From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 00:08:01 2016 From: "Thomas Manz thomasamanz . gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: DDEC calculation with SIESTA Message-Id: <-52092-160303000649-6513-qc6mGLtWiVMCN/s3fG5ieA:-:server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Thomas Manz Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11371432f68785052d1df668 Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 22:06:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Thomas Manz [thomasamanz]=[gmail.com] --001a11371432f68785052d1df668 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Hi David, Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. The Chargemol program has now been updated to allow the number of core electrons to be specified in the job_control.txt file when running the Fortran version. You can download the latest revision (chargemol_12_31_2015c) from ddec.sourceforge.net. See the section D9 of the manual (instructions_12_31_2015c.pdf) for the syntax. An example is provided in the examples_to_run\SIESTA_chabazite_zeolite_example Sincerely, Tom On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:45 AM, David Andr Cornil david.andre.cornil(a) gmail.com wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "David Andr Cornil" [david.andre.cornil+*+gmail.com] > Dear CCL members, > > I try to perform atomic population analysis from a SIESTA calculation using > the DDEC program developped by Thomas Manz. I followed the manual but I > still have the following question. How can we change the number of core > electron for an element when using the fortran version of the code? When > using the Matlab version, you have the "num_core(xx)=yy" keyword that can > be set in the chargemol_job.m file. But in the case of the fortran version > (job_control.txt file) I didn't find a similar keyword to use this option. > Is it possible or do I have to move to the matlab version ? > > Thank in advance for help > > David Cornil, PhD. > > University of Mons> > > --001a11371432f68785052d1df668 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi David,

Thanks for bringing this issu= e to our attention. The Chargemol program has now been updated to allow the= number of core electrons to be specified in the job_control.txt file when = running the Fortran version. You can download the latest revision (chargemo= l_12_31_2015c) from ddec.sourceforg= e.net. See the section D9 of the manual (instructions_12_31_2015c.pdf) = for the syntax. An example is provided in the examples_to_run\SIESTA_chabaz= ite_zeolite_example=C2=A0

Sincerely,
Tom

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 8:45 AM, David Andr Cornil david.andre.cornil(a= )gmail.com <owner-chemistry{:}ccl.n= et> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: "David Andr=C2=A0 =C2=A0Cornil" [david.andre.corn= il+*+gmai= l.com]
Dear CCL members,

I try to perform atomic population analysis from a SIESTA calculation using=
the DDEC program developped by Thomas Manz. I followed the manual but I
still have the following question. How can we change the number of core
electron for an element when using the fortran version of the code? When using the Matlab version, you have the "num_core(xx)=3Dyy" keywor= d that can
be set in the chargemol_job.m file. But in the case of the fortran version<= br> (job_control.txt file) I didn't find a similar keyword to use this opti= on.
Is it possible or do I have to move to the matlab version ?

Thank in advance for help

David Cornil, PhD.

University of Mons



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY{:}ccl.n= et or use:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/s= end_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST{:}ccl.net or use
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/s= end_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_un= sub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemist= ry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sear= chccl/index.shtml
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/ins= tructions/



