The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Computational/in silico methods in drug target and lead prediction
Open accessAbstract
Drug-like compounds are most of the time denied approval and use owing to the unexpected clinical side effects and cross-reactivity observed during clinical trials. These unexpected outcomes resulting in significant increase in attrition rate centralizes on the selected drug targets. These targets may be disease candidate proteins or genes, biological pathways, disease-associated microRNAs, disease-related biomarkers, abnormal molecular phenotypes, crucial nodes of biological network or molecular functions. This is generally linked to several factors, including incomplete knowledge on the drug targets and unpredicted pharmacokinetic expressions upon target interaction or off-target effects. A method used to identify targets, especially for polygenic diseases, is essential and constitutes a major bottleneck in drug development with the fundamental stage being the identification and validation of drug targets of interest for further downstream processes. Thus, various computational methods have been developed to complement experimental approaches in drug discovery. Here, we present an overview of various computational methods and tools applied in predicting or validating drug targets and drug-like molecules. We provide an overview on their advantages and compare these methods to identify effective methods which likely lead to optimal results. We also explore major sources of drug failure considering the challenges and opportunities involved. This review might guide researchers on selecting the most efficient approach or technique during the computational drug discovery process.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Trott, O., & Olson, A. J. (2010) · Journal of Computational Chemistry · doi:10.1002/jcc.21334 · Cited by 38,412
Book Review: Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning
Nasrabadi, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Electronic Imaging · doi:10.1117/1.2819119 · Cited by 22,066
Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery
Hopkins, A. L. (2008) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/nchembio.118 · Cited by 4,622
Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?
Kola, I., & Landis, J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1470 · Cited by 4,167
Link prediction in complex networks: A survey
Lü, L., & Zhou, T. (2011) · Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2010.11.027 · Cited by 2,819
Drug resistance in cancer: An overview
Housman, G., Byler, S., Heerboth, S., Lapinska, K., Longacre, M., Snyder, N., & Sarkar, S. (2014) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers6031769 · Cited by 2,463
Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry
Keiser, M. J., Roth, B. L., Armbruster, B. N., Ernsberger, P., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2007) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt1284 · Cited by 2,402
A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions
Warren, G. L., Andrews, C. W., Capelli, A.-M., Clarke, B., LaLonde, J., Lambert, M. H., Lindvall, M., Nevins, N., Semus, S. F., Senger, S., et al. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm050362n · Cited by 1,814
SwissTargetPrediction: a web server for target prediction of bioactive small molecules
Gfeller, D., Grosdidier, A., Wirth, M., Daina, A., Michielin, O., & Zoete, V. (2014) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gku293 · Cited by 1,791
The rise of deep learning in drug discovery
Chen, H., Engkvist, O., Wang, Y., Olivecrona, M., & Blaschke, T. (2018) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.039 · Cited by 1,770
Cited by
A review on the recent applications of deep learning in predictive drug toxicological studies
Sinha, K., Ghosh, N., & Sil, P. C. (2023) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrestox.2c00375 · Cited by 64
A new paradigm for applying deep learning to protein–ligand interaction prediction
Wang, Z., Wang, S., Li, Y., Guo, J., Wei, Y., Mu, Y., Zheng, L., & Li, W. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae145 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Agamah, F. E., Mazandu, G. K., Hassan, R., Bope, C. D., Thomford, N. E., Ghansah, A., & Chimusa, E. R.
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2019-11-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1663-1675
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4054
- OpenAlex
- W2985881898
- Cited by
- 328
- References
- 124
- FWCI
- 11.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Computational/in silico methods in drug target and lead prediction. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bib/bbz103
- The paper
- Agamah, F. E., Mazandu, G. K., Hassan, R., Bope, C. D., Thomford, N. E., Ghansah, A., & Chimusa, E. R. (2020). Computational/in silico methods in drug target and lead prediction. Briefings in Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz103
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.