ArticleScientific reports2017
Rapid LC-MS Based High-Throughput Screening Method, Affording No False Positives or False Negatives, Identifies a New Inhibitor for Carbonic Anhydrase.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress in In Vitro Screening Techniques for Natural Antithrombotic Medicines.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Phytochemicals in Drug Discovery-A Confluence of Tradition and Innovation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Schistosomiasis Drug Discovery in the Era of Automation and Artificial Intelligence.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Development and Validation of High-Throughput Bioanalytical Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) Method for the Quantification of Newly Synthesized Antitumor Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors in Human Plasma.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Solid-Supported Proteins in the Liquid Chromatography Domain to Probe Ligand-Target Interactions.Frontiers in chemistry · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing effective high-throughput screening (HTS) methods is of paramount importance in the early stage of drug discovery. While rugged and robust assays may be easily developed for certain enzymes, HTS assays designed to identify ligands that block protein binding are much more challenging to develop; attenuating the number of false positives and false negatives under high-throughput screening conditions is particularly difficult. We describe an MS-based HTS workflow that addresses these challenges. The assay mitigates false positives by selectively identifying positive hits exclusively when a ligand at the binding site of interest is displaced; it mitigates false negatives by detecting a reporter compound that ionizes well, not by detecting the ligand binder, which may not ionize. The method was validated by detecting known binders of three proteins, pepsin, maltose binding protein (MBP), and carbonic anhydrase (CA) in the presence of hundreds of non-binders. We also identified a novel CA binder, pifithrin-µ, which could not have been identified by any other MS-based assay because of its poor ionization efficiency. This new method addresses many of the challenges that are currently encountered during high-throughput screening.
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.