--001a11371432f68785052d1df668-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 08:29:01 2016 From: "Fabrizio Manetti fabrizio.manetti!A!unisi.it" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Pharmacophore: a question of semantics Message-Id: <-52093-160303025503-31222-l7hMIq1j0lI+u3372glcQw(-)server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Fabrizio Manetti" Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 02:54:53 -0500 Sent to CCL by: "Fabrizio Manetti" [fabrizio.manetti===unisi.it] Dear All, I'm writing to ask you for advice on a dispute on a matter of method definition. Very recently, I submitted a manuscript for publication describing a pharmacophoric model built using only two active compounds. The goal was to generate a superposition model aimed at finding common chemical features shared by the molecules (i.e., a common pharmacopore), as one can do by using HipHop or Phase softwares. Unexpectedly, I received the following reply from one of the reviewers: "A pharmacophore model is a hypothesis accounting for the observed biological activities of a set of molecules that bind to a common biological target. This model is developed by measuring the activity of multiple analogues (generally libraries of 50 or more compounds), determining the least-energy conformer for each analogue, and then superimposing these conformers. The computer algorithm then uses these data and the activity data to generate a pharmacophore that is hypothetical, and that can be further refined when additional data are gathered. In order to determine an accurate pharmacophore model, both active and inactive compounds must be evaluated, and the model should be able to account for differences in activity across a range of molecules. It would be lucky indeed to be able to determine a pharmacophore from 2 molecules, and impossible to generate a pharmacophore from one molecule. (...) Thus, it is a question of semantics. If the authors insist on calling their model based on 2 compounds a pharmacophore, the paper should be rejected. If they remove references to a pharmacophore and state instead that the molecules were designed from "visual inspection and chemical expertise", then it should be published." It seems to me that what the reviewer is describing is indeed a 3D QSAR pharmacophoric model, which is not what we describe and claim in the paper. Therefore, I would like to ask for advice on the most appropriate definition for such a model based on superposing a few compounds and looking at their common chemical features. Is the term "pharmacophore" still correct in your opinion, or a different word should be used instead? Thank you for your opinion. Regards, From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 10:42:00 2016 From: "Andrey Voronkov av+/-digitalbiopharm.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Pharmacophore: a question of semantics Message-Id: <-52094-160303095320-24342-849Rw5RI+rRObhDHX26I+Q]_[server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Andrey Voronkov Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01537ea26073e4052d262867 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 17:52:53 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Andrey Voronkov [av * digitalbiopharm.com] --089e01537ea26073e4052d262867 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear Fabrizio, you are right. This is common pharmacophore and reviewer mixes it with 3D-QSAR. Pharmacophore, by the definition is the feature, which is required for binding with protein. Negative molecules should not be taken into account. PS Our company is interested in pharmacophore models, like common pharmacophores and common pharmacophores, coupled to molecular dynamics. If anyone is interested in these topics - please let me know. Best regards, Andrey On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Fabrizio Manetti fabrizio.manetti!A! unisi.it wrote: > > Sent to CCL by: "Fabrizio Manetti" [fabrizio.manetti===unisi.it] > Dear All, > I'm writing to ask you for advice on a dispute on a matter of method > definition. > Very recently, I submitted a manuscript for publication describing a > pharmacophoric model built using only two active compounds. The goal was to > generate a superposition model aimed at finding common chemical features > shared by the molecules (i.e., a common pharmacopore), as one can do by > using HipHop or Phase softwares. > > Unexpectedly, I received the following reply from one of the reviewers: > > "A pharmacophore model is a hypothesis accounting for the observed > biological activities of a set of molecules that bind to a common > biological target. This model is developed by measuring the activity of > multiple analogues (generally libraries of 50 or more compounds), > determining the least-energy conformer for each analogue, and then > superimposing these conformers. The computer algorithm then uses these data > and the activity data to generate a pharmacophore that is hypothetical, and > that can be further refined when additional data are gathered. In order to > determine an accurate pharmacophore model, both active and inactive > compounds must be evaluated, and the model should be able to account for > differences in activity across a range of molecules. It would be lucky > indeed to be able to determine a pharmacophore from 2 molecules, and > impossible to generate a pharmacophore from one molecule. (...) Thus, it is > a question of semantics. If the authors insist on calling their mod! > el based on 2 compounds a pharmacophore, the paper should be rejected. If > they remove references to a pharmacophore and state instead that the > molecules were designed from "visual inspection and chemical expertise", > then it should be published." > > It seems to me that what the reviewer is describing is indeed a 3D QSAR > pharmacophoric model, which is not what we describe and claim in the paper. > > Therefore, I would like to ask for advice on the most appropriate > definition for such a model based on superposing a few compounds and > looking at their common chemical features. Is the term "pharmacophore" > still correct in your opinion, or a different word should be used instead? > > Thank you for your opinion. > Regards,> > > -- Sincerely yours, Andrey Voronkov, PhD Founder & Executive director DigitalBioPharm ltd. Tel: +47 46 22 77 96 av]*[digitalbiopharm.com www.digitalbiopharm.com --089e01537ea26073e4052d262867 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Fabrizio, you are right. This is common pharmacophore= and reviewer mixes it with 3D-QSAR. Pharmacophore, by the definition is th= e feature, which is required for binding with protein. Negative molecules s= hould not be taken into account.

