Role of the development scientist in compound lead selection and optimization

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 145-154

  Venkatesh, Srini ^a   Lipper, Robert A ^a  

^a BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

4 CYANO N [3 [(CYCLOPROPYL)(5,6,7,8,9,10 HEXAHYDRO 4 HYDROXY 2 OXO 2H CYCLOOCTA[B]PYRAN 3 YL)METHYL]PHENYL]BENZENESULFONAMIDE; CHOLECYSTOKININ B RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; CP 212454; PNU 96988; PROTEINASE INHIBITOR; SEGLITIDE; TIPRANAVIR; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SELECTIVITY; DRUG SPECIFICITY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SHORT SURVEY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0034002261     PISSN: 00223549     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6017(200002)89:2<145::AID-JPS2>3.0.CO;2-6     Document Type: Short Survey

References (41)

1. Kaitin KI. 1997. Introduction. In: Kaitin KI, Levy M, editors. Speed to market achieving breakthrough performance: Case studies in R & D management. Cambridge, MA: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, p 6-9.
2. Selkirk AB. 1998. Success in not necessarily automatic. Pharm Sci Technol Today 1:8.
3. Somberg JC. 1996. The Evolving Drug Discovery and Development Process. In: Welling PG, Lasagna L, Banakar UV, editors. Drug development process: Increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness. New York: Marcel Dekker. p 1-37.
4. Kennedy T. 1997. Managing the drug discovery/ development interface. Drug Discovery Today 2: 436.
5. PriceWaterhouseCoopers. 1998. Pharma 2005: An industrial revolution in R & D. New York, p 1-20.
6. Drews J. 1990. Innovation management in the pharmaceutical industry: Principles for the 1990s. Pharm Technol Int 10:12.
7. Lipper RA. 1999. Modern Drug Discovery January/ February:55.
8. Hirschmann R. 1998. Introduction. In: Borchardt RT, Freidinger RM, Sawyer TK, Smith PL, editors. Integration of pharmaceutical discovery and development. New York: Plenum. p 1-5.
9. Curatolo W. 1998. Physical chemical properties of oral drug candidates in the discovery and exploratory development settings. Pharm Sci Technol Today 1:387.
10. Lipinski CA, Lombordo F, Dominy BW, Freeney PJ. 1997. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Del Rev 23:3.
11. Herzog R. 1994. Managing the research/development interface. DN&P 7:307.
12. Prentis RA, Lis Y, Walker SR. 1988. Pharmaceutical innovation by the seven U.K.-owned pharmaceutical companies (1964-1985). Br J Clin Pharmacol 25:387.
13. Lombordo F, Winter SM, Tremaine L, Lowe, JA III. 1998. The anxieties of drug discovery and development. In: Borchardt RT, Freidinger RM, Sawyer TK, Smith PL, editors. Integration of pharmaceutical discovery and development. New York: Plenum, p 465-479.
14. Bailey CA, Railkar A, Tarantino R. 1996. Along the development superhighway: At the interface between discovery and development of small molecule therapeutics. Abstr Papers - Am Chem Soc 211:12.
15. Railkar AS, Sandhu HK, Spence E, Margolis R, Tarantino R, Bailey CA. 1996. The discovery-development interface: Early formulation strategies for poorly soluble small molecule therapeutics. Pharm Res 13:S-278.
16. Ward S. 1997. Enhancing drug development: Initiatives at Wyeth Ayerst. In: Kaitin KI, Levy M, editors. Speed to market achieving breakthrough performance: Case studies in R & D management. Cambridge, MA: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, p 51-59.
17. Accelerating preclinical development by successful integration into drug discovery. Conference Proceedings, Nice, France, February 24-26, 1999.
18. th Annual Conference and Exhibition, September 1998.
19. Studt T. 1999. Collaborations enhance technological strengths. Drug Discovery Dev 1:46.
20. Krieger JH. 1997. Computational chemistry impact. Chem Eng News 75:30.
21. Merritt AT. 1998. Uptake of new technology in lead optimization for drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 3:505.
22. Boyd DB. 1998. Rational drug design: Controlling the size of the haystack. Modern Drug Discovery November/December:41.
