ArticleSmall science2026
Enhancing the Outcome of Crystallographic Fragment Screening by Choosing the Optimal Protein Crystal Form.
Article in Small science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Enhancing the Outcome of Crystallographic Fragment Screening by Choosing the Optimal Protein Crystal Form.Small science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Improving health and quality of life in our society is a key focus of drug development. Methods for drug discovery are being optimized in multiple ways to reduce costs and timelines. Crystallographic fragment screening (CFS) is increasingly being employed as an early screening method in drug discovery projects. Here, we demonstrate that selecting the optimal protein crystal form can significantly impact hit rates. Two CFS campaigns are carried out against the two crystal forms of the SARS-CoV-2 main protease, using the same fragment library and an almost identical experimental setup. Although both crystal forms exhibit similar diffraction properties, the observed hit rates in the two campaigns differ significantly. A hit rate of 3% is determined for the monoclinic crystals, while a hit rate of 16% is observed for the orthorhombic crystals. These findings are consistent with the more open molecular packing in the orthorhombic crystals, where the solvent channels leading to the active sites are approximately twice the size of those in the monoclinic crystal form. Our results highlight the critical importance of the crystal form in a crystallographic screening, identifying it as one of the most important parameters to optimize when preparing a CFS campaign.
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.