Cited by 5,858Microbial Natural Products and BiosynthesisBioactive natural compoundsHistorical Medical Research and Treatments

Natural products as sources of new drugs from 1981 to 2014

Open access
Newman, David J., Cragg, Gordon M.·2016·Journal of Natural Products

Abstract

This contribution is a completely updated and expanded version of the four prior analogous reviews that were published in this journal in 1997, 2003, 2007, and 2012. In the case of all approved therapeutic agents, the time frame has been extended to cover the 34 years from January 1, 1981, to December 31, 2014, for all diseases worldwide, and from 1950 (earliest so far identified) to December 2014 for all approved antitumor drugs worldwide. As mentioned in the 2012 review, we have continued to utilize our secondary subdivision of a “natural product mimic”, or “NM”, to join the original primary divisions and the designation “natural product botanical”, or “NB”, to cover those botanical “defined mixtures” now recognized as drug entities by the U.S. FDA (and similar organizations). From the data presented in this review, the utilization of natural products and/or their novel structures, in order to discover and develop the final drug entity, is still alive and well. For example, in the area of cancer, over the time frame from around the 1940s to the end of 2014, of the 175 small molecules approved, 131, or 75%, are other than “S” (synthetic), with 85, or 49%, actually being either natural products or directly derived therefrom. In other areas, the influence of natural product structures is quite marked, with, as expected from prior information, the anti-infective area being dependent on natural products and their structures. We wish to draw the attention of readers to the rapidly evolving recognition that a significant number of natural product drugs/leads are actually produced by microbes and/or microbial interactions with the “host from whence it was isolated”, and therefore it is considered that this area of natural product research should be expanded significantly.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b01055

Cites

152 of 152 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
Journal of Natural Products
Published
2016-02-07
Volume
79
Issue
3
Pages
629-661
ISSN
  • 0163-3864 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6025
OpenAlex
W2256742438
Cited by
5,858
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 240 · 2025: 329 · 2024: 469 · 2023: 510 · 2022: 557 · 2021: 702 · 2020: 844 · 2019: 830 · 2018: 741 · 2017: 447 · 2016: 171 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1
FWCI
83.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Natural Products (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Microbial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioactive natural compounds
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Historical Medical Research and Treatments
Keywords
natural products, drug discovery, drug approval, anticancer agents, anti-infective agents, microbial natural products, host-microbe interactions
MeSH terms
Anti-Infective Agents, Antineoplastic Agents, Biological Products, Humans, Molecular Structure, 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