Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41473206›Full record

ReviewCurrent research in pharmacology and drug discovery2025

Fragment-based drug discovery: A graphical review.

Dana F AlKharboush, Frank Kozielski, Geoffrey Wells, Exequiel O J Porta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in pharmacology and drug discovery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026
    Review
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.

Dana F AlKharboushUCL School of Pharmacy, University College London (UCL), London, WC1N 1AX, United Kingdom.
Frank KozielskiUCL School of Pharmacy, University College London (UCL), London, WC1N 1AX, United Kingdom.
Geoffrey WellsUCL School of Pharmacy, University College London (UCL), London, WC1N 1AX, United Kingdom.
Exequiel O J PortaUCL School of Pharmacy, University College London (UCL), London, WC1N 1AX, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three decades after its introduction, fragment-based drug (or lead) discovery (FBDD or FBLD) has become a mature and powerful strategy for generating novel leads, offering distinct advantages for challenging or previously "undruggable" targets where traditional screening (e.g., high throughput screening) often fails. The FBDD approach identifies low molecular weight fragments (MW < 300 Da) that bind weakly to a target; these interactions are detected using highly sensitive biophysical methods such as NMR, X-ray crystallography, and SPR. These initial hits are then optimised into potent leads through structure-guided strategies, including fragment growing, linking, or merging. This graphical review illustrates the modern FBDD workflow, highlighting the critical integration of experimental and computational methods. We discuss how innovations in library design, hybrid screening platforms, and the application of AI/ML are accelerating discovery cycles and improving hit validation. The power of this approach is demonstrated through case studies of FDA-approved drugs, including Vemurafenib and Venetoclax, which progressed from simple fragments to transformative medicines. Finally, we provide an outlook on the future of FBDD as it continues to evolve with emerging technologies to push the boundaries of drug discovery.

Indexed as

Drug discoveryFBDDFragment-based drug discoveryFragment-based lead discoveryFragment screeningStructural biologyUndruggable targets

Identifiers

PMID41473206
PMCPMC12745997

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.