ReviewCurrent opinion in pharmacology2013
Drosophila melanogaster: a first step and a stepping-stone to anti-infectives.
Review in Current opinion in pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drosophila melanogaster as a model host for studying Pseudomonas aeruginosa feeding infection.Nature protocols · 2026Review
- Review
- Article
- An iron-chelating sulfonamide identified fromVirulence · 2022Article
- Proteobacteria and Firmicutes Secreted Factors Exert Distinct Effects onMetabolites · 2022Article
- Review
- Constructing personalized longitudinal holo'omes of colon cancer-prone humans and their modeling in flies and mice.Oncotarget · 2019Article
- Cultivable microbiome and its resistance to antimicrobials isolated from Zaprionus indianus.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2018Article
- Whole-organism phenotypic screening for anti-infectives promoting host health.Nature chemical biology · 2018Review
- The Lantibiotic NAI-107 Efficiently Rescues Drosophila melanogaster from Infection with Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus USA300.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2016Article
- Human pathogenic bacteria, fungi, and viruses in Drosophila: disease modeling, lessons, and shortcomings.Virulence · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Following an expansion in the antibiotic drug discovery in the previous century, we now face a bottleneck in the production of new anti-infective drugs. Traditionally, chemical libraries are screened either using in vitro culture systems or in silico to identify and chemically modify small molecules with antimicrobial properties. Nevertheless, almost all compounds passing through in vitro screening fail to pass preclinical trials. Drug screening in Drosophila offers to fill the gap between in vitro and mammalian model host testing by eliminating compounds that are toxic or have reduced bioavailability and by identifying others that may boost innate host defence or selectively reduce microbial virulence in a whole-organism setting. Such alternative screening methods in Drosophila, while low-throughput, may reduce the cost and increase the success rate of preclinical trials.
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.