Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23303535›Full record

ArticleChemMedChem2013

A chemogenomic analysis of ionization constants--implications for drug discovery.

David T Manallack, Richard J Prankerd, Gemma C Nassta, Oleg Ursu, Tudor I Oprea, David K Chalmers

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ChemMedChem, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Click Chemistry-Enabled Parallel Synthesis ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. From NMR to AI: FusingJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Overview of the SAMPL6 pKJournal of computer-aided molecular design · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. The CARLSBAD database: a confederated database of chemical bioactivities.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2013
    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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

David T ManallackMonash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University (Parkville Campus), 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia. David.Manallack@monash.edu
Richard J Prankerd
Gemma C Nassta
Oleg Ursu
Tudor I Oprea
David K Chalmers
Monash University · AUUniversity of New Mexico · US

Funding

Yeast Biology ConsortiumU54MH084690 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI SKLAR, LARRY A. · 2008 to 2013
$14.4M
Chemical Pattern Detection and Visualization in Biological NetworksR21GM095952 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI OPREA, TUDOR I · 2011 to 2012
$415k
NIGMS NIH HHS GM-095952NIGMS NIH HHS R21 GM095952NIMH NIH HHS MH-084690NIMH NIH HHS U54 MH084690
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemogenomics methods seek to characterize the interaction between drugs and biological systems and are an important guide for the selection of screening compounds. The acid/base character of drugs has a profound influence on their affinity for the receptor, on their absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADMET) profile and the way the drug can be formulated. In particular, the charge state of a molecule greatly influences its lipophilicity and biopharmaceutical characteristics. This study investigates the acid/base profile of human small-molecule drugs, chemogenomics datasets and screening compounds including a natural products set. We estimate the acid-ionization constant (pK(a)) values of these compounds and determine the identity of the ionizable functional groups in each set. We find substantial differences in acid/base profiles of the chemogenomic classes. In many cases, these differences can be linked to the nature of the target binding site and the corresponding functional groups needed for recognition of the ligand. Clear differences are also observed between the acid/base characteristics of drugs and screening compounds. For example, the proportion of drugs containing a carboxylic acid was 20 %, in stark contrast to a value of 2.4 % for the screening set sample. The proportion of aliphatic amines was 27 % for drugs and only 3.4 % for screening compounds. This suggests that there is a mismatch between commercially available screening compounds and the compounds that are likely to interact with a given chemogenomic target family. Our analysis provides a guide for the selection of screening compounds to better target specific chemogenomic families with regard to the overall balance of acids, bases and pK(a) distributions.

Indexed as

AcidsBiological ProductsDatabases, PharmaceuticalDrug DiscoveryHumansIonsPharmaceutical PreparationsSmall Molecule LibrariesAcidsBiological ProductsIonsPharmaceutical PreparationsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID23303535
PMCPMC3777741
OpenAlexW2041427844

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.