ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2012
Designing the molecular future.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Structure-basedChemical science · 2021Article
- Customizable de novo design strategies for DOCK: Application to HIVgp41 and other therapeutic targets.Journal of computational chemistry · 2017Article
- Overcoming Chemical, Biological, and Computational Challenges in the Development of Inhibitors Targeting Protein-Protein Interactions.Chemistry & biology · 2015Review
- Curation and analysis of multitargeting agents for polypharmacological modeling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2014Article
- Grid-based molecular footprint comparison method for docking and de novo design: application to HIVgp41.Journal of computational chemistry · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approximately 25 years ago the first computer applications were conceived for the purpose of automated 'de novo' drug design, prominent pioneering tools being ALADDIN, CAVEAT, GENOA, and DYLOMMS. Many of these early concepts were enabled by innovative techniques for ligand-receptor interaction modeling like GRID, MCSS, DOCK, and CoMFA, which still provide the theoretical framework for several more recently developed molecular design algorithms. After a first wave of software tools and groundbreaking applications in the 1990s--expressly GROW, GrowMol, LEGEND, and LUDI representing some of the key players--we are currently witnessing a renewed strong interest in this field. Innovative ideas for both receptor and ligand-based drug design have recently been published. We here provide a personal perspective on the evolution of de novo design, highlighting some of the historic achievements as well as possible future developments of this exciting field of research, which combines multiple scientific disciplines and is, like few other areas in chemistry, subject to continuous enthusiastic discussion and compassionate dispute.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22127731What 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.