ArticleActa crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology2022
Exiting the tunnel of uncertainty: crystal soak to validated hit.
Article in Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology, 2022. 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.
- Biophysical Sensing Tools in Drug Discovery: Integrating Kinetics, Thermodynamics, Cellular Target Engagement and Structure.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Crystallographic Fragment Screening of the Dengue Virus Polymerase Reveals Multiple Binding Sites for the Development of Non-nucleoside Antiflavivirals.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Crystallographic fragment-binding studies of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis trifunctional enzyme suggest binding pockets for the tails of the acyl-CoA substrates at its active sites and a potential substrate-channeling path between them.Acta crystallographica. Section D, Structural biology · 2024Article
- Fragment expansion with NUDELs - poised DNA-encoded libraries.Chemical science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Crystallographic fragment screens provide an efficient and effective way to identify small-molecule ligands of a crystallized protein. Due to their low molecular weight, such hits tend to have low, often unquantifiable, affinity for their target, complicating the twin challenges of validating the hits as authentic solution-phase ligands of the target and identifying the `best' hit(s) for further elaboration. In this article, approaches that address these challenges are assessed. Using retrospective analysis of a recent ATAD2 hit-identification campaign, alongside other examples of successful fragment-screening campaigns, it is suggested that hit validation and prioritization are best achieved by a `triangulation' approach in which the results of multiple available biochemical and biophysical techniques are correlated to develop qualitative structure-activity relationships (SARs). Such qualitative SARs may indeed be the only means by which to navigate a project through the tunnel of uncertainty that prevails before on-scale biophysical, biochemical and/or biological measurements become possible.
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.