Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25941544›Full record

ArticleACS medicinal chemistry letters2015

Screening-based translation of public research encounters painful problems.

Jonathan B Baell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ACS medicinal chemistry letters, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Nuisance compounds in cellular assays.Cell chemical biology · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Computational modeling of the bat HKU4 coronavirus 3CLJournal of molecular recognition : JMR · 2017
    Article
  19. The Ecstasy and Agony of Assay Interference Compounds.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2017
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jonathan B BaellMonash Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University , Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia.
Monash University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Whether identified through high throughput screening or in silico screening, and whether target-based or phenotypic, sets of hits will contain chemical con artists. Such pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS) and other subversive compounds continue to pollute the scientific literature. There are several angles of attack to aid identification of such nonprogressable molecules. One of these rules above all, and this is a demonstration of genuine structure-activity relationships. Recognition of this, which will require a greater effort in medicinal chemistry, will be of general benefit.

Identifiers

PMID25941544
PMCPMC4416424
OpenAlexW2321218355

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.