Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24807704›Full record

ArticleACS chemical biology2014

Increasing chemical space coverage by combining empirical and computational fragment screens.

Sarah Barelier, Oliv Eidam, Inbar Fish, Johan Hollander, Francis Figaroa, Ruta Nachane, John J Irwin, Brian K Shoichet, Gregg Siegal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS chemical biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Improved Detection of Drug-Induced Liver Injury by Integrating PredictedbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Catalytic evaluation andRSC advances · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. La-Doped CeOACS omega · 2023
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Class C β-Lactamases: Molecular Characteristics.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Sarah BarelierDepartment of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of California, San Francisco , 1700 4th St., Byers Hall, San Francisco, California 94158, United States.
Oliv Eidam
Inbar Fish
Johan Hollander
Francis Figaroa
Ruta Nachane
John J Irwin
Brian K Shoichet
Gregg Siegal

Funding

DESIGN AND EXPERIMENTAL TESTING OF NEW DOCKING METHODSR01GM059957 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SHOICHET, BRIAN K · 1999 to 2017
$4.4M
NIGMS NIH HHS GM59957NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM059957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most libraries for fragment-based drug discovery are restricted to 1,000-10,000 compounds, but over 500,000 fragments are commercially available and potentially accessible by virtual screening. Whether this larger set would increase chemotype coverage, and whether a computational screen can pragmatically prioritize them, is debated. To investigate this question, a 1281-fragment library was screened by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) against AmpC β-lactamase, and hits were confirmed by surface plasmon resonance (SPR). Nine hits with novel chemotypes were confirmed biochemically with KI values from 0.2 to low mM. We also computationally docked 290,000 purchasable fragments with chemotypes unrepresented in the empirical library, finding 10 that had KI values from 0.03 to low mM. Though less novel than those discovered by NMR, the docking-derived fragments filled chemotype holes from the empirical library. Crystal structures of nine of the fragments in complex with AmpC β-lactamase revealed new binding sites and explained the relatively high affinity of the docking-derived fragments. The existence of chemotype holes is likely a general feature of fragment libraries, as calculation suggests that to represent the fragment substructures of even known biogenic molecules would demand a library of minimally over 32,000 fragments. Combining computational and empirical fragment screens enables the discovery of unexpected chemotypes, here by the NMR screen, while capturing chemotypes missing from the empirical library and tailored to the target, with little extra cost in resources.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasesEnzyme InhibitorsEscherichia coliMolecular Docking SimulationSmall Molecule LibrariesAmpC beta-lactamasesBacterial Proteinsbeta-LactamasesEnzyme InhibitorsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID24807704
PMCPMC4215856

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.