ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2026
The Selenium Paradox: From Evolutionary Redox Chemistry to Medicinal Chemistry.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selenium has played a fundamental role in the evolution of aerobic life, thanks to its unique redox properties and its incorporation into antioxidant selenoproteins such as glutathione peroxidases (GPx). This evolutionary perspective has inspired decades of research aimed at developing small organoselenium compounds as GPx-like antioxidant drugs. However, despite extensive in vitro evidence and numerous publications, no organoselenium antioxidant has been commercialized, and even Ebselen, the most extensively studied selenium-based drug candidate, has repeatedly failed in multiple clinical trials. In this opinion article, we posit the hypothesis that a conceptual bias may underlie a significant proportion of the research conducted to date in this field. The antioxidant activity of GPx is contingent on a highly regulated enzymatic environment that is extremely difficult to reproduce with small synthetic molecules. Consequently, many compounds described as GPx mimetics may behave less like true antioxidants and more like redox-active electrophiles capable of disrupting complex thiol-dependent equilibria. It is recommended that future research should adopt a more holistic approach to the study of selenium pharmacology, moving beyond a reductionist interpretation of GPx-like activity. Instead, the focus should be on the complex network of cellular redox processes and selective redox targeting. It is only through a more profound mechanistic comprehension of selenium chemistry within biological systems that it will be feasible to ascertain whether organoselenium compounds can genuinely establish a presence within the domain of medicinal chemistry, extending beyond their persistent yet predominantly laboratory-restricted achievements. In a similar vein, undertaking a thorough examination of the mechanisms may facilitate a more profound comprehension of the fate of organoselenium compounds in their intricate interaction with biological targets. This, in turn, may enable the conception of novel molecules that function as effective and selective pro-oxidants against specific targets.
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.