PS Our company is inter= ested in pharmacophore models, like common pharmacophores and common pharma= cophores, coupled to molecular dynamics. If anyone is interested in these t= opics - please let me know.

Best regards,
= Andrey

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 10:54 AM, Fabrizio Manetti fabrizio.manetti!A= !unisi.it <owner-chemistry]*[ccl.net> wrote:

Sent to CCL by: "Fabrizio=C2=A0 Manetti" [fabrizio.manetti=3D=3D= =3Dunisi.i= t]
Dear All,
I'm writing to ask you for advice on a dispute on a matter of method de= finition.
Very recently, I submitted a manuscript for publication describing a pharma= cophoric model built using only two active compounds. The goal was to gener= ate a superposition model aimed at finding common chemical features shared = by the molecules (i.e., a common pharmacopore), as one can do by using HipH= op or Phase softwares.

Unexpectedly, I received the following reply from one of the reviewers:

"A pharmacophore model is a hypothesis accounting for the observed bio= logical activities of a set of molecules that bind to a common biological t= arget. This model is developed by measuring the activity of multiple analog= ues (generally libraries of 50 or more compounds), determining the least-en= ergy conformer for each analogue, and then superimposing these conformers. = The computer algorithm then uses these data and the activity data to genera= te a pharmacophore that is hypothetical, and that can be further refined wh= en additional data are gathered. In order to determine an accurate pharmaco= phore model, both active and inactive compounds must be evaluated, and the = model should be able to account for differences in activity across a range = of molecules. It would be lucky indeed to be able to determine a pharmacoph= ore from 2 molecules, and impossible to generate a pharmacophore from one m= olecule. (...) Thus, it is a question of semantics. If the authors insist o= n calling their mod!
=C2=A0el based on 2 compounds a pharmacophore, the paper should be rejected= . If they remove references to a pharmacophore and state instead that the m= olecules were designed from "visual inspection and chemical expertise&= quot;, then it should be published."

It seems to me that what the reviewer is describing is indeed a 3D QSAR pha= rmacophoric model, which is not what we describe and claim in the paper.
Therefore, I would like to ask for advice on the most appropriate definitio= n for such a model based on superposing a few compounds and looking at thei= r common chemical features. Is the term "pharmacophore" still cor= rect in your opinion, or a different word should be used instead?

Thank you for your opinion.
Regards,



-=3D This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =3D-=
E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY]*[ccl.n= et or use:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/s= end_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEM= ISTRY-REQUEST]*[ccl.net or use
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/s= end_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_un= sub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemist= ry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sear= chccl/index.shtml
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/ins= tructions/





