Virtual screening in lead discovery: A viewpoint

Molecules

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2002, Pages 51-62

  Oprea, Tudor Ionel ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

Author keywords

ADME filters; Combinatorial library design; Drug discovery

Indexed keywords

DRUG; LEAD;

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DRUG RESEARCH; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; REACTION OPTIMIZATION; TECHNOLOGY; VIRTUAL SCREENING METHOD;

EID: 0002273571     PISSN: 14203049     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/70100051     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Horrobin, D. F. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J. Royal Soc. Med. 2000, 93, 341-345.
2. Some typical issues: How long does it take to purchase those [unique] reagents? Are they still available? At what price/purity?
3. Terrett, N. K.; Gardner, M.; Gordon, D. W.; Kobylecki, R. J.; Steele, J. Drug discovery by combinatorial chemistry - the development of a novel method for the rapid synthesis of single compounds. Chem. Eur. J. 1997, 3, 1917-1920.
4. Kolb, H. C.; Finn, M. G.; Sharpless, K. B. Click chemistry: diverse chemical function from a few good reactions. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2001, 40, 2004-2021.
5. Franzen, R. The Suzuki, the Heck, and the Stille reaction; three versatile methods for the introduction of new C-C bonds on solid support. Can. J. Chem. 2000, 78, 957-962.
6. Rishton, G. M. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discovery Today 1997, 2, 382-384.
7. Weber, L.; Wallbaum, S.; Broger, C.; Gubernator, K. Optimization of the biological activity of combinatorial compound libraries by a genetic algorithm. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1995, 34, 2280-2282.
8. Linusson, A.; Gottfries, J.; Lindgren, F.; Wold, S. Statistical molecular design of building blocks for combinatorial chemistry. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 1320-1328.
9. Anonymous. Waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. 2000. Available from http://www.fda.gov/cder/OPS/ BCS_guidance.htm
10. Lipinski, C. A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B. W.; Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
11. Drews, J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 2000, 287, 1960-1964.
12. Walters, W. P.; Stahl, M. T.; Murcko, M. A. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discovery Today 1998, 3, 160-178.
13. Fox, S.; Farr-Jones, S.; Yund, M. A. High throughput screening for drug discovery: continually transitioning into new technology. J. Biomol. Screening 1999, 4, 183-186.
14. Young, S.; Li, J. Virtual screening of focused combinatorial libraries. Innovations Pharm. Technol. 2000, 0(5), 24-26, 28.
15. For example: I need to compute a molecule faster than chemists can make it (or faster than the HTS lab can screen it).
16. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: A method for improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5100-5109.
17. Stahl, M.; Bohm, H. J. Development of filter functions for protein-ligand docking. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 1998, 16, 121-132.
18. The QSAR paradigm for structure-permeability expresses the passive permeability as a function of hydrophobicity, molecular size, and hydrogen-bond capacity.
19. Van de Waterbeemd, H.; Camenisch, G.; Folkers, G.; Raevsky, O. A. Estimation of Caco-2 cell permeability using calculated molecular descriptors. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1996, 15, 480-490.
20. oct from structures. Chem. Rev. 1993, 5, 1281-1306. CLOGP is available from Daylight Chemical Information Systems, http://www.daylight.com
21. Clark, D. E. Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 1. Prediction of intestinal absorption. J. Pharm. Sci. 1999, 88, 807-814.
22. Clark, D. E. Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood-brain barrier penetration. J. Pharm. Sci. 1999, 88, 815-821.
23. Kelder, J.; Grootenhuis, P. D. J.; Bayada, D. M.; Delbressine, L. P. C.; Ploemen, J. P. Polar molecular surface as a dominating determinant for oral absorption and brain penetration of drugs. Pharm. Res. 1999, 16, 1514-1519.
24. Olsson, T.; Oprea, T. I. Cheminformatics: a tool for decision-makers in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2001, 4, 308-313.
