ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
Comparative evaluation of TRIDs : a strategy to improve treatments.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranslational readthrough represents a promising therapeutic strategy for genetic disorders caused by nonsense mutations. Although multiple translational readthrough-inducing drugs (TRIDs) have been reported, their relative efficacy remains inconsistent across studies, likely due to differences in experimental systems and cellular contexts. A systematic comparison across complementary and clinically relevant models is therefore required to better define their therapeutic potential. This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficiency of different TRIDs used for nonsense mutation correction.
methodsWe performed a comparative evaluation of 12 TRIDs using a panel of cellular models encompassing increasing levels of physiological relevance. These included a firefly luciferase-based reporter assay, human cell lines harboring endogenous TP53 nonsense mutations, patient-derived intestinal organoids carrying CFTR nonsense variants, and Fischer rat thyroid (FRT) cells expressing homozygous CFTR nonsense mutations. Readthrough efficiency was assessed and compared across models.
resultsAcross the different systems, 2,6-diaminopurine (DAP), clitocine, SRI-41315, and TLN468 consistently exhibited the highest readthrough activity. However, variations in relative efficacy were observed depending on the assay and cellular context, underscoring the influence of experimental conditions, amino acid incorporation profiles, and cell-specific determinants on readthrough outcomes.
conclusionsOur findings demonstrate the necessity of evaluating candidate TRIDs across multiple complementary and patient-relevant models to accurately estimate their therapeutic potential. This study identifies several promising compounds for further preclinical development and provides a comparative framework to guide the rational selection of readthrough-inducing agents for translational applications.
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.