Progress in computational methods for the prediction of ADMET properties

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 382-390

  Clark, David E ^a   Grootenhuis, Peter D J ^b  

^a Argenta Discovery Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^b Deltagen Research Laboratories   (United States)

Author keywords

ADMET; Blood brain barrier; Drug likeness; Metabolism; Permeability; Prediction; Solubility; Toxicity

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME P450; HUMAN SERUM ALBUMIN;

ACTIVE TRANSPORT; ANIMAL CELL; BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; CELL STRAIN CACO 2; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG PENETRATION; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SOLUBILITY; ENZYME ACTIVITY; HUMAN; HUMAN CELL; INTESTINE MUCOSA PERMEABILITY; MUTAGENICITY; NONHUMAN; PREDICTION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; TOXICITY TESTING;

ABSORPTION; ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG TOXICITY; FORECASTING; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOKINETICS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 0036589825     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (96)

1. Mitchell T, Showell G: Design strategies for building drug-like chemical libraries. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2001) 4:314-318.
2. Podlogar BL, Muegge I, Brice LJ: Computational methods to estimate drug development parameters. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2001) 4:102-109.
3. Ekins S, Waller CL, Swaan PW, Cruciani G, Wrighton SA, Wikel JH: Progress in predicting human ADME parameters in silico. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods (2000) 44:251-272. A historical perspective on the development of ADME prediction methods. Although the volume is dated 2000, it actually appeared in 2001.
4. van de Waterbeemd H, Smith DA, Beaumont K, Walker DK: Property-based design: Optimization of drug absorption and pharmacokinetics. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1313-1333. Highly informative perspective on the consideration of ADMET properties in medicinal chemistry.
5. Matter H, Baringhaus K-H, Naumann T, Klabunde T, Pirard B: Computational approaches towards the rational design of drug-like compound libraries. Comb Chem HTS (2001) 4:453-475. Thorough review of in silico ADMET, including metabolic stability and toxicity.
6. Clark DE: Prediction of intestinal absorption and blood- brain barrier penetration by computational methods. Comb Chem HTS (2001) 4:477-496. Another detailed review, focusing on prediction of drug-likeness, intestinal absorption and blood-brain barrier penetration.
7. Wessel MD, Mente S: ADME by computer. Annu Rep Med Chem (2001) 36:257-266.
8. Podlogar BL, Muegge I: "Holistic" in silico methods to estimate the systemic and CNS bioavailabilities of potential chemotherapeutic agents. Curr Top Med Chem (2001) 1:257-275.
9. Ekins S, Rose J: In silico ADME/Tox: The state of the art. J Mol Graph Model (2002) 20:305-309.
10. Selick HE, Beresford AP, Tarbit MH: The emerging importance of predictive ADME simulation in drug discovery. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7:109-116.
11. Muegge I, Heald S, Brittelli D: Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1841-1846.
12. Frimurer TM, Bywater R, Noerum L, Lauritsen LN, Brunak S: Improving the odds in discriminating "drug-like" from "non drug-like" compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:1315-1324.
13. Anzali S, Bamickel G, Cezanne B, Krug M, Filimonov D, Poroikov V: Discriminating between drugs and nondrugs by prediction of activity spectra for substances (PASS). J Med Chem (2001) 44:2432-2437.
14. Sadowski J, Kubinyi H: A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and non-drugs. J Med Chem (1998) 41:3325-3329.
15. Roche O, Schneider P, Zuegge, J, Guba W, Kansy M, Alanine A, Bleicher K, Danel F, Gutknecht E-M, Rogers-Evans M, Neidhart W, Stalder H, Dillon M, Sjögren E, Fotouhi N, Gillespie P, Goodnow R, Harris W, Jones P, Taniguchi M, Tsujii S, von der Saal W, Zimmerman G, Schneider G: Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries. J Med Chem (2002) 45:137-142.
16. Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, Oprea T: The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chemie Int Ed (1999) 38:3743-3748. The seminal paper in the lead-like versus drug-like debate.
17. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD: Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1308-1315. The sequel to reference [16••] using an expanded dataset to justify the original conclusions.
18. Hann MM, Leach AR, 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. A fascinating exploration of the effect of molecular complexity on early drug discovery. The authors conclude that there is much to be gained from using molecules of low complexity in lead discovery.
19. Zhao YH, Le J, Abraham MH, Hersey A, Eddershaw PJ, Luscombe CN, Boutina D, Beck G, Sherborne B, Cooper I, Platts JA: Evaluation of human intestinal absorption data and subsequent derivation of a quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) with the Abraham descriptors. J Pharm Sci (2001) 90:749-784. The data presented in this paper represent a mammoth amount of literature searching and assessment, and should provide an invaluable impetus to the development of further models for absorption prediction by other groups using different computational methods.
20. Stenberg P, Norinder U, Luthman K, Artursson P: Experimental and computational screening models for the prediction of intestinal drug absorption. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1927-1937. The paper describes a novel molecular surface area-based descriptor for modeling intestinal permeability data.
21. Ekins S, Durst GL, Stratford RE, Thomer DA, Lewis R, Loncharich RJ, Wikel JH: Three-dimensional quantitative structure-permeability relationship analysis for a series of inhibitors of rhinovirus replication. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1578-1586.
22. Österberg T, Norinder U: Prediction of polar surface area and drug transport processes using simple parameters and PLS statistics. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:1408-1411.
23. Norinder, U Österberg T: Theoretical calculation and prediction of drug transport processes using simple parameters and partial least squares projection to latent structures (PLS) statistics. The use of electrotopological state indices. J Pharm Sci (2001) 90:1076-1085.
24. Österberg T, Norinder U: Prediction of drug transport processes using simple parameters and PLS statistics. The use of ACD/logP and ACD/ChemSketch descriptors. Eur J Pharm Sci (2001) 12:327-337.
25. Cheng A, Diller DJ, Dixon SL, Egan WJ, Lauri G, Merz Jr KM: Computation of the physio-chemical properties and data mining of large molecular collections. J Comput Chem (2002) 23:172-183.
26. Rey S, Caron G, Ermondi G, Gaillard P, Pagliara A, Carrupt P-A, Testa B: Development of molecular hydrogen-bonding potentials and their application to structure-permeation relations. J Mol Graph Model (2001) 19:521-535.
27. Goodwin JT, Conradi RA, Ho NFH, Burton PS: Physicochemical determinants of passive membrane permeability: Role of solute hydrogen-bonding potential and volume. J Med Chem (2001) 44:3721-3729.
28. Grass GM, Sinko PJ: Effect of diverse datasets on the predictive capability of ADME models in drug discovery. Drug Disc Today (2001) 6(12 Suppl):S54-S61.
29. Platts JA, Abraham MH, Zhao, YH, Hersey A, Ijaz, L, Butina D: Correlation and prediction of a large blood-brain barrier distribution data set - an LFER study. Eur J Med Chem (2001) 36:719-730. Excellent paper with an up-to-date review and discussion of previously published models for BBB penetration. The model derived by the authors indicates that size strongly enhances brain uptake, while polarity/polarizability, hydrogen-bond acidity, basicity and the presence of carboxylate groups reduce brain penetration. A list of structures (SMILES strings) and logBB values is available upon request from the authors.
30. Keserü GM, Molnár L: High-throughput prediction of blood-brain partitioning: A thermodynamic approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:120-128.
31. Liu R, Sun H, So S.-S: Development of quantitative structure-property relationship models for early ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 2. Blood-brain barrier penetration. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1623-1632.
32. Kaznessis YN, Snow ME, Blankley CJ: Prediction of blood- brain partitioning using Monte Carlo simulations of molecules in water. J Comput-Aided Mol Des (2001) 15:697-708.
33. Lipinski C: Avoiding investment in doomed drugs. Is poor solubility an industry wide problem? Curr Drug Disc (2001):17- 19.
34. Huuskonen J: Estimation of aqueous solubility in drug design. Comb Chem HTS (2001) 4:311-316.
