Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24381236›Full record

ReviewPharmacological reviews2014

Computational methods in drug discovery.

Gregory Sliwoski, Sandeepkumar Kothiwale, Jens Meiler, Edward W Lowe

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmacological reviews, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 705 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
705citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

705 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Bio-active designed peptide for hair keratin strengthening.International journal of cosmetic science · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. PyMolGen: Database-Driven Molecular Generation of Drug-Like Compounds.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

645 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

4 authors.

Gregory SliwoskiJr., Center for Structural Biology, 465 21st Ave South, BIOSCI/MRBIII, Room 5144A, Nashville, TN 37232-8725. edward.w.lowe@vanderbilt.edu.
Sandeepkumar Kothiwale
Jens Meiler
Edward W Lowe

Funding

Cheminformatics of Allosteric mGluR Modulation promotes Therapeutic DevelopmentR01MH090192 · NIMH · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MEILER, JENS · 2010 to 2013
$1.5M
Computational Design of Protein-Ligand Interfaces - a Therapeutic StrategyR01GM099842 · NIGMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MEILER, JENS · 2012 to 2015
$1.3M
Small Molecule Probes to Investigate Structure and Function of Y ReceptorsR01DK097376 · NIDDK · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI MEILER, JENS, WEAVER, C DAVID · 2013 to 2015
$1.0M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK097376NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099842NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH090192
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer-aided drug discovery/design methods have played a major role in the development of therapeutically important small molecules for over three decades. These methods are broadly classified as either structure-based or ligand-based methods. Structure-based methods are in principle analogous to high-throughput screening in that both target and ligand structure information is imperative. Structure-based approaches include ligand docking, pharmacophore, and ligand design methods. The article discusses theory behind the most important methods and recent successful applications. Ligand-based methods use only ligand information for predicting activity depending on its similarity/dissimilarity to previously known active ligands. We review widely used ligand-based methods such as ligand-based pharmacophores, molecular descriptors, and quantitative structure-activity relationships. In addition, important tools such as target/ligand data bases, homology modeling, ligand fingerprint methods, etc., necessary for successful implementation of various computer-aided drug discovery/design methods in a drug discovery campaign are discussed. Finally, computational methods for toxicity prediction and optimization for favorable physiologic properties are discussed with successful examples from literature.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryAnimalsComputer-Aided DesignDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansLigandsMolecular StructurePharmaceutical PreparationsPharmacokineticsLigandsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID24381236
PMCPMC3880464

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.