Home › Research › Drug development
Expanding therapeutic opportunities for neurodegenerative diseases: A perspective on the important role of phenotypic screening
Swalley SE.. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry, 2019-12-18
Topic: Amyloid, tau and blood-test diagnosis
Plain-language summary
Over the last 20 years, there have been remarkably few FDA-approved first-in-class drugs for neurodegenerative diseases. Debilitating conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis have no effective disease-modifying therapeutics on the market, signifying an area of high unmet medical need where novel approaches are needed. Using a phenotypic screening approach, two separate groups discovered small molecule non-antisense oligonucleotide splice modulators for spinal muscular atrophy, a severe monogenetic disease that causes the degeneration ofalpha motor neuronsin the spinal cord. These compounds function by a novel mechanism: selective stabilization of the interaction of U1 small nuclear ribonucleic protein (snRNP), a core component of the spliceosome, with the 5' splice site of a pre-mRNA. The ability of the phenotypic screening approach to uncover a previously unknown mechanism and reveal a new druggable target class has broader implications for other neurodegenerative diseases.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Swalley, S. E. (2020). Expanding therapeutic opportunities for neurodegenerative diseases: A perspective on the important role of phenotypic screening. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2019.115239
Vancouver
Swalley SE. Expanding therapeutic opportunities for neurodegenerative diseases: A perspective on the important role of phenotypic screening. Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.bmc.2019.115239. PMID: 31889605.
BibTeX
@article{swalley2020-31889605,
author = {Swalley, S. E.},
title = {{Expanding therapeutic opportunities for neurodegenerative diseases: A perspective on the important role of phenotypic screening}},
journal = {Bioorganic \& medicinal chemistry},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/j.bmc.2019.115239},
pmid = {31889605},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmc.2019.115239}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Over the last 20 years, there have been remarkably few FDA-approved first-in-class drugs for neurodegenerative diseases.
- Debilitating conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis have no effective disease-modifying therapeutics on the market, signifying an area of high unmet medical need where novel approaches are needed.
- Using a phenotypic screening approach, two separate groups discovered small molecule non-antisense oligonucleotide splice modulators for spinal muscular atrophy, a severe monogenetic disease that causes the degeneration ofalpha motor neuronsin the spinal cord.
- These compounds function by a novel mechanism: selective stabilization of the interaction of U1 small nuclear ribonucleic protein (snRNP), a core component of the spliceosome, with the 5' splice site of a pre-mRNA.
- The ability of the phenotypic screening approach to uncover a previously unknown mechanism and reveal a new druggable target class has broader implications for other neurodegenerative diseases.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 38/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 38 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31889605) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 22 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 38 out of 100. |
| Total | 38 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Drug development from nearby years
Also tagged “important”
2 studies in the library carry the topic tag “important”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 2 tagged studies.