Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30102391›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2018

Insights into the development of chemical probes for RNA.

Brittany S Morgan, Jordan E Forte, Amanda E Hargrove

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Small molecule-RNA targeting: starting with the fundamentals.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2020
    Article
  18. How We Think about Targeting RNA with Small Molecules.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2020
    Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Brittany S MorganDepartment of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Jordan E ForteDepartment of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Amanda E HargroveDepartment of Chemistry, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.

Funding

The Center for HIV RNA Studies (CRNA)U54GM103297 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI TELESNITSKY, ALICE · 2017 to 2018
$10.2M
NIGMS NIH HHS U54 GM103297NIGMS NIH HHS U54GM103297
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past decade, the RNA revolution has revealed thousands of non-coding RNAs that are essential for cellular regulation and are misregulated in disease. While the development of methods and tools to study these RNAs has been challenging, the power and promise of small molecule chemical probes is increasingly recognized. To harness existing knowledge, we compiled a list of 116 ligands with reported activity against RNA targets in biological systems (R-BIND). In this survey, we examine the RNA targets, design and discovery strategies, and chemical probe characterization techniques of these ligands. We discuss the applicability of current tools to identify and evaluate RNA-targeted chemical probes, suggest criteria to assess the quality of RNA chemical probes and targets, and propose areas where new tools are particularly needed. We anticipate that this knowledge will expedite the discovery of RNA-targeted ligands and the next phase of the RNA revolution.

Indexed as

Drug DiscoveryChemical PhenomenaHumansLigandsRNARNA, UntranslatedSmall Molecule LibrariesLigandsRNARNA, UntranslatedSmall Molecule Libraries

Identifiers

PMID30102391
PMCPMC6144806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.