The efficiency of multi-target drugs¶
CSERMELY, P., AGOSTON, V., & PONGOR, S. (2005). The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, 26(4), 178-182.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Inhibition
- From them follow inferences that port directly: a narrow inhibitor with side effects is often worse than a weaker, cleaner one, because specificity frequently matters more than potency; an irreversible block is a different instrument from a switchable one and carries different risk; and stacking several weak, specific inhibitors can outperform a single strong, non-specific one.
This sourceArgues that low-affinity, multi-target (partial) inhibition can perturb a network more efficiently than a single strong, non-specific block — the rationale that stacking weak specific inhibitors can outperform one strong non-specific one.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Csermely et al. support the stacking idea: several partial hits can beat one complete knockout. They do not support the specificity-over-potency or irreversible-versus-switchable inferences.
“multiple but partial attacks on carefully selected targets are almost inevitably more efficient than the knockout of a single, though equally well selected, target”
- From them follow inferences that port directly: a narrow inhibitor with side effects is often worse than a weaker, cleaner one, because specificity frequently matters more than potency; an irreversible block is a different instrument from a switchable one and carries different risk; and stacking several weak, specific inhibitors can outperform a single strong, non-specific one.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:c6b4e428e51a · see in the full table