Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27050677›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2016

Small molecules, big targets: drug discovery faces the protein-protein interaction challenge.

Duncan E Scott, Andrew R Bayly, Chris Abell, John Skidmore

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 498 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
498citing 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

498 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Antibody Hotspot-CentricACS medicinal chemistry letters · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. A scalable recombinant pipeline for disulphide-stapled peptides.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Dibenzo[International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  10. Autophagy modulation in cancer.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

438 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.

Duncan E ScottDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK.
Andrew R BaylyDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK.
Chris AbellDepartment of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK.
John SkidmoreAlzheimer's Research UK Cambridge Drug Discovery Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 0AH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are of pivotal importance in the regulation of biological systems and are consequently implicated in the development of disease states. Recent work has begun to show that, with the right tools, certain classes of PPI can yield to the efforts of medicinal chemists to develop inhibitors, and the first PPI inhibitors have reached clinical development. In this Review, we describe the research leading to these breakthroughs and highlight the existence of groups of structurally related PPIs within the PPI target class. For each of these groups, we use examples of successful discovery efforts to illustrate the research strategies that have proved most useful.

Indexed as

AnimalsComputational BiologyDrug DiscoveryHumansModels, MolecularProtein Interaction Domains and MotifsProteinsProtein Structure, TertiarySmall Molecule LibrariesProteinsSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID27050677

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.