Cited by 138Click Chemistry and ApplicationsProtease and Inhibitor MechanismsChemical Synthesis and Analysis

Covalent inhibitors: an opportunity for rational target selectivity

Open access
Lagoutte, Roman, Patouret, Remi, Winssinger, Nicolas·2017·Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Abstract

There is a resurging interest in compounds that engage their target through covalent interactions. Cysteine's thiol is endowed with enhanced reactivity, making it the nucleophile of choice for covalent engagement with a ligand aligning an electrophilic trap with a cysteine residue in a target of interest. The paucity of cysteine in the proteome coupled to the fact that closely related proteins do not necessarily share a given cysteine residue enable a level of unprecedented rational target selectivity. The recent demonstration that a lysine's amine can also be engaged covalently with a mild electrophile extends the potential of covalent inhibitors. The growing database of protein structures facilitates the discovery of covalent inhibitors while the advent of proteomic technologies enables a finer resolution in the selectivity of covalently engaged proteins. Here, we discuss recent examples of discovery and design of covalent inhibitors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cbpa.2017.05.008

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Covalent ligand screening from electrophilic compound libraries is becoming more common.

    “Covalent ligand screening is another ligand discovery approach that is becoming more common, whereby various methods are used to discover covalent ligands from libraries of electrophilic compounds7,12,13.”

    From Advances in covalent drug discovery (2022) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lagoutte, R., Patouret, R., & Winssinger, N.
Affiliations
University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Winssinger, Nicolas
Venue
Current Opinion in Chemical Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
39
Pages
54-63
ISSN
1367-5931 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2623565822
Cited by
138
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Chemical Biology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • NCCR Chemical Biology
  • Swiss National Science Foundation
  • ERC
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Click Chemistry and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Protease and Inhibitor Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
Keywords
covalent inhibitors, cysteine thiols, structure-based drug design, inhibitor discovery
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Biological Products, Enzyme Inhibitors, Humans, Drug Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review