| Title |
Assay development and high-throughput screening for small molecule inhibitors of a Vibrio cholerae stress response pathway
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s144391 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laura Stanbery, Jyl S Matson |
| Abstract |
Antibiotics are important adjuncts to oral rehydration therapy in cholera disease management. However, due to the rapid emergence of resistance to the antibiotics used to treat cholera, therapeutic options are becoming limited. Therefore, there is a critical need to develop additional therapeutics to aid in the treatment of cholera. Previous studies showed that the extracytoplasmic stress response (σ(E)) pathway of Vibrio cholerae is required for full virulence of the organism. The pathway is also required for bacterial growth in the presence of ethanol. Therefore, we exploited this ethanol sensitivity phenotype in order to develop a screen for inhibitors of the pathway, with the aim of also inhibiting virulence of the pathogen. Here we describe the optimization and implementation of our high-throughput screening strategy. From a primary screen of over 100,000 compounds, we have identified seven compounds that validated the growth phenotypes from the primary and counterscreens. These compounds have the potential to be developed into therapeutic agents for cholera and will also be valuable probes for uncovering basic molecular mechanisms of an important cause of diarrheal disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 14 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 29% |
| Researcher | 2 | 14% |
| Other | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 21% |
| Unknown | 5 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 September 2017.
All research outputs
#16,061,963
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#929
of 2,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,403
of 324,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#28
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,270 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,537 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.