Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27521655›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2016

Two is better than one; toward a rational design of combinatorial therapy.

Sheng-Hong Chen, Galit Lahav

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A Multipronged Unbiased Strategy Guides the Development of an Anti-EGFR/EPHA2-Bispecific Antibody for Combination Cancer Therapy.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Frontiers in genetics · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Sheng-Hong ChenDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Galit LahavDepartment of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States. Electronic address: galit_lahav@hms.harvard.edu.

Funding

Dynamics of Signaling Pathways: Mechanism and FunctionR01GM083303 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI LAHAV, GALIT · 2008 to 2020
$5.2M
The Combinatorial Effect of p53 Dynamics and Modifications on Cell Fate DecisionsF32GM105205 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI CHEN, SHENG-HONG · 2013 to 2015
$177k
NIGMS NIH HHS F32 GM105205NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM083303
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drug combination is an appealing strategy for combating the heterogeneity of tumors and evolution of drug resistance. However, the rationale underlying combinatorial therapy is often not well established due to lack of understandings of the specific pathways responding to the drugs, and their temporal dynamics following each treatment. Here we present several emerging trends in harnessing properties of biological systems for the optimal design of drug combinations, including the type of drugs, specific concentration, sequence of addition and the temporal schedule of treatments. We highlight recent studies showing different approaches for efficient design of drug combinations including single-cell signaling dynamics, adaption and pathway crosstalk. Finally, we discuss novel and feasible approaches that can facilitate the optimal design of combinatorial therapy.

Indexed as

Drug CombinationsDrug DesignHumansSignal TransductionDrug Combinations

Identifiers

PMID27521655
PMCPMC5469547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.