ArticleChemistry & biology2011
Biology-driven library design for probe discovery.
Article in Chemistry & biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Novel Anti-Campylobacter Compounds Identified Using High Throughput Screening of a Pre-selected Enriched Small Molecules Library.Frontiers in microbiology · 2016Article
- Innovation in academic chemical screening: filling the gaps in chemical biology.Current opinion in chemical biology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Libraries of diverse small molecules are important to probe and drug discovery. The current trend toward building massive screening collections to support drug development, a special application of chemical biology, can limit their broader potential. Biology-driven construction methods (Wallace et al., 2011) are rapidly emerging to bring chemical libraries back on a viable path.
Identifiers
22035786What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.