Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27470984›Full record

ReviewMicrobial biotechnology2016

Antibiotic drug discovery.

Wolfgang Wohlleben, Yvonne Mast, Evi Stegmann, Nadine Ziemert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Microbial biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing 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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Isopropoxy Benzene Guanidine AmelioratesInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  20. Review

6 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.

Wolfgang WohllebenInterfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tuebingen, Microbiology/Biotechnology, University of Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Yvonne MastInterfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tuebingen, Microbiology/Biotechnology, University of Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Evi StegmannInterfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tuebingen, Microbiology/Biotechnology, University of Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.
Nadine ZiemertInterfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tuebingen, Microbiology/Biotechnology, University of Tuebingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, 72076, Tuebingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the threat posed by the increase of highly resistant pathogenic bacteria, there is an urgent need for new antibiotics; all the more so since in the last 20 years, the approval for new antibacterial agents had decreased. The field of natural product discovery has undergone a tremendous development over the past few years. This has been the consequence of several new and revolutionizing drug discovery and development techniques, which is initiating a 'New Age of Antibiotic Discovery'. In this review, we concentrate on the most significant discovery approaches during the last and present years and comment on the challenges facing the community in the coming years.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsBiological ProductsDrug DiscoveryAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID27470984
PMCPMC4993170

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.