A guide to drug discovery: Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit
By W. Patrick Walters, M. Namchuk. Nature reviews. Drug discovery, 2003
368 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Biophysics, Computational Theory and Mathematics, Immunology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6dc9d05336cc3d3df78eef1ae7f974ae6e183eb8
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
- Brian K. Shoichet
- John J. Irwin
- Stephen H. Bryant
- Lianyi Han
- Jens Carlsson
- Trent E. Balius
- Jiankun Lyu
- A. Kinghorn
Citations in the corpus
- A practical guide to large-scale docking (2021, background): “…or radical trap, like β -mercaptoenthanol or ascorbic acid Spectroscopic interference Assay disruption via light absorption or fl uorescence 137 – 140 , or inhibition of a reporter enzyme, like luciferase 141 Multiple chemotypes, often highly conjugated Spectroscopic interference will change…”
- Drug discovery from medicinal plants. (2005, background): “Although the design of high-throughput screening assays can be challenging (Walters and Namchuk, 2003), after a screening assay is in place, compound and extract libraries can be tested for biological activity.”
- Developing and validating predictive decision tree models from mining chemical structural fingerprints and high–throughput screening data in PubChem (2008, background): “Further examination of verified hits from the secondary dose-response assay can be eventually winnowed to a few to proceed to the medicinal chemistry phase for lead optimization [4,5].”