Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21470110›Full record

ReviewCurrent pharmaceutical design2011

Caenorhabditis elegans-based model systems for antifungal drug discovery.

Cleo G Anastassopoulou, Beth Burgwyn Fuchs, Eleftherios Mylonakis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current pharmaceutical design, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Assessment of Antifungal Pharmacodynamics.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Beneficial effect of Xuebijing againstFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  5. Evaluation ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Marine drugs · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cell and small animal models for phenotypic drug discovery.Drug design, development and therapy · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Cleo G AnastassopoulouDivision of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02114, USA.
Beth Burgwyn Fuchs
Eleftherios Mylonakis

Funding

Technical Mother Machine CoreP01AI083214 · NIAID · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Michael S Gilmore · 2009 to 2026
$39.4M
A C.elegans high-throughput assay for the identification of new antifungal agentsR01AI075286 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MYLONAKIS, ELEFTHERIOS · 2008 to 2010
$1.3M
Genome-wide investigations in fungal pathogens utilizing an invertebrate model hoR21AI079569 · NIAID · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI MYLONAKIS, ELEFTHERIOS · 2009 to 2010
$484k
NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI 083214NIAID NIH HHS P01 AI083214NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI075286NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI079569
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The substantial morbidity and mortality associated with invasive fungal infections constitute undisputed tokens of their severity. The continued expansion of susceptible population groups (such as immunocompromised individuals, patients undergoing extensive surgery, and those hospitalized with serious underlying diseases especially in the intensive care unit) and the limitations of current antifungal agents due to toxicity issues or to the development of resistance, mandate the development of novel antifungal drugs. Currently, drug discovery is transitioning from the traditional in vitro large-scale screens of chemical libraries to more complex bioassays, including in vivo studies on whole animals; invertebrates, such as Caenorhabditis elegans, are thus gaining momentum as screening tools. Key pathogenesis features of fungal infections, including filament formation, are expressed in certain invertebrate and mammalian hosts; among the various potential hosts, C. elegans provides an attractive platform both for the study of host-pathogen interactions and the identification of new antifungal agents. Advantages of compound screening in this facile, relatively inexpensive and not as ethically challenged whole-animal context, include the simultaneous assessment of antifungal efficacy and toxicity that could result in the identification of compounds with distinct mechanisms of action, for example by promoting host immune responses or by impeding fungal virulence factors. With the recent advent of using predictive models to screen for compounds with improved chances of bioavailability in the nematode a priori, high-throughput screening of chemical libraries using the C. elegans-C. albicans antifungal discovery assay holds even greater promise for the identification of novel antifungal agents in the near future.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntifungal AgentsCaenorhabditis elegansDrug DiscoveryFungiHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHost-Pathogen InteractionsHumansMycosesSmall Molecule LibrariesAntifungal AgentsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID21470110
PMCPMC3719869

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.