ArticleIn silico pharmacology2021
Molecular docking studies of gyrase inhibitors: weighing earlier screening bedrock.
Article in In silico pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antistaphylococcal Triazole-Based Molecular Hybrids: Design, Synthesis and Activity.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- In Vitro Antibacterial Activity, Molecular Docking, and ADMET Analysis of Phytochemicals from Roots ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Antibiotic Resistant Biofilms and the Quest for Novel Therapeutic Strategies.Indian journal of microbiology · 2024Review
- Identification of Terpenoids FromBioinformatics and biology insights · 2021Article
- Antimicrobial screening to molecular docking of newly synthesized ferrocenyl-substituted pyrazole.International journal of health sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For any antimicrobial assay, a standard drug is used to compare the bactericidal efficiency of the bioactive compound under screening. The standard drugs have different targets that may be intracellular or membrane located. The location of the target is believed to be determining the bioactivity of the drug depending on the drug's access to its target. Therefore, different drugs must have a different magnitude in exhibiting the biological effect. However, in most of the published literature about the screening of bioactive compounds on antimicrobial activity, generally, the standard drug is randomly chosen while comparing against the bioactive compound of interest. Further, the antimicrobial activity is inferred by comparing the randomly chosen standard drugs without knowing the physicochemical parameters of the standard drug and the test molecule. It is just like an unfair comparison of the impact of a bullet with the impact of an explosive in a combat scene. Computer-based strategies for structure-based drug discovery presents a valuable alternative to the costly and time-consuming process of random screening. The docking studies provide better insights into the binding mechanism of substrate and inhibitor at the molecular level. The evaluation of such a comparison of bioactive compounds against randomly selected standard drugs through a customized virtual screening pipeline showed 57% false positives, 18% true positive, 17% true negative, 8% false-negative results. This study directs for mandatory cheminformatics-based assessment of the bioactive compounds before choosing the standard drug to compare with. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40203-020-00064-9.
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.