Cited by 304Enzyme function and inhibitionComputational Drug Discovery Methodsthermodynamics and calorimetric analyses

Interpreting steep dose-response curves in early inhibitor discovery.

Shoichet, Brian K.·2006·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Abstract

Many screening hits inhibit enzymes with steep dose-response curves, which are considered pathological. Three models might explain these curves: multisite binding, an inhibitor phase transition, or stoichiometric inhibition caused by a high enzyme to Kd ratio. Experiments with promiscuous aggregators, for which steep curves are common, suggest that these curves owe to stoichiometric inhibition, which predicts that IC50 should vary linearly with enzyme concentration. Most steep dose-response curves in screening may be due to this effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jm061103g

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Many factors such as inherent experimental error can be a source of inaccuracies, limiting the average prediction error achievable on large datasets.

    “Despite the efforts in collecting high-quality affinity data, many factors such as the inherent experimental error can be a source of inaccuracies, limiting the average prediction error achievable on large datasets (Shoichet, 2006; Ferreira et al., 2009; Sotriffer and Matter, 2011; Kramer et al., 2012).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shoichet, B. K.
Affiliations
University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Shoichet, Brian K.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Published
2006-11-10
Volume
49
Issue
25
Pages
7274-7277
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
OpenAlex
W2118405368
Cited by
304
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 16
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medicinal Chemistry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM071630, GM71630)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Enzyme function and inhibition
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › thermodynamics and calorimetric analyses
Keywords
enzyme inhibitors, inhibitor discovery, IC50, enzyme concentration dependence
MeSH terms
Acetophenones, Benzopyrans, beta-Lactamases, Colloids, Congo Red, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Enzyme Inhibitors, Models, Biological, Phenolphthaleins, Protein Binding, beta-Lactamase Inhibitors

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