ReviewAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Technologies for High-Throughput Identification of Antibiotic Mechanism of Action.
Review in Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. 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.
- Artificial intelligence drives the identification and screening of novel antibiotics and antimicrobial peptides.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Reconstructing the Antibiotic Pipeline: Natural Alternatives to Antibacterial Agents.Biomolecules · 2025Review
- HoloMoA: a holography and deep learning tool for the identification of antimicrobial mechanisms of action and the detection of novel MoA.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Advancing antibiotic discovery with bacterial cytological profiling: a high-throughput solution to antimicrobial resistance.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Review
- Antibacterial mechanism of vanillin againstHeliyon · 2023Article
- Sensing of Antibiotic-Bacteria Interactions.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- High-Throughput Screening of Natural Product and Synthetic Molecule Libraries for Antibacterial Drug Discovery.Metabolites · 2023Review
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
There are two main strategies for antibiotic discovery: target-based and phenotypic screening. The latter has been much more successful in delivering first-in-class antibiotics, despite the major bottleneck of delayed Mechanism-of-Action (MOA) identification. Although finding new antimicrobial compounds is a very challenging task, identifying their MOA has proven equally challenging. MOA identification is important because it is a great facilitator of lead optimization and improves the chances of commercialization. Moreover, the ability to rapidly detect MOA could enable a shift from an activity-based discovery paradigm towards a mechanism-based approach. This would allow to probe the grey chemical matter, an underexplored source of structural novelty. In this study we review techniques with throughput suitable to screen large libraries and sufficient sensitivity to distinguish MOA. In particular, the techniques used in chemical genetics (e.g., based on overexpression and knockout/knockdown collections), promoter-reporter libraries, transcriptomics (e.g., using microarrays and RNA sequencing), proteomics (e.g., either gel-based or gel-free techniques), metabolomics (e.g., resourcing to nuclear magnetic resonance or mass spectrometry techniques), bacterial cytological profiling, and vibrational spectroscopy (e.g., Fourier-transform infrared or Raman scattering spectroscopy) were discussed. Ultimately, new and reinvigorated phenotypic assays bring renewed hope in the discovery of a new generation of antibiotics.
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.