Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big?

By Philip J. Hajduk. 2006

256 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Theory and Mathematics, Molecular Biology, Organic Chemistry, Computational Chemistry & Drug Discovery

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

1. Anthony Nicholls
2. C. K. Surratt
3. Jeffry D. Madura
4. Michael J. Wasko
5. Kendy A. Pellegrene
6. Shengyou Huang
7. Elizabeth Yuriev
8. Paul A. Ramsland

In Molecular Biology

1. Anthony Nicholls
2. Robert P. Sheridan
3. C. K. Surratt
4. Jeffry D. Madura
5. Michael J. Wasko
6. Kendy A. Pellegrene
7. Jürgen Bajorath
8. Stephen H. Bryant

In Organic Chemistry

1. Anthony Nicholls
2. C. K. Surratt
3. Jeffry D. Madura
4. Michael J. Wasko
5. Kendy A. Pellegrene
6. Elizabeth Yuriev
7. Paul A. Ramsland
8. Tatu Pantsar

In Computational Chemistry & Drug Discovery

1. Anthony Nicholls
2. Ajay N. Jain
3. C. K. Surratt
4. Jeffry D. Madura
5. Michael J. Wasko
6. Kendy A. Pellegrene
7. Shengyou Huang
8. Xiaoqin Zou

Citations in the corpus

• A Role for Fragment-Based Drug Design in Developing Novel Lead Compounds for Central Nervous System Targets (2015, background): “Fragments generally have a molecular weight of 250 Da and a LogP 3 (21).”
• Molecular Shape and Medicinal Chemistry: A Perspective (2010, background): “82 Given the importance of the shape of a molecule in molecular recognition, a rational strategy would be to incorporate control of shape variability into the design of libraries, for instance, as has been commented, to avoid collections that are too “flat”.”