Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19342505›Full record

ArticleClinical chemistry2009

Chemoinformatic methods for predicting interference in drug of abuse/toxicology immunoassays.

Matthew D Krasowski, Mohamed G Siam, Manisha Iyer, Anthony F Pizon, Spiros Giannoutsos, Sean Ekins

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical chemistry, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Matthew D KrasowskiDepartment of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261, USA. mdk24@pitt.edu.
Mohamed G Siam
Manisha Iyer
Anthony F Pizon
Spiros Giannoutsos
Sean Ekins
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USUPMC Presbyterian · USZagazig University · EG

Funding

Function and Evolution of the Pregnane X Receptor (PXR)K08GM074238 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI KRASOWSKI, MATTHEW D · 2006 to 2009
$509k
NIGMS NIH HHS K08 GM074238NIGMS NIH HHS K08-GM074238
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImmunoassays used for routine drug of abuse (DOA) and toxicology screening may be limited by cross-reacting compounds able to bind to the antibodies in a manner similar to the target molecule(s). To date, there has been little systematic investigation using computational tools to predict cross-reactive compounds.

methodsCommonly used molecular similarity methods enabled calculation of structural similarity for a wide range of compounds (prescription and over-the-counter medications, illicit drugs, and clinically significant metabolites) to the target molecules of DOA/toxicology screening assays. We used various molecular descriptors (MDL public keys, functional class fingerprints, and pharmacophore fingerprints) and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient. These data were then compared with cross-reactivity data in the package inserts of immunoassays marketed for in vitro diagnostic use. Previously untested compounds that were predicted to have a high probability of cross-reactivity were tested.

resultsMolecular similarity calculated using MDL public keys and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient showed a strong and statistically significant separation between cross-reactive and non-cross-reactive compounds. This result was validated experimentally by discovery of additional cross-reactive compounds based on computational predictions.

conclusionsThe computational methods employed are amenable toward rapid screening of databases of drugs, metabolites, and endogenous molecules and may be useful for identifying cross-reactive molecules that would be otherwise unsuspected. These methods may also have value in focusing cross-reactivity testing on compounds with high similarity to the target molecule(s) and limiting testing of compounds with low similarity and very low probability of cross-reacting with the assay.

Indexed as

ImmunoassayCross ReactionsHumansIllicit DrugsIllicit Drugs

Identifiers

PMID19342505
PMCPMC2855823
OpenAlexW2093841241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.