Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29651105›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2018

Chemical probes and drug leads from advances in synthetic planning and methodology.

Christopher J Gerry, Stuart L Schreiber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing 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

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Switchable Site-Selective Benzanilide C(spMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Genetic crosses within and between species ofProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christopher J GerryDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Stuart L SchreiberDepartment of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

Funding

Pilot & Feasibility ProgramP30DK043351 · NIDDK · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI RAYMOND T CHUNG · 1991 to 2026
$35.3M
SYNTHESIS OF MATERIALS WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL PROPERTIESR01GM038627 · NIGMS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SCHREIBER, STUART L · 1987 to 2017
$10.5M
SYNTHESIS OF MATERIALS WITH PHYSIOLOGICAL PROPERTIESR37GM038627 · NIGMS · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI SCHREIBER, STUART L · 1992 to 2001
$1.1M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK043351NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM038627NIGMS NIH HHS R37 GM038627
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening of small-molecule libraries is a productive method for identifying both chemical probes of disease-related targets and potential starting points for drug discovery. In this article, we focus on strategies such as diversity-oriented synthesis that aim to explore novel areas of chemical space efficiently by populating small-molecule libraries with compounds containing structural features that are typically under-represented in commercially available screening collections. Drawing from more than a decade's worth of examples, we highlight how the design and synthesis of such libraries have been enabled by modern synthetic chemistry, and we illustrate the impact of the resultant chemical probes and drug leads in a wide range of diseases.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug DesignDrug DiscoveryHumansSmall Molecule LibrariesSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID29651105
PMCPMC6707071

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.