ArticleMethodsX2020
Computational method for the identification of third generation activity cliffs.
Article in MethodsX, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How far can you go? Extrapolating values of catalytic activity from known protein landscapes in natural and directed evolution.Chemical Society reviews · 2026Review
- Advances in exploring activity cliffs.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2020Article
- Simplified activity cliff network representations with high interpretability and immediate access to SAR information.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2020Article
- Increasing the public activity cliff knowledge base with new categories of activity cliffs.Future science OA · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In medicinal chemistry and chemoinformatics, activity cliffs (ACs) are defined as pairs of structurally similar compounds that are active against the same target but have a large difference in potency. Accordingly, ACs are rich in structure-activity relationship (SAR) information, which rationalizes their relevance for medicinal chemistry. For identifying ACs, a compound similarity criterion and a potency difference criterion must be specified. So far a constant potency difference between AC partner compounds has mostly been set, e.g. 100-fold, irrespective of the specific activity (targets) of cliff-forming compounds. Herein, we introduce a computational methodology for AC identification and analysis that includes three novel components: •ACs are identified on the basis of variable target set-dependent potency difference criteria (a 'target set' represents a collection of compounds that are active against a given target protein).•ACs are extracted from computationally determined analog series (ASs) and consist of pairs of analogs with single or multiple substitution sites.•For multi-site ACs, a search for analogs with individual substitutions is performed to analyze their contributions to AC formation and determine if multi-site ACs can be represented by single-site ACs.
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.