↓ Skip to main content

Second-generation de novo design: a view from a medicinal chemist perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
Second-generation de novo design: a view from a medicinal chemist perspective
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, June 2009
DOI 10.1007/s10822-009-9291-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Zaliani, Krisztina Boda, Thomas Seidel, Achim Herwig, Christof H. Schwab, Johann Gasteiger, Holger Claußen, Christian Lemmen, Jörg Degen, Juri Pärn, Matthias Rarey

Abstract

For computational de novo design, a general retrospective validation work is a very challenging task. Here we propose a comprehensive workflow to de novo design driven by the needs of computational and medicinal chemists and, at the same time, we propose a general validation scheme for this technique. The study was conducted combining a suite of already published programs developed within the framework of the NovoBench project, which involved three different pharmaceutical companies and four groups of developers. Based on 188 PDB protein-ligand complexes with diverse functions, the study involved the ligand reconstruction by means of a fragment-based de-novo design approach. The structure-based de novo search engine FlexNovo showed in five out of eight total cases the ability to reconstruct native ligands and to rank them in four cases out of five within the first five candidates. The generated structures were ranked according to their synthetic accessibilities evaluated by the program SYLVIA. This investigation showed that the final candidate molecules have about the same synthetic complexity as the respective reference ligands. Furthermore, the plausibility of being true actives was assessed through literature searches.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 49 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 41%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Student > Master 7 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Professor 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 2 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 18 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 26%
Computer Science 9 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 4 7%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 September 2009.
All research outputs
#4,829,384
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#214
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,313
of 123,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 123,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.