Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29803319›Full record

ReviewTrends in genetics : TIG2018

Genetic-Driven Druggable Target Identification and Validation.

Matteo Floris, Stefania Olla, David Schlessinger, Francesco Cucca

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in genetics : TIG, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. A compendium of validated pain genes.WIREs mechanisms of disease · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. De novo variation in bipolar disorder.Molecular psychiatry · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Matteo FlorisDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy; IRGB-CNR, Istituto di Ricerca Genetica e Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.
Stefania OllaIRGB-CNR, Istituto di Ricerca Genetica e Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy.
David SchlessingerLaboratory of Genetics, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Francesco CuccaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Sassari, Sassari, Italy; IRGB-CNR, Istituto di Ricerca Genetica e Biomedica, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Monserrato, Cagliari, Italy. Electronic address: fcucca@uniss.it.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 AG999999NIDA NIH HHS HHSN271201100005C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Choosing the right biological target is the critical primary decision for the development of new drugs. Systematic genetic association testing of both human diseases and quantitative traits, along with resultant findings of coincident associations between them, is becoming a powerful approach to infer drug targetable candidates and generate in vitro tests to identify compounds that can modulate them therapeutically. Here, we discuss opportunities and challenges, and infer criteria for the optimal use of genetic findings in the drug discovery pipeline.

Indexed as

AnimalsDrug DiscoveryHumansQuantitative Trait Locicoincident genetic associationsdrug discoverydruggabilityquantitative phenotypestherapeutic targets

Identifiers

PMID29803319
PMCPMC6088790

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.