ArticleChemMedChem2020
Fragments as Novel Starting Points for tRNA-Guanine Transglycosylase Inhibitors Found by Alternative Screening Strategies.
Article in ChemMedChem, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Design and in vitro evaluation of novel tetrazole derivatives of dianisidine as anticancer agents targeting Bcl-2 apoptosis regulator.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Crystallographic Fragment Screening on theACS omega · 2023Article
- An Experimental Toolbox for Structure-Based Hit Discovery for P. aeruginosa FabF, a Promising Target for Antibiotics.ChemMedChem · 2021Article
- Fragment-Based Stabilizers of Protein-Protein Interactions through Imine-Based Tethering.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2020Article
- A Proof-of-Concept Fragment Screening of a Hit-Validated 96-Compounds Library against Human Carbonic Anhydrase II.Biomolecules · 2020Article
- Fragments as Novel Starting Points for tRNA-Guanine Transglycosylase Inhibitors Found by Alternative Screening Strategies.ChemMedChem · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crystallography provides structural information crucial for fragment optimization, however several criteria must be met to screen directly on protein crystals as soakable, well-diffracting specimen must be available. We screened a 96-fragment library against the tRNA-modifying enzyme TGT using crystallography. Eight hits, some with surprising binding poses, were detected. However, the amount of data collection, reduction and refinement is assumed substantial. Therefore, having a reliable cascade of fast and cost-efficient methods available for pre-screening before embarking to elaborate crystallographic screening appears beneficial. This allows filtering of compounds to the most promising hits, available to rapidly progress from hit-to-lead. But how to ensure that this workflow is reliable? To answer this question, we also applied SPR and NMR to the same screening sample to study whether identical hits are retrieved. Upon hit-list comparisons, crystallography shows with NMR and SPR, only one overlapping hit and all three methods shared no common hits. This questions a cascade-type screening protocol at least in the current example. Compared to crystallography, SPR and NMR detected higher percentages of non-active-site binders suggesting the importance of running reporter ligand-based competitive screens in SPR and NMR, a requirement not needed in crystallography. Although not specific, NMR proved a more sensitive method relative to SPR and crystallography, as it picked up the highest numbers of binders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.