A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening.

By S. McGovern, E. Caselli, N. Grigorieff, Brian K. Shoichet. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2002

996 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Theory and Mathematics, Molecular Biology, Organic Chemistry

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/46c176b55633ed47fed73468faa12ee3360080e3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Theory and Mathematics

In Molecular Biology

In Organic Chemistry

Citations in the corpus

Hit discovery and hit-to-lead approaches. (2006, background): “Such compounds have been pinpointed by repeated biochemical screenings at different protein concentrations or with additives such as detergents [ 19 ].”
Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. (2008, background): “) that arise from certain small molecules self-associating into colloids at high concentrations in biological buffer”
A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned (2007, positive): “In addition, false positives can result from the method of detection or mechanisms such as compound aggregatio”
Small-molecule antagonists of the oncogenic Tcf/β-catenin protein complex (2004, background): “…through gene tar- however, raise the possibility of their aggregating in solution, which can generate false positive results in chemical screensgeting or antisense strategies (Green et al., 2001; Kwong et al., 2002) validate the seminal role of -catenin in colon cancer, but (McGovern et al., 2002).”
Molecular docking and ligand specificity in fragment-based inhibitor discovery (2009, methodology): “01% v/v Triton X-100 to control for aggregation-based artifacts) and monitored at 480 nM wavelength on a Hewlett-Packard HP-8453 spectromete”
Virtual screening of chemical libraries (2004, background): “Indeed, the two techniques, because of their emphasis on large libraries, share other similarities: both accept limited accuracy in return for screening on a large scale; both look to enrich a list of likely-but-not-certain candidates for further quantitative study; and both are dogged by curious fa”