Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18037925›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2008

Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go.

N Moitessier, P Englebienne, D Lee, J Lawandi, C R Corbeil

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

118 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Improved Prediction of Ligand-Protein Binding Affinities by Meta-modeling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  8. Biological Potential ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. "Selective" serotonin 5-HTBiochemical pharmacology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

N MoitessierDepartment of Chemistry, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. nicolas.moitessier@mcgill.ca
P Englebienne
D Lee
J Lawandi
C R Corbeil

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accelerating the drug discovery process requires predictive computational protocols capable of reducing or simplifying the synthetic and/or combinatorial challenge. Docking-based virtual screening methods have been developed and successfully applied to a number of pharmaceutical targets. In this review, we first present the current status of docking and scoring methods, with exhaustive lists of these. We next discuss reported comparative studies, outlining criteria for their interpretation. In the final section, we describe some of the remaining developments that would potentially lead to a universally applicable docking/scoring method.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAlgorithmsAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceDrug Evaluation, PreclinicalHumansMetalsModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationNucleic AcidsProteinsReproducibility of ResultsStochastic ProcessesMetalsNucleic AcidsProteins

Identifiers

PMID18037925
PMCPMC2268060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.