25. Oprea, T. I. Rapid estimation of hydrophobicity for virtual combinatorial library analysis. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2001, 12, 129-141.
26. Rishton, G. 2001. Personal communication.
27. Lipinski, C. A. Druglike properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods, 2000, 44, 235-249
28. Oprea, T.I.; Marshall, G. R. Receptor-based prediction of affinity. Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, 1998, 9-11, 35-61
29. Oprea, T.I.; Zamora, I.; Svensson, P. Qvo vadis, scoring functions? Toward an integrated pharmacokinetic and binding Affinity Prediction Framework. In Combinatorial Library Design and Evaluation for Drug Design. Ghose, A. K.; Viswanadhan, V. N. (Eds.); Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, 2001, pp 233-266
30. Drews, J. Innovation deficit revisited: Reflections on the productivity of pharmaceutical R&D. Drug Discov. Today 1998, 3, 491-494.
31. Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J. Hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic interactions, and failure of the rigid receptor hypothesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 736-749.
32. Palm, K.; Luthman, K.; Ungell, A.L.; Strandlund, G.; Artursson, P. Correlation of drug absorption with molecular surface properties. J. Pharm. Sci. 1996, 85, 32-39.
33. Oprea, T. I.; Gottfries, J. Toward a minimalist model of oral drug absorbtion. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 1999, 17, 261-274.
34. Zamora, I.; Oprea, T. I.; Ungell, A. L. Prediction of Oral Drug Permeability. In Rational Approaches to Drug Design. Höltje, H. D.; Sippl, W. (Eds.); Prous Science Press, Barcelona, 2001, pp 271-280.
35. Darvas, F.; Dorman, G. Early integration of ADME/Tox parameters into the design process of combinatorial libraries. Chim. Oggi 1999, 17, 10-13.
36. Pickett, S. D.; McLay, I.M.; Clark, D. E. Enhancing the hit-to-lead properties of lead optimization libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 263-272.
37. Zamora, I.; Oprea, T. I.; Cruciani, G.; Pastor, M.; Ungell, A. L. Surface descriptors for protein-ligand affinity prediction. J. Med. Chem., submitted
38. VolSurf is available from Molecular Discovery Ltd., http://www. moldiscovery.com
39. Cruciani, G.; Crivori, P.; Carrupt, P. A.; Testa, B. Molecular fields in quantitative structure-permeation relationships: The VolSurf approach. J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 2000, 503, 17-30.
40. Guba, W.; Cruciani, G. Molecular field-derived descriptors for the multivariate modeling of pharmacokinetic data. In Molecular Modeling and Prediction of Bioactivity. Gundertofte, K.; Jørgensen, F. S. (Eds.), New York, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2000, pp. 89-94.
41. Crivori, P.; Cruciani, G.; Carrupt, P.A.; Testa, B. Predicting blood-brain barrier permeation from three-dimensional molecular structure. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 2204-2216.
42. Head, R. D.; Smythe, M. L.; Oprea, T. I.; Waller, C.L.; Greene, S. M.; Marshall, G. R. VALIDATE: A new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 3959-3969.
43. Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Watson, K.A. A strategy for the incorporation of water molecules present in a ligand binding site into a three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 4089-4102.
44. Wermuth, C.G.; Clarence-Smith, K. Drug-like leads: bigger is not always better. Pharmaceutical News, 2000, 7, 53-55.
45. See http://www.prestwickchemical.com for details.
46. See http://www.cerep.fr/Cerep/Utilisateur/index.asp for details.
47. Teague, S. J.; Davis, A. M.; Leeson, P. D.; Oprea, T. I. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 3743-3748.
48. Hann, M. M.; Leach, A. R.; Harper, G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 856-864.
49. Sneader, W. Drug prototypes and their exploitation. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1996.
50. Oprea, T. I.; Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J.; Leeson, P. D. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1308-1315.
51. Virtual screening cannot substitute creative thinking, serendipity and good experimental research. One should integrate experimental results into the process as early as possible.
52. Oprea, T. I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Design, 2000, 14, 251-264.