ReviewMolecular imaging and biology2017
High-Throughput Approaches to the Development of Molecular Imaging Agents.
Review in Molecular imaging and biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modified Bacteriophage for Tumor Detection and Targeted Therapy.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- ADAMTS4-specific MR probe to assess aortic aneurysms in vivo using synthetic peptide libraries.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Translating a radiolabeled imaging agent to the clinic.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2022Review
- Preclinical Molecular PET-CT Imaging Targeting CDCP1 in Colorectal Cancer.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2021Article
- Fully automated peptide radiolabeling from [RSC advances · 2019Article
- Identification, Characterization, and Optimization of Integrin αMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Molecular imaging allows for the visualization of changes at the cellular level in diseases such as cancer. A successful molecular imaging agent must rely on disease-selective targets and ligands that specifically interact with those targets. Unfortunately, the translation of novel target-specific ligands into the clinic has been frustratingly slow with limitations including the complex design and screening approaches for ligand identification, as well as their subsequent optimization into useful imaging agents. This review focuses on combinatorial library approaches towards addressing these two challenges, with particular focus on phage display and one-bead one-compound (OBOC) libraries. Both of these peptide-based techniques have proven successful in identifying new ligands for cancer-specific targets and some of the success stories will be highlighted. New developments in screening methodology and sequencing technology have pushed the bounds of phage display and OBOC even further, allowing for even faster and more robust discovery of novel ligands. The combination of multiple high-throughput technologies will not only allow for more accurate identification, but also faster affinity maturation, while overall streamlining the process of translating novel ligands into clinical imaging agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27812924What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.