ReviewCurrent opinion in chemical biology2013
Innovation in academic chemical screening: filling the gaps in chemical biology.
Review in Current opinion in chemical biology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- In vivo quantitative high-throughput screening for drug discovery and comparative toxicology.Disease models & mechanisms · 2023Article
- Use of a Fission Yeast Platform to Identify and Characterize Small Molecule PDE Inhibitors.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Review
- Data-analysis strategies for image-based cell profiling.Nature methods · 2017Article
- Quantitative High-Throughput Screening Using a Coincidence Reporter Biocircuit.Current protocols in neuroscience · 2017Article
- Complementary Approaches to Existing Target Based Drug Discovery for Identifying Novel Drug Targets.Biomedicines · 2016Review
- Article
- Mitigating risk in academic preclinical drug discovery.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2015Review
- Identification of therapeutic small-molecule leads in cultured cells using multiplexed pathway reporter readouts.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2015Article
- Chemical genomics for studying parasite gene function and interaction.Trends in parasitology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Academic screening centers across the world have endeavored to discover small molecules that can modulate biological systems. To increase the reach of functional-genomic and chemical screening programs, universities, research institutes, and governments have followed their industrial counterparts in adopting high-throughput paradigms. As academic screening efforts have steadily grown in scope and complexity, so have the ideas of what is possible with the union of technology and biology. This review addresses the recent conceptual and technological innovation that has been propelling academic screening into its own unique niche. In particular, high-content and whole-organism screening are changing how academics search for novel bioactive compounds. Importantly, we recognize examples of successful chemical probe development that have punctuated the changing technology landscape.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.