FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1969137858> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1969137858 endingPage "1218" @default.
• W1969137858 startingPage "1218" @default.
• W1969137858 abstract "It was an honour and a pleasure to review these two outstanding essays in which Sir James reflects on the evolution of drug discovery, from earliest times until the present day. The first essay, entitled Empirical approaches, discovery and invention is eloquent and hugely interesting. Following a trip through the ages it concludes with a description of Sir James's discovery of β-blockers. The essay provides new insights and is a hugely valuable record of those early pioneering days of drug discovery, interspersed with fascinating personal recollections and observations. The second essay, Rational approaches, continues the story of Sir James's incredible record of drug discovery, taking us on an exploration of gastro-intestinal physiology and pharmacology, right up to present day challenges of understanding the reasons for the huge increase in pancreatic cancer and possible links to pharmacological interventions. There follows a description of the massive changes that have occurred in the drug discovery process since the advent of molecular biological techniques to identify and express human receptors; namely, high throughput screening and combinatorial chemistry. This has allowed identification of potential new targets for drug discovery often without any knowledge of their role of in physiology or pathophysiology. This essay is entitled ‘Rational approaches’ but I would argue that this approach is just as much a game of Blind Man's Bluff’ as suggested in the first sentence of the first ‘Empirical approaches’ essay. I entirely agree that an approach to drug discovery based only on these techniques would be disastrous but I do think that their use as part of the overall discovery process – which must include whole animal physiology and ideally tissue preparations – has added to the drug discoverers armoury. It is now possible to study pharmacology and human receptors very early on in the process and I contend that our ability test compounds on multiple targets during the discovery phase has increased our ability to take selective molecules into the clinic, rather than decreased it. I found this second essay highly stimulating and thought-provoking, and inevitably more contentious as it challenges some of the paradigms that many of us currently use! It was also a more difficult read. For example, I struggle to understand the first of the seven principles, particularly the phrase ‘evidence of biochemical differentiation’ I am left wondering if Sir James thinks that identification of two different functional receptor sub-types based on molecular biological evidence is enough? And if not, what is? I also had difficulty in understanding the sentence starting with ‘I think this becomes apparent . . .’ I am not clear on the message here – in what way is industry expecting that the approach to treating asthma etc will be similar to hypertension . . . ? Some elucidation would be helpful to the reader. Sir James provides some very valuable thoughts about the role of synergy in responses in health and disease and I just wanted to read more! In summary, these essays are a very special and unique record. Not only do they provide an interesting historical perspective, but they provide a stimulus and challenge to continue to evolve how we approach drug discovery. This article is part of a themed section on Analytical Receptor Pharmacology in Drug Discovery. To view the other articles in this section visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bph.2010.161.issue-6To view the article by Sir James Black visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.01019.x" @default.
• W1969137858 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1969137858 creator A5059336654 @default.
• W1969137858 date "2010-10-27" @default.
• W1969137858 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W1969137858 title "Reviewer comments on Reflections on drug research by Sir James Black" @default.
• W1969137858 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.01077.x" @default.
• W1969137858 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3000648" @default.
• W1969137858 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21049582" @default.
• W1969137858 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W1969137858 type Work @default.
• W1969137858 sameAs 1969137858 @default.
• W1969137858 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1969137858 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1969137858 hasAuthorship W1969137858A5059336654 @default.
• W1969137858 hasBestOaLocation W19691378582 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C116834253 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C2777113389 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C2780110125 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C59822182 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C60644358 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C74187038 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C111472728 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C116834253 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C138885662 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C15744967 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C166957645 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C169760540 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C188147891 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C2777113389 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C2780110125 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C41008148 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C59822182 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C60644358 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C74187038 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C86803240 @default.
• W1969137858 hasConceptScore W1969137858C95457728 @default.
• W1969137858 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1969137858 hasLocation W19691378581 @default.
• W1969137858 hasLocation W19691378582 @default.
• W1969137858 hasLocation W19691378583 @default.
• W1969137858 hasLocation W19691378584 @default.
• W1969137858 hasOpenAccess W1969137858 @default.
• W1969137858 hasPrimaryLocation W19691378581 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2020683288 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2066734002 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2093872940 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2510428605 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2586081754 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W2951397847 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W379328189 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W4231003626 @default.
• W1969137858 hasRelatedWork W4235968779 @default.
• W1969137858 hasVolume "161" @default.
• W1969137858 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1969137858 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1969137858 magId "1969137858" @default.
• W1969137858 workType "article" @default.