ReviewF1000Research2017
Screening and identification of novel biologically active natural compounds.
Review in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Metabolomics Analysis of Aged Garlic Extract for the Identification of Novel Compounds.Metabolites · 2026Article
- Nematicidal indole oxazoles and chemoattractants from soil bacteria.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Discovery, biosynthesis, and bioactivities of peptidic natural products from marine sponges and sponge-associated bacteria.Natural product reports · 2025Review
- Natural compounds and mesenchymal stem cells: implications for inflammatory-impaired tissue regeneration.Stem cell research & therapy · 2024Review
- Quantitative Bioactivity Signatures of Dietary Supplements and Natural Products.ACS pharmacology & translational science · 2023Article
- Review
- Computational Literature-based Discovery for Natural Products Research: Current State and Future Prospects.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2022Review
- Bacterial Cytological Profiling Identifies Rhodanine-Containing PAINS Analogs as Specific Inhibitors ofJournal of bacteriology · 2021Article
- Natural products in drug discovery: advances and opportunities.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2021Review
- Cryptic or Silent? The Known Unknowns, Unknown Knowns, and Unknown Unknowns of Secondary Metabolism.mBio · 2020Article
- Loseolamycins: A Group of New Bioactive Alkylresorcinols Produced after Heterologous Expression of a Type III PKS fromMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Genome Mining of the GenusGenes · 2020Article
- Bioprospecting for Antibacterial Drugs: a Multidisciplinary Perspective on Natural Product Source Material, Bioassay Selection and Avoidable Pitfalls.Pharmaceutical research · 2020Review
- Article
- Process Engineering Accelerating an Economic Industrialization Towards a Bio-Based World.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Cytotoxicity Of Chalcone OfAdvances and applications in bioinformatics and chemistry : AABC · 2019Article
- Paenidigyamycin A, Potent Antiparasitic Imidazole Alkaloid from the GhanaianMarine drugs · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the advent of very rapid and cheap genome analyses and the linkage of these plus microbial metabolomics to potential compound structures came the realization that there was an immense sea of novel agents to be mined and tested. In addition, it is now recognized that there is significant microbial involvement in many natural products isolated from "nominally non-microbial sources". This short review covers the current screening methods that have evolved and one might even be tempted to say "devolved" in light of the realization that target-based screens had problems when the products entered clinical testing, with off-target effects being the major ones. Modern systems include, but are not limited to, screening in cell lines utilizing very modern techniques (a high content screen) that are designed to show interactions within cells when treated with an "agent". The underlying principle(s) used in such systems dated back to unpublished attempts in the very early 1980s by the pharmaceutical industry to show toxic interactions within animal cells by using automated light microscopy. Though somewhat successful, the technology was not adequate for any significant commercialization. Somewhat later, mammalian cell lines that were "genetically modified" to alter signal transduction cascades, either up or down, and frequently linked to luciferase readouts, were then employed in a 96-well format. In the case of microbes, specific resistance parameters were induced in isogenic cell lines from approximately the mid-1970s. In the latter two cases, comparisons against parent and sibling cell lines were used in order that a rapid determination of potential natural product "hits" could be made. Obviously, all of these assay systems could also be, and were, used for synthetic molecules. These methods and their results have led to a change in what the term "screening for bioactivity" means. In practice, versions of phenotypic screening are returning, but in a dramatically different scientific environment from the 1970s, as I hope to demonstrate in the short article that follows.
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.