Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 598

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Novel classes of antibiotics or more of the same?

Open access
Coates, Anthony RM, Halls, Gerry, Hu, Yanmin·2011·British Journal of Pharmacology

Abstract

The world is running out of antibiotics. Between 1940 and 1962, more than 20 new classes of antibiotics were marketed. Since then, only two new classes have reached the market. Analogue development kept pace with the emergence of resistant bacteria until 10–20 years ago. Now, not enough analogues are reaching the market to stem the tide of antibiotic resistance, particularly among gram‐negative bacteria. This review examines the existing systemic antibiotic pipeline in the public domain, and reveals that 27 compounds are in clinical development, of which two are new classes, both of which are in Phase I clinical trials. In view of the high attrition rate of drugs in early clinical development, particularly new classes and the current regulatory hurdles, it does not seem likely that new classes will be marketed soon. This paper suggests that, if the world is to return to a situation in which there are enough antibiotics to cope with the inevitable ongoing emergence of bacterial resistance, we need to recreate the prolific antibiotic discovery period between 1940 and 1962, which produced 20 classes that served the world well for 60 years. If another 20 classes and their analogues, particularly targeting gram‐negatives could be produced soon, they might last us for the next 60 years. How can this be achieved? Only a huge effort by governments in the form of finance, legislation and providing industry with real incentives will reverse this. Industry needs to re‐enter the market on a much larger scale, and academia should rebuild its antibiotic discovery infrastructure to support this effort. The alternative is Medicine without effective antibiotics. LINKED ARTICLES This article is part of a themed issue on Respiratory Pharmacology. To view the other articles in this issue visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2011.163.issue‐1

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 · 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01250.x

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 598

Metadata

Authors
Coates, A. R., Halls, G., & Hu, Y.
Venue
British Journal of Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-06
Volume
163
Issue
1
Pages
184-194
ISSN
  • 0007-1188 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5381
OpenAlex
W1502497970
Cited by
598
References
2
FWCI
11.31
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: Novel classes of antibiotics or more of the same? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01250.x
The paper
Coates, A. R., Halls, G., & Hu, Y. (2011). Novel classes of antibiotics or more of the same? British Journal of Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01250.x

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.