25 November 2013

Updated polls: affiliation, methods, and library size

Practical Fragments has run polls on topics including readership, screening methods, favorite metrics (here and here), maximum and minimum fragment size, and the importance of structural information.

We’re interested in how things are changing, particularly in terms of our readership (last polled in 2010) and what fragment-finding methods are most popular (last polled in 2011).

Also, one topic that comes up repeatedly (for example here and here) but has never been actually polled is how many fragments make a good library – we’ve added a question about that too.

Please add your input for 2013; the more people who vote, the more representative the numbers will be. You can find all three questions on the right side of the page, below the "Links of Utility".

We’ll summarize the results and compare them to the previous polls in an upcoming post.

Also, please let us know if you would like us to repeat any of our other polls, and feel free to suggest new topics.

Happy voting!


Anonymous said...

Dan, for methods...are you asking what our primary screening method is, or all of the methods used as part of the FBLD process? Also, for library size, do you what what we think is the appropriate size, or what our company/institution has. Those can be very different answers.

Dan Erlanson said...

For library size, definitely what your company/institution has (to paraphrase the father of unknowns, you screen with the library you have, not the library you might want or wish to have at a later time).

For screening methods, I was thinking of all the methods used.

jbosch said...

strict fragments as in ~150-250 Da ?
Or do you include larger "fragments" from drug-like libraries >250-500 Da ?

Dan Erlanson said...

Hi jbosch - I'd say use whatever definition of fragment you use internally, but within reason. Some folks accept "super-sized" fragments, but it's hard to justify calling something with MW > 350 Da a fragment.

Chandrakant said...

library size and other factors also depends upon the method of screening (NMR, x-Ray or by using computational screening)

Dan Erlanson said...

Chandrakant correctly notes that computational libraries can be much larger than physical libraries. For the purposes of this poll, please only consider your physical library (ie, actual compounds that you have in-house).