35. Ran Y, Yalkowsky SH. Prediction of drug solubility by the general solubility equation (GSE). J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:354-357.
36. Peterson DL, Yalkowsky SH: Comparison of two methods for predicting aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1531-1534.
37. Ran Y, Jain N, Yalkowsky SH: Prediction of aqueous solubility of organic compounds by the general solubility equation (GSE). J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1208-1217.
38. Klopman G, Zhu H: Estimation of the aqueous solubility of organic molecules by the group contribution approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:439-445.
39. Jorgensen WL, Duffy EM: Prediction of drug solubility from Monte Carlo simulations. Bioorg Med Chem Lett (2000) 10:1155-1158.
40. Huuskonen J: Estimation of aqueous solubility for a diverse set of organic compounds based on molecular topology. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:773-777.
41. Kier LB, Hall LH (Eds): Molecular Structure Description: The Electrotopological State. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA (1999).
42. Tetko IV, Yu V, Kasheva TN, Villa AEP: Estimation of aqueous solubility of chemical compounds using E-state indices. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1488-1493.
43. Huuskonen J: Estimation of water solubility from atom-type electrotopological state indices. Environ Tox Chem (2001) 20:491-497.
44. Yalkowsky SH, Banerjee S (Eds): Aqueous Solubility: Methods of Estimation for Organic Compounds. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY, USA (1992).
45. Huuskonen J, Rantanen J, Livingstone D: Prediction of aqueous solubility for a diverse set of organic compounds based on atom-type electrotopological state indices. Eur J Med Chem (2000) 35:1081-1088.
46. Livingstone DJ, Ford MG, Huuskonen JJ, Salt DW: Simultaneous prediction of aqueous solubility and octanol/water partition coefficient based on descriptors derived from molecular structure. J Comput-Aided Mol Des (2001) 15:741-752.
47. McElroy NR, Jurs PC: Prediction of aqueous solubility of heteroatom-containing organic compounds from molecular structure. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1237-1247.
48. Bruneau P: Search for predictive generic model of aqueous solubility using Bayesian neural nets. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1605-1616.
49. Yaffe D, Cohen Y, Espinosa G, Arenas A, Giralt F: A fuzzy ARTMAP based on quantitative structure-property relationships (QSPRs) for predicting aqueous solubility of organic compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1177-1207. This paper contains many experimental and calculated data on 515 compounds. There are extensive comparisons with other methods.
50. Liu R, So SS: Development of quantitative structure- property relationship models for early ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 1. Aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1633-1639.
51. Klamt A, Eckert F, Homig M, Beck ME, Bürger T: Prediction of aqueous solubility of drugs and pesticides with COSMO-RS. J Comput Chem (2002) 23:275-281.
52. McFarland JW, Avdeef A, Berger CM, Raevsky OA: Estimating the water solubilities of crystalline compounds from their chemical structure alone. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1355-1359.
53. Wiese M, Pajeva IK: Structure-activity relationships of multidrug resistance reversers. Curr Med Chem (2001) 8:685-713.
54. Bakken GA, Jurs PC: Classification of multidrug-resistance reversal agents using structure-based descriptors and linear discriminant analysis. J Med Chem (2000) 43:4534-4541.
55. Chang G, Roth CB: Structure of MsbA from E coli: A homolog of the multidrug resistance ATP binding cassette (ABC) transporters. Science (2001) 293:1793-1800.
56. Tateoka R, Abe H, Miyauchi S, Shuto S, Matsuda A, Kobayashi M, Miyazaki K, Kamo N: Significance of substrate hydrophobicity for recognition by an oligopeptide transporter (PEPT1). Bioconjug Chem (2001) 12:485-492.
57. +/peptide cotransporter PEPT2 using novel amino acid and dipeptide derivatives. Mol Pharmacol (2002) 61:214-221.
58. Olson RE, Christ DD: Plasma protein binding of drugs. Annu Rep Med Chem (1996) 31:327-336.
59. van de Waterbeemd H, Smith DA, Jones BC: Lipophilicity in PK design: Methyl, ethyl, futile. J Comput-Aided Mol Des (2001) 15:273-286. Excellent survey of the influence of lipophilicity on a host of pharmacokinetic parameters.
