Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22339582›Full record

ReviewJournal of chemical information and modeling2012

Computational prediction of metabolism: sites, products, SAR, P450 enzyme dynamics, and mechanisms.

Johannes Kirchmair, Mark J Williamson, Jonathan D Tyzack, Lu Tan, Peter J Bond, Andreas Bender, Robert C Glen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 78 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
38.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

78 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 284 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Multivariate analysis and ADME profiling ofBiochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Automated Annotation of Sites of Metabolism from Biotransformation Data.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Investigation ofComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Comparing the performance and coverage of selectedComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

18 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Johannes KirchmairUnilever Centre for Molecular Science Informatics, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, CB2 1EW, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Mark J Williamson
Jonathan D Tyzack
Lu Tan
Peter J Bond
Andreas Bender
Robert C Glen
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Metabolism of xenobiotics remains a central challenge for the discovery and development of drugs, cosmetics, nutritional supplements, and agrochemicals. Metabolic transformations are frequently related to the incidence of toxic effects that may result from the emergence of reactive species, the systemic accumulation of metabolites, or by induction of metabolic pathways. Experimental investigation of the metabolism of small organic molecules is particularly resource demanding; hence, computational methods are of considerable interest to complement experimental approaches. This review provides a broad overview of structure- and ligand-based computational methods for the prediction of xenobiotic metabolism. Current computational approaches to address xenobiotic metabolism are discussed from three major perspectives: (i) prediction of sites of metabolism (SOMs), (ii) elucidation of potential metabolites and their chemical structures, and (iii) prediction of direct and indirect effects of xenobiotics on metabolizing enzymes, where the focus is on the cytochrome P450 (CYP) superfamily of enzymes, the cardinal xenobiotics metabolizing enzymes. For each of these domains, a variety of approaches and their applications are systematically reviewed, including expert systems, data mining approaches, quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs), and machine learning-based methods, pharmacophore-based algorithms, shape-focused techniques, molecular interaction fields (MIFs), reactivity-focused techniques, protein-ligand docking, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, and combinations of methods. Predictive metabolism is a developing area, and there is still enormous potential for improvement. However, it is clear that the combination of rapidly increasing amounts of available ligand- and structure-related experimental data (in particular, quantitative data) with novel and diverse simulation and modeling approaches is accelerating the development of effective tools for prediction of in vivo metabolism, which is reflected by the diverse and comprehensive data sources and methods for metabolism prediction reviewed here. This review attempts to survey the range and scope of computational methods applied to metabolism prediction and also to compare and contrast their applicability and performance.

Indexed as

AnimalsBinding SitesComputational BiologyCytochrome P-450 Enzyme SystemHumansLigandsStructure-Activity RelationshipXenobioticsCytochrome P-450 Enzyme SystemLigandsXenobiotics

Identifiers

PMID22339582
PMCPMC3317594
OpenAlexW2090505208

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.