Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 328

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 access
Agamah, Francis E, Mazandu, Gaston K, Hassan, Radia, Bope, Christian D, Thomford, Nicholas E, Ghansah, Anita, Chimusa, Emile R·2020·Briefings in Bioinformatics

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/bib/bbz103

Cites

124 of 124 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 124 references

Cited by

See all 328

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
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.