--
Sincerely yours,
Andrey Voronkov, PhD
Founder &a= mp; Executive director

DigitalBioPharm ltd.
Tel: +47 46 22 77 96<= br>av]*[digitalbi= opharm.com
www.digitalbiopharm.com
--089e01537ea26073e4052d262867-- From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 11:17:00 2016 From: "Simon Cross simon|moldiscovery.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Pharmacophore: a question of semantics Message-Id: <-52095-160303103051-1300-BKfC1XAAo3QM0q9cYhVTIQ:+:server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Simon Cross Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:30:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Simon Cross [simon]-[moldiscovery.com] Dear Fabrizio, the pharmacophore of a protein target typically refers to the spatial arrangement of a small set of features shared by compounds that interact at the site of interest (see Van Drie, J. H. Monty Kier and the origin of the pharmacophore concept. Internet Electron. J. Mol. Des. 2007, 6, 271−279). The assumption is that they interact at the same site or subpocket. It's enough that the compounds are active; inactive compounds are not required since they may contain the pharmacophore but be inactive for other reasons (activity cliffs etc). So I would agree with you and not the description that the reviewer has posted, which as you say is more a 3D-QSAR approach. Having said that, I also think you should be very wary of using only 2 compounds; there may be many ways to align them, and there is not much information to limit the conformational preference. Imagine you take the same molecule twice and generate eg. 30 conformers of each (the ensemble should be the same for each). Now you can align each conformer to it's pair in the other 'active'...each 'alignment model' will give you an equally 'good' model, which is essentially useless as you have no information to restrict the conformational space of the system. My best, Simon On 03/03/16 08:54, Fabrizio Manetti fabrizio.manetti!A!unisi.it wrote: > Sent to CCL by: "Fabrizio Manetti" [fabrizio.manetti===unisi.it] > Dear All, > I'm writing to ask you for advice on a dispute on a matter of method definition. > Very recently, I submitted a manuscript for publication describing a pharmacophoric model built using only two active compounds. The goal was to generate a superposition model aimed at finding common chemical features shared by the molecules (i.e., a common pharmacopore), as one can do by using HipHop or Phase softwares. > > Unexpectedly, I received the following reply from one of the reviewers: > > "A pharmacophore model is a hypothesis accounting for the observed biological activities of a set of molecules that bind to a common biological target. This model is developed by measuring the activity of multiple analogues (generally libraries of 50 or more compounds), determining the least-energy conformer for each analogue, and then superimposing these conformers. The computer algorithm then uses these data and the activity data to generate a pharmacophore that is hypothetical, and that can be further refined when additional data are gathered. In order to determine an accurate pharmacophore model, both active and inactive compounds must be evaluated, and the model should be able to account for differences in activity across a range of molecules. It would be lucky indeed to be able to determine a pharmacophore from 2 molecules, and impossible to generate a pharmacophore from one molecule. (...) Thus, it is a question of semantics. If the authors insist on calling their mod! > el based on 2 compounds a pharmacophore, the paper should be rejected. If they remove references to a pharmacophore and state instead that the molecules were designed from "visual inspection and chemical expertise", then it should be published." > > It seems to me that what the reviewer is describing is indeed a 3D QSAR pharmacophoric model, which is not what we describe and claim in the paper. > > Therefore, I would like to ask for advice on the most appropriate definition for such a model based on superposing a few compounds and looking at their common chemical features. Is the term "pharmacophore" still correct in your opinion, or a different word should be used instead? > > Thank you for your opinion. > Regards,> > From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 11:52:01 2016 From: "Pavel Polishchuk pavel_polishchuk|*|ukr.net" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Pharmacophore: a question of semantics Message-Id: <-52096-160303103317-1854-WPWx1/ehrTD+y4VPnCLilQ[A]server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Pavel Polishchuk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1251 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:33:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Pavel Polishchuk [pavel_polishchuk]|[ukr.net] Dear Fabrizio, You didn't provide information about how your model was obtained (what software you used) and how you used it (for screening or design purposes). So my answer will be quite general. Pharmacophore definition given by IUPAC "A pharmacophore model is an ensemble of steric and electronic features that is necessary to ensure the optimal supramolecular interactions with a specific biological target structure and to trigger (or to block) its biological response" does not include any restrictions on the number of compounds and the way how this pharmacohphore model was generated. (Wermuth, C., et al., Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998). Pure and Applied Chemistry, 1998. 70(5): p. 1129-1143.) Thus from theoretical point of view I think you are right. Practical aspect is that there are a lot of different approaches for pharmacophore modeling and not all of them use inactive compounds for model generation (e.g. LigandScout). The number of compounds used can influence the model quality and thus pharmacophore models should be validated on known active and inactive compounds (if they are available) or decoys (not preferable). If both your compounds are structurally similar and flexible you may obtain dozens of different pharmacophore models and without validation you will not be able to guess which ones are better. Thus, if you validated your pharmacophore then it can be named pharmacophore model if not then it could be better to name it pharmacohphore hypothesis. Kind regards, Pavel. From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 12:27:00 2016 From: "Jim Kress jimkress35/./gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Pharmacophore: a question of semantics Message-Id: <-52097-160303113210-26736-+4gZDyeX03a93fLVFd5IAQ|-|server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: "Jim Kress" Content-Language: en-us Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:32:16 