Recognizing molecules with drug-like properties

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 384-387

  Walters, W Patrick ^a   Murcko, Ajay ^a   Murcko, Mark A ^a  

^a VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CHEMISTRY; DRUG ACTIVITY; LIBRARY; MOLECULE; RESEARCH; SHORT SURVEY; TECHNIQUE;

EID: 0033179183     PISSN: 13675931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1367-5931(99)80058-1     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Gordon EM: Libraries of non-polymeric organic molecules. Curr Opin Biotechnol 1995, 6:624-631.
2. Dolle RE: Discovery of enzyme inhibitors through combinatorial chemistry. Mol Divers 1997, 2:223-226.
3. Brown D: Future pathways for combinatorial chemistry. Mol Divers 1997, 2:217-222.
4. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ: Experimental and compuational approaches to estimate solubility and permeablity in drug discovery. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997, 23:3-25.
5. Spencer RW: High-throughput screening of historic collections observations on file size, biological targets, and file diversity. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998, 61:61-67. This work provides an analysis of more than 150 high-throughput screens that were carried out at Pfizer Central Research. The authors compared hit rates for enzyme, cytokine and receptor targets. They evaluated the impact of clustering and diversity analysis on a screen for substance P antagonists.
6. Navia MA, Chaturvedi PR: Design principles for orally bioavailable drugs. Drug Discov Today 1996, 1:179-189.
7. Chan OH, Stewart BH: Physicochemical and drug-delivery considerations for oral drug bioavailability. Drug Discov Today 1996, 1:461-473.
8. Fecik RA, Frank KE, Gentry EJ, Menon SR, Mitscher LA, Telikepalli H: The search for orally acitive medications through combinatorial chemistry. Med Res Rev 1998, 18:149-185.
9. Rishton GM: Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov Today 1997, 2:382-385.
10. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA: Virtual screening - An overview. Drug Discov Today 1998, 3:160-178.
11. Schanker LS: On the mechanicsm of absorption from the gastrointestinal tract. J Med Pharm Chem 1960, 2:343-346.
12. Leahy DE, Lynch J, Taylor DD: Mechanisms of Absorption of Small Molecules. Edited by Prescott LF, Nimmo WS. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989.
13. Seydel JK, Schaper KJ: Quantitative Structure-Pharmacokinetic Relationships in Drug Design. Edited by Rowland M, Tucker G. New York: Pergamon Press; 1986.
14. Sawada GA, Barshun CL, Lutzke BS, Houghton ME, Padbury GW, Ho NFH, Raub TJ: Increased lipophilicity and subsequent cell partitioning decrease passive transcellular diffusion of novel highly lipophilic antioxidants. Pharm Exptl Ther 1999, 288:1317-1326.
15. Sugawara M, Takekuma Y, Yamada H, Kobayashi M, Iseki K, Miyazaki K: A general approach for the prediction of the intestinal absorption of drugs: Regression analysis using the physicochemical properties and drug-membrane eletrostatic interactions. J Pharm Sci 1998, 87:960-966. Experimentally determined log D values in octanol, diethyl ether, chloroform and isooctane were used in different combinations to model the rat jejunal permeability of 32 drugs. Reasonable models could be developed for anionic, cationic and nonionized compounds. Predictions for an external set of 10 compounds (including some zwitterionic compounds) were also reasonable.
16. Winiwarter S, Bonham NM, Ax F, HAllberg A, Lennernas H, KArlen A: Correlation of human jejunal permeability (in vivo) of drugs with experimentally and theoretically derived parameters. A multivariant data analysis approach. J Med Chem 1998, 41:4939-4949. In vivo human jejunal permeability of 22 structurally diverse compounds was correlated with experimentally determined log D (log P) values and calculated structural parameters. The best model used log D, number of hydrogen bond donors (HBD) and polar surface area (PSA); however, models using calculated log P, HBD, and PSA and just HBD and PSA were close to the best. Reasonable predictivity was seen on an external validation set of 24 compounds where data on oral bioavailability was available. It is important to note that some of the actively transported molecules were under-predicted by the models.
17. Stenberg P, Luthman K, Artursson P: Prediction of membrane permeability to pepides from calculated dynamic molecular surface properties. Pharm Res 1999, 16:205-212.
18. Wessel MD, Jurs PC, Tolan JW, Muskal SM: Prediction of human intestinal absorption of drug compounds from molecular structure. J Chem Inform Comp Sci 1998, 38:726-735.
