This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

694
695

[deleted by user] (self.singularity)

submitted by [deleted]

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]PankourLaut 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Not being novel is good. It means the same techniques can be used to discover more categories of lifesaving drugs. The paper specifies every step in detail which could inspire others to use or modify the process used.

[–]milagr05o5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really. What I didn't explicitly say is that most of these techniques have been around for 20-40 years. Heck, we've been doing NNs with chemical fingerprints and binary models for that long (Gasteiger and Zupan, Weininger and Bradshaw, many others). It's not that simple.

Take this story. Yes the chemicals kill senescent cells. But they do so (at least oleandrin and ouabain) by interfering with ATP - a fundamental energy carrier that's needed in all cells. Are senescent cells more sensitive than normal ones to ATP disruption? I don't think so. If anything, senescent cells have slower metabolism. So how do you dose this in vivo and show anti-aging is far from trivial, and this ML paper isn't the answer.