wiSelective. However, SB 431542 hits four kinases with IC50 much Similar between 100 to 300 nM, which foreclosure w Entered during these kinases Ing leads a very promiscuous Pmax 0.14. AZ 960 The distribution coefficient is therefore almost as selective as SB 431542 sunitinib. However, sunitinib inhibits kinases below 3 181 M and SB 431542 only 5 Therefore, we believe that Ka Gini and entropy selectivity t Are better, in general, a measure selectivity to t in this case. Another inhibitor is different MLN 518, which characterized in rows 26ST Pmax, but at 14 and 15 and Ka Gini entropy selectivity t. Again, these differences arise from the fact that this kinase inhibitor leads 4 hits with power almost equal between the two 10 nM, the Promiskuit t Pmax.
However, MLN 518 shots in only 10 kinases below 3 M, which is intuitively more selective as ZD 6474, beat 79-kinases below 3 M. The F Ll illustrate the above point Pmax indicates that only one kinase inhibitors have taken few Kr fte comparable. Gini score and entropy give gr Ere selectivity t selectivity t for this F Lle. After all, should a score selectivity t Consistent with the Deforolimus classification of a visual heatmap be. Other files 1 shows that rme generally compounds with gr Erer entropy in fact have a map busiest W. Lift a few exceptions, the eyes n the heart appear lighter than their classification entropy shows as SU 14 813, sunitinib and staurosporine. However, these compounds have low Kds extreme on Selected Selected targets. Therefore, they are relatively selective activity Th in the range of 1100 nm, whereas the activity of th Still within the outlines in S1 Uitdehaag.
Limit in a sense, the great e dynamic data visual assessment by a heatmap. Koh difference Between the methods of profiling in an n Next step, w We hlten 16 connections audience profile and measure the activity of t data through another service profiling. The 16 compounds represent a variety of molecular scaffolds, Promiskuit t and target classes. Even for these new data, we calculated the selectivity tsparameter. Ideally, the selectivity Tswerte Similar, independently Ngig of the profiling technology. Data from the two methods are shown in Figure 2. All parameters au He be the entropy Pmax and tend unevenness Distributed uniformly. For example, all Ka Gini values ranging between 0.93 and 1.00, where they vary theoretically between 0 and 1.
However, given the statistical correlation between the two S Protect calculate data indicate that R-squared is the linear regression and correlation, that the selectivity of t Entropy S and Ka Gini method more robust. Ideal w re There when the absolute value of the metric can be compared also appreciate between records being. This means that for example, a specificity t Of 1.2 in the first 1.2 seconds profile also highlight the profile. To get a glimpse of it, we calculated the best L Solution to a 1:1 correlation with standardized data. Gini score was reduced Ka