus | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8902 |
Echinococcus granulosus | General substrate transporter | 0.0272 | 0.7263 | 0.7203 |
Schistosoma mansoni | glucose transport protein | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.844 |
Trypanosoma cruzi | dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase | 0.0132 | 0.203 | 1 |
Echinococcus granulosus | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8902 |
Leishmania major | dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase | 0.0132 | 0.203 | 1 |
Loa Loa (eye worm) | dihydrofolate reductase | 0.0345 | 1 | 1 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8926 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | Niemann Pick C1 protein | 0.0093 | 0.0572 | 0.0572 |
Echinococcus granulosus | Niemann Pick C1 protein | 0.0093 | 0.0572 | 0.0367 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8926 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | expressed conserved protein | 0.0083 | 0.0213 | 0.0213 |
Brugia malayi | Sugar transporter family protein | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8861 |
Plasmodium falciparum | hexose transporter | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 1 |
Mycobacterium leprae | DIHYDROFOLATE REDUCTASE DFRA (DHFR) (TETRAHYDROFOLATE DEHYDROGENASE) | 0.0345 | 1 | 0.5 |
Echinococcus multilocularis | solute carrier family 2 facilitated glucose | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.8926 |
Mycobacterium tuberculosis | Dihydrofolate reductase DfrA (DHFR) (tetrahydrofolate dehydrogenase) | 0.0345 | 1 | 0.5 |
Chlamydia trachomatis | dihydrofolate reductase | 0.0345 | 1 | 0.5 |
Schistosoma mansoni | dihydrofolate reductase | 0.0345 | 1 | 1 |
Entamoeba histolytica | Niemann-Pick C1 protein, putative | 0.0093 | 0.0572 | 0.5 |
Trypanosoma brucei | dihydrofolate reductase-thymidylate synthase | 0.0132 | 0.203 | 1 |
Schistosoma mansoni | glucose transport protein | 0.0316 | 0.8926 | 0.844 |
Mycobacterium ulcerans | dihydrofolate reductase DfrA | 0.0345 | 1 | 0.5 |
Activity type | Activity value | Assay description | Source | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Inhibition (functional) | = -19 % | Inhibition of cholesterol absorbtion in chow fed hamster at 3 mg/kg, po | ChEMBL. | 18063367 |
Ki (binding) | = 16 uM | Displacement of [3H]ezetimibe-glucuronide from NPC1L1 in Sprague-Dawley rat brush border membrane | ChEMBL. | 18063367 |
Ki (binding) | = 16 uM | Displacement of [3H]ezetimibe-glucuronide from NPC1L1 in Sprague-Dawley rat brush border membrane | ChEMBL. | 18063367 |
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.