Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30140018›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Drug discovery2018

Expanding the medicinal chemistry synthetic toolbox.

Jonas Boström, Dean G Brown, Robert J Young, György M Keserü

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 199 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
199citing 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

199 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Deaminative C(Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2026
    Article
  10. Quaternary Carbons from Amines and Acids.Journal of the American Chemical Society · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Direct enantioselective C(spNature chemistry · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jonas BoströmMedicinal Chemistry, Cardiovascular, Renal and Metabolism, IMED Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Dean G BrownHit Discovery, Discovery Sciences, IMED Biotech Unit, AstraZeneca, Waltham, MA, USA.
Robert J YoungNCE-Medicinal Chemistry, GlaxoSmithKline R&D, Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK.
György M KeserüMedicinal Chemistry Research Group, Research Center for Natural Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The key objectives of medicinal chemistry are to efficiently design and synthesize bioactive compounds that have the potential to become safe and efficacious drugs. Most medicinal chemistry programmes rely on screening compound collections populated by a range of molecules derived from a set of known and robust chemistry reactions. Analysis of the role of synthetic organic chemistry in subsequent hit and lead optimization efforts suggests that only a few reactions dominate. Thus, the uptake of new synthetic methodologies in drug discovery is limited. Starting from the known limitations of reaction parameters, synthesis design tools, synthetic strategies and innovative chemistries, here we highlight opportunities for the expansion of the medicinal chemists' synthetic toolbox. More intense crosstalk between synthetic and medicinal chemists in industry and academia should enable enhanced impact of new methodologies in future drug discovery.

Identifiers

PMID30140018

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.