Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26094053›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2016

Building a virtual ligand screening pipeline using free software: a survey.

Enrico Glaab

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Introducing the Automated Ligand Searcher.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Advent of Generative Chemistry.ACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2020
    Article
  12. Plectrabarbene, a New Abietane Diterpene fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Application of the SwissDrugDesign Online Resources in Virtual Screening.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Development and Testing of Druglike Screening Libraries.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2019
    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.

Enrico Glaab

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Virtual screening, the search for bioactive compounds via computational methods, provides a wide range of opportunities to speed up drug development and reduce the associated risks and costs. While virtual screening is already a standard practice in pharmaceutical companies, its applications in preclinical academic research still remain under-exploited, in spite of an increasing availability of dedicated free databases and software tools. In this survey, an overview of recent developments in this field is presented, focusing on free software and data repositories for screening as alternatives to their commercial counterparts, and outlining how available resources can be interlinked into a comprehensive virtual screening pipeline using typical academic computing facilities. Finally, to facilitate the set-up of corresponding pipelines, a downloadable software system is provided, using platform virtualization to integrate pre-installed screening tools and scripts for reproducible application across different operating systems.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsSoftwareDrug DiscoveryHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationProtein Interaction MappingSequence Analysis, ProteinLigandsADMEToxdockingoff-target effectsprotein–ligand bindingvirtual screeningworkflow management

Identifiers

PMID26094053
PMCPMC4793892

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.