Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28104905›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2017

Applications of chemogenomic library screening in drug discovery.

Lyn H Jones, Mark E Bunnage

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
85citing 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

85 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. New hit compounds againstAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multi-Component, Time-Course screening to develop combination cancer therapies based on synergistic toxicity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

25 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

2 authors.

Lyn H JonesMedicine Design, Pfizer, 610 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.
Mark E BunnageMedicine Design, Pfizer, 610 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The allure of phenotypic screening, combined with the industry preference for target-based approaches, has prompted the development of innovative chemical biology technologies that facilitate the identification of new therapeutic targets for accelerated drug discovery. A chemogenomic library is a collection of selective small-molecule pharmacological agents, and a hit from such a set in a phenotypic screen suggests that the annotated target or targets of that pharmacological agent may be involved in perturbing the observable phenotype. In this Review, we describe opportunities for chemogenomic screening to considerably expedite the conversion of phenotypic screening projects into target-based drug discovery approaches. Other applications are explored, including drug repositioning, predictive toxicology and the discovery of novel pharmacological modalities.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug DesignDrug DiscoveryDrug RepositioningHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyPhenotypeSmall Molecule LibrariesSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID28104905

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.