Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20107862›Full record

ReviewCellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS2010

Microtubule targeting agents: from biophysics to proteomics.

D Calligaris, P Verdier-Pinard, F Devred, C Villard, D Braguer, Daniel Lafitte

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Myotoxin-3 from the Pacific RattlesnakeMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Tubulin-interactive stilbene derivatives as anticancer agents.Cellular & molecular biology letters · 2013
    Review
  20. 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.

D CalligarisINSERM UMR 911, Centre de Recherche en Oncologie biologique et en Oncopharmacologie, Faculté de Pharmacie, Aix-Marseille Université, 27 Boulevard Jean Moulin, 13385, Marseille Cedex 05, France.
P Verdier-Pinard
F Devred
C Villard
D Braguer
Daniel Lafitte

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review explores various aspects of the interaction between microtubule targeting agents and tubulin, including binding site, affinity, and drug resistance. Starting with the basics of tubulin polymerization and microtubule targeting agent binding, we then highlight how the three-dimensional structures of drug-tubulin complexes obtained on stabilized tubulin are seeded by precise biological and biophysical data. New avenues opened by thermodynamics analysis, high throughput screening, and proteomics for the molecular pharmacology of these drugs are presented. The amount of data generated by biophysical, proteomic and cellular techniques shed more light onto the microtubule-tubulin equilibrium and tubulin-drug interaction. Combining these approaches provides new insight into the mechanism of action of known microtubule interacting agents and rapid in-depth characterization of next generation molecules targeting the interaction between microtubules and associated modulators of their dynamics. This will facilitate the design of improved and/or alternative chemotherapies targeting the microtubule cytoskeleton.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBinding SitesHumansMicrotubulesProteomicsThermodynamicsTubulinTubulin ModulatorsAntineoplastic AgentsTubulinTubulin Modulators

Identifiers

PMID20107862
PMCPMC11115596

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.