ReviewJournal of medicinal chemistry2025
The Missing Enzymes: A Call to Update Pharmacological Profiling Practices for Better Drug Safety Assessment.
Review in Journal of medicinal chemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Design, synthesis, and anticancer activity of phenoxyacetohydrazide derivatives in burkitt lymphoma.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Discovery of a pyridine-piperazine-based small molecule that enhances the activity of peptidase neurolysin.The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics · 2026Article
- Deletion of neuronal Idol ameliorates Alzheimer's disease-related pathologies via APOE receptors.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pharmacological profiling is critical for the development of safe drugs. With increasing awareness of its significance and attempts to share best practices, here we aimed to understand how pharmacological profiling is implemented and reported in the primary literature by analyzing the representation of nonkinase enzymes in selectivity screens. This aspect has been overlooked in previous publications, despite enzymes constituting a significant portion of the pharmacological targets for currently marketed drugs. Our analysis shows that while industry recommendations for improved pharmacological profiling have been widely adopted, enzymes remain largely underrepresented: about a quarter of studies did not include enzymes, and on average, enzymes comprise only 11% of all targets in pharmacological screens. We discuss possible reasons for this shortcoming and provide examples of critical enzymes missing from current screens. We conclude with the notion that selectivity screens should be expanded to include more enzymes to improve drug development and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.