Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28697345›Full record

ReviewCancer cell2017

Choose and Use Your Chemical Probe Wisely to Explore Cancer Biology.

Julian Blagg, Paul Workman

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer cell, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 93 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
93citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
25.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

93 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 206 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Chemical Probes for Investigating the Endocannabinoid System.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

33 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julian BlaggCancer Research UK Cancer Therapeutics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK. Electronic address: julian.blagg@icr.ac.uk.
Paul WorkmanCancer Research UK Cancer Therapeutics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London SM2 5NG, UK. Electronic address: paul.workman@icr.ac.uk.
Cancer Research UK · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 11566Cancer Research UK 25678Cancer Research UK C309/A11566
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small-molecule chemical probes or tools have become progressively more important in recent years as valuable reagents to investigate fundamental biological mechanisms and processes causing disease, including cancer. Chemical probes have also achieved greater prominence alongside complementary biological reagents for target validation in drug discovery. However, there is evidence of widespread continuing misuse and promulgation of poor-quality and insufficiently selective chemical probes, perpetuating a worrisome and misleading pollution of the scientific literature. We discuss current challenges with the selection and use of chemical probes, and suggest how biologists can and should be more discriminating in the probes they employ.

Indexed as

HumansMolecular ProbesNeoplasmsResearch DesignMolecular Probesbiochemical selectivitychemical probechemical reactivitychemical toolligand promiscuitylipophilicityPAINSPan-Assay Interference Compoundspharmacological audit trailpharmacophore crossingtarget validation

Identifiers

PMID28697345
PMCPMC5511331
OpenAlexW2734436645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.