Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26441661›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2015

Multi-target pharmacology: possibilities and limitations of the "skeleton key approach" from a medicinal chemist perspective.

Alan Talevi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 155 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
155citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
16.4field-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

155 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 362 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Design, Synthesis,Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. In Vitro Assessment of the Combined Activity of Amphotericin B and CuTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

95 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alan TaleviMedicinal Chemistry, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Exact Sciences, National University of La Plata , La Plata, Argentina.
Universidad Nacional de La Plata · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multi-target drugs have raised considerable interest in the last decade owing to their advantages in the treatment of complex diseases and health conditions linked to drug resistance issues. Prospective drug repositioning to treat comorbid conditions is an additional, overlooked application of multi-target ligands. While medicinal chemists usually rely on some version of the lock and key paradigm to design novel therapeutics, modern pharmacology recognizes that the mid- and long-term effects of a given drug on a biological system may depend not only on the specific ligand-target recognition events but also on the influence of the repeated administration of a drug on the cell gene signature. The design of multi-target agents usually imposes challenging restrictions on the topology or flexibility of the candidate drugs, which are briefly discussed in the present article. Finally, computational strategies to approach the identification of novel multi-target agents are overviewed.

Indexed as

designed multiple ligandsdrug designdrug repositioningdrug resistancegene profilelock and key paradigmmulti-target agents

Identifiers

PMID26441661
PMCPMC4585027
OpenAlexW1808513053

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.