Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35359617›Full record

ReviewADMET & DMPK2019

Biophysical methods in early drug discovery.

Geoffrey Holdgate, Kevin Embrey, Alexander Milbradt, Gareth Davies

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ADMET & DMPK, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Target Engagement Assays in Early Drug Discovery.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Fluorescence-Based Protein Stability Monitoring-A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Geoffrey HoldgateHit Discovery, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, UK.
Kevin EmbreyStructure, Biophysics and FBLG, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Alexander MilbradtStructure, Biophysics and FBLG, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Cambridge, UK.
Gareth DaviesHit Discovery, Discovery Sciences, R&D, AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biophysical methods such as mass spectrometry, surface plasmon resonance, nuclear magnetic resonance, and both differential scanning isothermal titration calorimetry are now well established as key components of the early drug discovery process. These approaches are used successfully for a range of activities, including assay development, primary screening, hit confirmation and detailed mechanistic characterisation of compound binding. Matching the speed, sensitivity and information content of the various techniques to the generation of critical data and information required at each phase of the drug discovery process has been key. This review describes the framework by which these methods have been applied in the drug discovery process and provides case studies to exemplify the impact.

Indexed as

Affinity selection mass spectrometrydifferential scanning fluorimetryisothermal titration calorimetrymicroscale thermophoresisnuclear magnetic resonancesurface plasmon resonance

Identifiers

PMID35359617
PMCPMC8963580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.