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: "Jim Kress" [jimkress35]|[gmail.com] The IUPAC defines a pharmacophore to be "an ensemble of steric and electronic features that is necessary to ensure the optimal supramolecular interactions with a specific biological target and to trigger (or block) its biological response". There is nothing in that definition that defines a specific procedure for arriving at that " ensemble of steric and electronic features". Your method is one way to approach the problem. It may not be the best, but it is still and organized rational approach that is repeatable and produces the desired response. It appears the reviewer has their own idea about how a pharmacore should be derived and is unwilling to be open to alternatives. Their bias should be ignored by the editor or the reviewer should be disqualified and a more open minded, less curmudgeonly reviewer should be selected to replace the original one. Jim -----Original Message----- > From: owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com\a/ccl.net [mailto:owner-chemistry+jimkress35==gmail.com\a/ccl.net] On Behalf Of Fabrizio Manetti fabrizio.manetti!A!unisi.it Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 2:55 AM To: Kress, Jim Subject: CCL: Pharmacophore: a question of semantics Sent to CCL by: "Fabrizio Manetti" [fabrizio.manetti===unisi.it] Dear All, I'm writing to ask you for advice on a dispute on a matter of method definition. Very recently, I submitted a manuscript for publication describing a pharmacophoric model built using only two active compounds. The goal was to generate a superposition model aimed at finding common chemical features shared by the molecules (i.e., a common pharmacopore), as one can do by using HipHop or Phase softwares. Unexpectedly, I received the following reply from one of the reviewers: "A pharmacophore model is a hypothesis accounting for the observed biological activities of a set of molecules that bind to a common biological target. This model is developed by measuring the activity of multiple analogues (generally libraries of 50 or more compounds), determining the least-energy conformer for each analogue, and then superimposing these conformers. The computer algorithm then uses these data and the activity data to generate a pharmacophore that is hypothetical, and that can be further refined when additional data are gathered. In order to determine an accurate pharmacophore model, both active and inactive compounds must be evaluated, and the model should be able to account for differences in activity across a range of molecules. It would be lucky indeed to be able to determine a pharmacophore from 2 molecules, and impossible to generate a pharmacophore from one molecule. (...) Thus, it is a question of semantics. If the authors insist on calling their mod! el based on 2 compounds a pharmacophore, the paper should be rejected. If they remove references to a pharmacophore and state instead that the molecules were designed from "visual inspection and chemical expertise", then it should be published." It seems to me that what the reviewer is describing is indeed a 3D QSAR pharmacophoric model, which is not what we describe and claim in the paper. Therefore, I would like to ask for advice on the most appropriate definition for such a model based on superposing a few compounds and looking at their common chemical features. Is the term "pharmacophore" still correct in your opinion, or a different word should be used instead? Thank you for your opinion. Regards,http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_messagehttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlhttp://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt From owner-chemistry@ccl.net Thu Mar 3 20:33:00 2016 From: "Rajarshi Guha rajarshi.guha_._gmail.com" To: CCL Subject: CCL: Call for Papers (ACS Fall Meeting 2016) - Shedding Light on the Dark Genome Message-Id: <-52098-160303203105-4362-0Etum3y5MAX41u1rXSmW1A!A!server.ccl.net> X-Original-From: Rajarshi Guha Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1141eea44e403e052d2f11a4 Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:31:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sent to CCL by: Rajarshi Guha [rajarshi.guha^-^gmail.com] --001a1141eea44e403e052d2f11a4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable We would like to make a small correction to the call for papers below: The deadline for abstract submission is March 23, 2016 On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Rajarshi Guha wrote: > Shedding Light on the Dark Genome - Methods, Tools & Case Studies > > 252nd ACS National Meeting > Philadelphia, Aug 21-25, 2016 > CINF Division > > Dear Colleagues, we are organizing a symposium at the Fall ACS meeting in > Philadelphia focusing on computational, experimental and hybrid > approaches to characterizing the unstudied and understudied druggable > genome. In 2014 the NIH initiated a program titled, =E2=80=9CIlluminatin= g the > Druggable Genome=E2=80=9D (IDG) with the goal of improving our understand= ing of the > properties and functions of proteins that are currently unannotated withi= n > the four most commonly drug-targeted protein families - GPCRs, ion > channels, nuclear receptors and kinases. As part of this program a > Knowledge Management Center (KMC) was formed, as a collaboration between > six academic center, who=E2=80=99s goal was to develop an integrative inf= ormatics > platform to collect data, develop data driven prioritization schemes, > analytical methods and disseminate standardized/annotated information > related to the unannotated proteins in the four gene families of interest= . > > In this symposium, members of the various components of the IDG program > will present the results of ongoing work related to experimental > methods, target prioritization, data aggregation and platform development= . > In addition, we welcome contributions related to the identification of > druggable targets, approaches to quantify druggability and novel approach= es > to integrating disparate data source with the goal of shedding light on t= he > "dark genome" > > The deadline for abstract submissions is March 29, 2016. All > abstracts should be submitted via MAPS at http://bit.ly/1mMqLHj. If you > have any questions feel free to contact Tudor or myself > > Rajarshi Guha > NCATS, NIH > guhar#mail.nih.gov > > Tudor Oprea > University of New Mexico > TOprea#salud.unm.edu > > -- > Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net > NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science > --=20 Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science --001a1141eea44e403e052d2f11a4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
We would like to make a small correction to the call for p= apers below:

