Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29623331›Full record

ReviewNatural product reports2018

Recent trends in the structural revision of natural products.

Bhuwan Khatri Chhetri, Serge Lavoie, Anne Marie Sweeney-Jones, Julia Kubanek

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Natural product reports, 2018. 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 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. The Evolving Landscape of NMR Structural Elucidation.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Total Synthesis ofJournal of the American Chemical Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Collective Asymmetric Total Syntheses of Musellarins A-E.The Journal of organic chemistry · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bhuwan Khatri ChhetriSchool of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA. julia.kubanek@biosci.gatech.edu.
Serge Lavoie
Anne Marie Sweeney-Jones
Julia Kubanek

Funding

The USP Center for Drug Discovery and ConservationU19TW007401 · FIC · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI HAY, MARK E · 2014 to 2018
$5.3M
FIC NIH HHS U19 TW007401
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Covering: 2012 to 2017 This article reviews recent reports on the structural revision of natural products. Through a critical assessment of the original and revised published structures, the article addresses why each structure was targeted for revision, discusses the techniques and key discrepancies that led to the proposal of the revised structure, and offers measures that may have been taken during the original structure determination to prevent error. With the revised structures in hand, weaknesses of original proposals are assessed, providing a better understanding on the logic behind structure determination.

Indexed as

Crystallography, X-RayMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyBiological ProductsMolecular StructureStereoisomerismBiological Products

Identifiers

PMID29623331
PMCPMC6013367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.