23. Sinko PJ. 1999. Drug selection in early drug development: Screening for acceptable pharmacokinetic properties using combined in vitro and computational approaches. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev 2:42.
24. Streng WH. 1996. Physical chemical characterization of small molecules for drug substance selection. Abstr Papers Am Chem Soc 211:14.
25. Welling PG. 1996. Changes in pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism responsibility in drug discovery and development. In: Welling PG, Lasagna L, Banakar UV, editors. Drug development process: Increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness. New York: Marcel Dekker. p 261-279.
26. Padbury GE, Zipp GL, Schwende FJ, Zhao Z, Koeplinger KA, Chong KT, Raub TJ, Thaisrivongs S. 1998. Factors impacting the delivery of therapeutic levels of pyrone-based HIV protease inhibitors. In: Borchardt RT, Freidinger RM, Sawyer TK, Smith PL editors. Integration of pharmaceutical discovery and development. New York: Plenum. p 211-232.
27. Artursson P, Palm K, Luthman K. 1996. Caco-2 monolayers in experimental and theoretical predictions of drug transport. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 22:67.
28. Palm K, Artursson P, Luthman K. 1997. Experimental and theoretical predictions of intestinal drug absorption. In: van de Waterbeemd H, Testa B, Folkers G, editors. Computer-assisted lead finding and optimization. Current tools for medicinal chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. p 278-289.
29. van de Waterbeemd H, Camenisch G, Folks G, Chretien J, Raevsky O. 1998. Estimation of blood-brain barrier crossing of drugs using molecular size and shape, and H-bonding descriptor. J Drug Target 6:151.
30. Gilman TM, Wu JQ, Rose J, Amidon GL, Woltosz WS, Bolger MB. 1998. Quantitative molecular permeability relationships (QMPR) for predicting human jejunal effective permeability of drugs by non-linear partial least squares regression. Pharm Sci Suppl 1:S-547.
31. Kulkarni AS, Hopfinger AJ. 1999. Membrane-interaction QSAR analysis: Application to the estimation of eye irritation by organic compounds. J Pharm Res 16:1245.
32. Wise M. Biochemistry in silico: Progress towards the simulation of metabolic pathways. Seminar at Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute, May 1999.
33. Meric PA, Wise MJ. Quantitative, scalable discrete-event simulation of metabolic pathways. Seventh International Conference on Intelligent Systems for Molecular Biology, Heidelberg, Germany, August 6-10, 1999. p 187-194.
34. Modern approaches for integrating ADME and toxicology evaluation into drug discovery. Conference Proceedings, Boston, MA, August 10-13, 1998.
35. Smith PL, Lee C-P, Elliott JD, Ohlstein EH, Fong K-L, Eddy EP, Ellens H, Dougherty P, Lago A, Nambi P. 1996. Structure/transport studies to identify an orally active nonpeptide endothelin receptor antagonist. Abstr Papers Am Chem Soc 211: 13.
36. Frick LW, Adkison KK, Wells-Knecht KJ, Woollard P, Higton DM. 1998. Cassette dosing: Rapid in vivo assessment of pharmacokinetics. Pharm Sci Technol Today 1:12.
37. Hamilton RA, Garnett WR, Kline BJ. 1981. Determination of mean valproic acid serum levels by assay of a single pooled sample. Clin Pharmacol Ther 29:408.
38. Atherton JP, Van Noord TJ, Sheng B. 1999. Sample pooling to enhance throughput of brain penetration study. J Pharm Biomed Anal 20:39.
39. Vonderfecht SL, Schemmer JK, Stone ML, Petrella DK, Vrbancic JP, Ulrich RG. 1996. Phospholipid accumulation in gallbladder epithelium: A unique response to a cationic amphiphilic drug. Toxicologist 30:84.
40. Chin JE, Hatfield CA, Winterrowd GE, Krzesicki RF, Shull KL, Fidler SF, Kolbasa KP, Brashler JR, Griffin RL, Fleming WE, Justen JM, Banitt LS, Bundy GL, Richards IM. 1999. Preclinical evaluation of anti-inflammatory activities of the novel pyrrolopyrimidine PNU-142731A, a potential treatment for asthma. J Pharm Exp Ther 290:188.
41. van Hoose M. 1997. FDA's vision of project management. In: Kaitin KI, Levy M, editors. Speed to market achieving breakthrough performance: Case studies in R & D management. Cambridge, MA: The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, p 25-35.