The deadline for abstract submission is Mar= ch 23, 2016

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Rajarshi Guha <= ;rajarshi.guha= #gmail.com> wrote:
Shedding Light on the Dark Genome = - Methods, Tools & Case Studies
252nd ACS National Meeting=C2=A0
Philadelphia, Aug 21-25, 2016
CINF Division

Dear Colleagues, we are organi= zing a symposium at the Fall ACS meeting in Philadelphia focusing on comput= ational, experimental and hybrid approaches=C2=A0to characterizing the unst= udied=C2=A0and understudied druggable genome.=C2=A0 In 2014 the NIH initiat= ed a program=C2=A0titled, =E2=80=9CIlluminating the Druggable Genome=E2=80= =9D (IDG) with the goal of=C2=A0improving our understanding of the properti= es and functions of proteins that are currently unannotated within the four= most commonly drug-targeted protein families - GPCRs, ion channels, nuclea= r receptors and kinases. As part of this program a Knowledge Management Cen= ter (KMC) was formed, as a collaboration between six academic center, who= =E2=80=99s goal was to develop an integrative informatics platform to=C2=A0= collect data, develop data driven prioritization schemes, analytical method= s=C2=A0 and disseminate standardized/annotated information related to the u= nannotated proteins in the four gene families of interest.

In this sym= posium, members of the various components of the IDG program will present t= he results of ongoing work related to experimental methods,=C2=A0target pri= oritization, data aggregation and platform development. In addition, we wel= come contributions related to the identification of druggable targets, appr= oaches to quantify druggability=C2=A0and novel approaches to integrating di= sparate data source with=C2=A0the goal of shedding light on the "dark = genome"

The deadline for abstract submissions is March 29, 2016. A= ll abstracts=C2=A0should be submitted via MAPS at=C2=A0http://bit.ly/1mMqLHj. If you have=C2= =A0any questions feel free to contact =C2=A0Tudor or myself

Rajarshi Gu= ha
NCATS, NIH

Tudor Oprea
Univ= ersity of New Mexico

--
Rajar= shi Guha | http://blog.= rguha.net
NIH Center for Advancing Translational Science



--
Rajarshi Guha | http://blog.rguha.net
NIH Center for Advancing Transla= tional Science
--001a1141eea44e403e052d2f11a4--