19. Yu LX, Lipka E, Crison JR, Amidon GL: Transport approached to the biopharmaceutical design of oral drug delivery systems: Prediction of intestinal absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1996, 19:359-376.
20. Pearlman RS, Smith KM: Metric validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J Chem Inform Comp Sci 1999, 39:28-35.
21. Pearlman RS, Smith KM: Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Persp Drug Design Discov 1998, 9:339-353.
22. Cooley W, Lohones P: Multivariate Data Anaysis. New York: Wiley; 1971.
23. Cummins DJ, Andrews CW, Bentley JA, Cory M: Molecular diversity in chemical databases: Comparison of medicinal chemistry knowledge bases and databases of commercially available compounds. J Chem Inform Comp Sci 1996, 36:750-763.
24. α shape descriptor) to differentiate between a set of drugs represented by 14,861 compounds from the World Drug Index and a set of nondrugs represented by 16,807 compounds from the SPRESI database. A genetic algorithm was used to derive a set of optimal weights for the properties. The best weighting schemes were able to provide a five to sixfold enhancement over random selection. The authors were also able to achieve similar results using property profiles to identify drugs belonging to a specific therapeutic class from a larger drug database.
25. Martin EJ, Critchlow RE: Beyond mere diversity: Tailoring combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Comb Chem 1999, 1:32-45. The authors present an overview of methods used at Chiron for combinatorial library design an analysis. The paper focuses on a number of techniques used to ensure that the molecules produced are diverse and posses desirable properties.
26. Kier LB, Hall LH: Molecular Connectivity in Structure-activity Analysis. New York: Wiley; 1986.
27. Torgerson WS: Multi-dimensional scaling. 1. Theory and methods. Psychometrica 1952, 17:401-419.
28. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM: Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inform Comp Sci 1998, 38:983-996.
29. Martin EJ, Blaney JM, Siani MA: Measuring diversity: Experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Mad Chem 1995, 38:1431-1436.
30. Miller A, Nguyen N-K: A fedorov exchange algorithm of d-optimal design. Appl Stat 1994, 43:669-678.
31. Bemis GW, Murcko MA: The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996, 39:2887-2893.
32. Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN, Wendelowski JJ: A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative characterization of known drug databases. J Comb Chem 1999, 1:55-67. The authors characterized the CMC database based on computed physicochemical property profiles (log P, molar refractivity, molecular weight, and number of atoms). They established qualifying ranges, which cover more than 80% of the compounds. They also examined commonly occurring functional groups. They found that benzene was most common - frequency was approximately equal to that of all aromatic heterocycles combined. Nonaromatic heterocycles were more common than aromatic (approximately twofold). Tertiary amines, alcohols and carboxamides were the most frequently occurring functional groups.
33. Hertz J, Krogh A, Palmer RG: Introduction to the Theory of Neural Computation. Redwood City, CA: Addison Wesley; 1991.
34. Ajay, Walters WP, Murcko MA: Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'nondrug-like' molecules? J Med Chem 1998, 41:3314-3324. The authors used a Bayesian neural network to distinguish between drugs and nondrugs. Network was trained using a random partition of 3,500 compounds each from CMC and ACD. The network was trained using a set of seven 1D and 166 2D descriptors. The program was able to correctly classify 90% of the CMC compounds, and misclassified only 10% of the ACD molecules. The generalizablity of the method was demonstrated by the program's ability to correctly classify 80% of the compounds from the MDDR.
35. Sadowski J, Kubinyi H: A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J Med Chem 1998, 41:3325-3329. The authors developed a neural network method for discriminating drugs and non-drugs; they used 38,416 molecules from the WDI as the drug set and 169,331 molecules from the ACD as the nondrug set. A set of atom types originally developed for log P prediciton was used as descriptors. A feedforward neural network was trained to classify the compounds. The program was able to correctly classify 83% of the ACD compounds and 77% of the WDI compounds.
36. Streng WH: Physical chemical characterization of drug substances. Drug Discov Today 1997, 2:415-426.