VI Jornades IET "Bretxa salarial i desigualtats de gènere en el mercat de treball"

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Diacerein-mediated inhibition of IL-6/IL-6R signaling induces apoptotic effects on breast cancer

Interleukin-6 (IL-6) signaling network has been implicated in oncogenic transformations making it attractive target for the discovery of novel cancer therapeutics. In this study, potent antiproliferative and apoptotic effect of diacerein were observed against breast cancer. In vitro apoptosis was induced by this drug in breast cancer cells as verified by increased sub-G1 population, LIVE/DEAD assay, cell cytotoxicity and presence of terminal deoxynucleotidyl transferase dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL)-positive cells, as well as downregulation of antiapoptotic proteins Bcl-2 and Bcl-xL and upregulation of apoptotic protein Bax. In addition, apoptosis induction was found to be caspase dependent. Further molecular investigations indicated that diacerein instigated apoptosis was associated with inhibition of IL-6/IL-6R autocrine signaling axis. Suppression of STAT3, MAPK and Akt pathways were also observed as a consequence of diacerein-mediated upstream inhibition of IL-6/IL-6R. Fluorescence study and western blot analysis revealed cytosolic accumulation of STAT3 in diacerein-treated cells. The docking study showed diacerein/IL-6R interaction that was further validated by competitive binding assay and isothermal titration calorimetry. Most interestingly, it was found that diacerein considerably suppressed tumor growth in MDA-MB-231 xenograft model. The in vivo antitumor effect was correlated with decreased proliferation (Ki-67), increased apoptosis (TUNEL) and inhibition of IL-6/IL-6R-mediated STAT3, MAPK and Akt pathway in tumor remnants. Taken together, diacerein offered a novel blueprint for cancer therapy by hampering IL-6/IL-6R/STAT3/MAPK/Akt network

Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Comparative Studies on Some Metrics for External Validation of QSPR Models

Quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) models used for prediction of property of untested chemicals can be utilized for prioritization plan of synthesis and experimental testing of new compounds. Validation of QSPR models plays a crucial role for judgment of the reliability of predictions of such models. In the QSPR literature, serious attention is now given to external validation for checking reliability of QSPR models, and predictive quality is in the most cases judged based on the quality of predictions of property of a single test set as reflected in one or more external validation metrics. Here, we have shown that a single QSPR model may show a variable degree of prediction quality as reflected in some variants of external validation metrics like <i>Q</i>²_F1, <i>Q</i>²_F2, <i>Q</i>²_F3, CCC, and <i>r_m</i>² (all of which are differently modified forms of predicted variance, which theoretically may attain a maximum value of 1), depending on the test set composition and test set size. Thus, this report questions the appropriateness of the common practice of the “classic” approach of external validation based on a single test set and thereby derives a conclusion about predictive quality of a model on the basis of a particular validation metric. The present work further demonstrates that among the considered external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² shows statistically significantly different numerical values from others among which CCC is the most optimistic or less stringent. Furthermore, at a given level of threshold value of acceptance for external validation metrics, <i>r_m</i>² provides the most stringent criterion (especially with Δ<i>r</i>_<i>m</i>² at highest tolerated value of 0.2) of external validation, which may be adopted in the case of regulatory decision support processes

Therapeutic implication of ‘Iturin A’ for targeting MD-2/TLR4 complex to overcome angiogenesis and invasion

Tumor angiogenesis and invasion are deregulated biological processes that drive multistage transformation of tumors from a benign to a life-threatening malignant state activating multiple signaling pathways including MD-2/TLR4/NF-&#954;B. Development of potential inhibitors of this signaling is emerging area for discovery of novel cancer therapeutics. In the current investigation, we identified Iturin A (A lipopeptide molecule from Bacillus megaterium) as a potent inhibitor of angiogenesis and cancer invasion by various in vitro and in vivo methods. Iturin A was found to suppress VEGF, a powerful inducer of angiogenesis and key player in tumor invasion, as confirmed by ELISA, western blot and real time PCR. Iturin A inhibited endothelial tube arrangement, blood capillary formation, endothelial sprouting and vascular growth inside the matrigel. In addition, Iturin A inhibited MMP-2/9 expression in MDA-MB-231 and HUVEC cells. Cancer invasion, migration and colony forming ability were significantly hampered by Iturin A. Expressions of MD-2/TLR4 and its downstream MyD88, IKK-&#945; and NF-&#954;B were also reduced in treated MDA-MB-231 and HUVEC cells. Western blot and immunofluorescence study showed that nuclear accumulation of NF-&#954;B was hampered by Iturin A. MD-2 siRNA or plasmid further confirmed the efficacy of Iturin A by suppressing MD-2/TLR4 signaling pathway. The in silico docking study showed that the Iturin A interacted well with the MD-2 in MD-2/TLR4 receptor complex. Conclusively, inhibition of MD-2/TLR4 complex with Iturin A offered strategic advancement in cancer therapy