Cited by 1,000Computational Drug Discovery MethodsChemical Synthesis and AnalysisProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

Twenty years on: the impact of fragments on drug discovery

Erlanson, Daniel A., Fesik, Stephen W., Hubbard, Roderick E., Jahnke, Wolfgang, Jhoti, Harren·2016·Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Abstract

After 20 years of sometimes quiet growth, fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD) has become mainstream. More than 30 drug candidates derived from fragments have entered the clinic, with two approved and several more in advanced trials. FBDD has been widely applied in both academia and industry, as evidenced by the large number of papers from universities, non-profit research institutions, biotechnology companies and pharmaceutical companies. Moreover, FBDD draws on a diverse range of disciplines, from biochemistry and biophysics to computational and medicinal chemistry. As the promise of FBDD strategies becomes increasingly realized, now is an opportune time to draw lessons and point the way to the future. This Review briefly discusses how to design fragment libraries, how to select screening techniques and how to make the most of information gleaned from them. It also shows how concepts from FBDD have permeated and enhanced drug discovery efforts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrd.2016.109

Cites

110 of 110 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?

  • Fragment-based ligand discovery (FBLD) has emerged as a versatile approach for the discovery of atom-efficient, small-molecule binders for a wide range of proteins.

    “Fragment-based ligand discovery (FBLD) has emerged as a versatile approach for the discovery of atom-efficient, small-molecule binders for a wide range of proteins10–12.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Erlanson, D. A., Fesik, S. W., Hubbard, R. E., Jahnke, W., & Jhoti, H.
Affiliations
  • Carmot Therapeutics (United States) (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Vernalis (R&D) Limited (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
Corresponding author
Erlanson, Daniel A.
Venue
Nature Reviews Drug Discovery
Published
2016-07-15
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
605-619
ISSN
  • 1474-1776 (ISSN-L)
  • 1474-1784
OpenAlex
W2467779447
Cited by
1,000
References
110
Citations by year
2026: 80 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 112 · 2023: 95 · 2022: 97 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 141 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 99 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 14
FWCI
7.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
Keywords
fragment-based drug discovery, fragment libraries, fragment screening
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Peptide Fragments, Protein Conformation, Peptide Library, Computational Biology, Small Molecule Libraries, Drug Discovery, High-Throughput Screening Assays

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