ArticlePloS one2017
Large-scale bioactivity analysis of the small-molecule assayed proteome.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Target Class Repurposing Across Membrane Transporter Families Provides Privileged Ligands to Address Specific and Undruggable Pharmacological Targets.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Survey of Recent Drug Discovery Using Deep Learning.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- High-throughput small molecule screening reveals Nrf2-dependent and -independent pathways of cellular stress resistance.Science advances · 2020Article
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
This study presents an analysis of the small molecule bioactivity profiles across large quantities of diverse protein families represented in PubChem BioAssay. We compared the bioactivity profiles of FDA approved drugs to non-FDA approved compounds, and report several distinct patterns characteristic of the approved drugs. We found that a large fraction of the previously reported higher target promiscuity among FDA approved compounds, compared to non-FDA approved bioactives, was frequently due to cross-reactivity within rather than across protein families. We identified 804 potentially novel protein target candidates for FDA approved drugs, as well as 901 potentially novel target candidates with active non-FDA approved compounds, but no FDA approved drugs with activity against these targets. We also identified 486348 potentially novel compounds active against the same targets as FDA approved drugs, as well as 153402 potentially novel compounds active against targets without active FDA approved drugs. By quantifying the agreement among replicated screens, we estimated that more than half of these novel outcomes are reproducible. Using biclustering, we identified many dense clusters of FDA approved drugs with enriched activity against a common set of protein targets. We also report the distribution of compound promiscuity using a Bayesian statistical model, and report the sensitivity and specificity of two common methods for identifying promiscuous compounds. Aggregator assays exhibited greater accuracy in identifying highly promiscuous compounds, while PAINS substructures were able to identify a much larger set of "middle range" promiscuous compounds. Additionally, we report a large number of promiscuous compounds not identified as aggregators or PAINS. In summary, the results of this study represent a rich reference for selecting novel drug and target protein candidates, as well as for eliminating candidate compounds with unselective activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.