60. Saiakhov RD, Stefan LR, Klopman G: Multiple computer- automated structure evaluation model of the plasma protein binding affinity of diverse drugs. Perspect Drug Disc Des (2000) 19:133-155.
61. Colmenarejo G, Alvarez-Pedraglio A, Lavandera J-L: Cheminformatic models to predict binding affinities to human serum albumin. J Med Chem (2001) 44:4370-4378. This paper contains a useful dataset of 95 compounds with binding constants to human serum albumin determined in a consistent manner.
62. Astex Technology Ltd: Astex solves first structure of a human cytochrome P450, a key enzyme in drug metabolism and toxicity. Company Press Release (2001) 17 December. http://www.astex-technology.com/one/29_21.html The first report of an experimental structure of a human cytochrome P450.
63. Ekins S, de Groot MJ, Jones JP: Pharmacophore and three- dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship methods for modeling cytochrome P450 active sites. Drug Metab Dispos (2001) 29:936-944. A thorough review of ligand-based approaches to modeling P450 active sites and predicting metabolism by these enzymes.
64. Vermeulen NPE, de Groot MJ, Meerman JHN, Venhorst J: Modeling the active sites of cytochrome P450s, one of the most important biotransformation enzymes. Spec Publ R Soc Chem (2001) 264:374-397. Detailed review of both ligand-based and structure-based approaches to CYP450 active site modeling.
65. Keserü GM: A virtual high throughput screen for high affinity cytochrome P450cam substrates. Implications for in silico prediction of drug metabolism. J Comput-Aided Mol Des (2001) 15:649-657.
66. Molnár L, Keserü GM: A neural network based virtual screening of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett (2002) 12:419-421.
67. Ridderström M, Zamora I, Fjellström O, Andersson TB: Analysis of selective regions in the active sites of human cytochromes P450, 2C8, 2C9, 2C18, and 2C19 homology models using GRID/CPCA. J Med Chem (2001) 44:4072-4081.
68. Afzelius L, Zamora I, Ridderström M, Andersson TB; Karlén A, Masimirembwa CM: Competitive CYP2C9 inhibitors: Enzyme inhibition studies, protein homology modeling, and three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. Mol Pharmacol (2001) 59:909-919. This paper reports on a 3-D QSAR model for CYP2C9 inhibition that is able to predict all the compounds in an external test set to within 0.5 log units of the experimental K, value.
69. Poso A, Gynther J, Juvonen R: A comparative molecular field analysis of cytochrome P450 2A5 and 2A6 inhibitors. J Comput-Aided Mol Des (2001) 15:195-202.
70. Wang Q, Halpert JR: Combined three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis of cytochrome P450 2B6 substrates and protein homology modeling. Drug Metab Dispos (2002) 30:86-95.
71. Kuhn B, Jacobsen W, Christians U, Benet LZ, Kollman PA: Metabolism of sirolimus and its derivative everolimus by cytochrome P450 3A4: Insights from docking, molecular dynamics and quantum chemical calculations. J Med Chem (2001) 44:2027-2034.
72. Cavalli A, Recantini M: Looking for selectivity among cytochrome P450s inhibitors. J Med Chem (2002) 45:251-254.
73. Durham SK, Pearl GM: Computational methods to predict drug safety liabilities. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2001) 4:110-115. A thorough review of computational methods for toxicity prediction, including an assessment of the relative strengths and weakness of commercially available systems for this purpose.
74. Barratt MD, Rodford RA: The computational prediction of toxicity. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2001) 5:383-388. Review of toxicity predictions for different toxicity endpoints, highlighting the need for the creation of new datasets.
75. Pearl GM, Livingston-Carr S, Durham SK: Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. Curr Top Med Chem (2001) 1:247-255.
76. Chen YZ, Ung CY: Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-protein inverse docking approach. J Mol Graph Model (2001) 20:199-218.
77. Prival MJ: Evaluation of the TOPKAT system for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals. Environ Mol Mutagen (2001) 37:55-69.
78. Lewis DFV: COMPACT: A structural approach to the modeling of cytochromes P450 and their interactions with xenobiotics. J Chem Technol Biotechnol (2001) 76:237-244.
79. Young SS, Gombar VK, Emptage MR, Cariello NF, Lambert C: Mixture deconvolution and analysis of Ames mutagenicity data. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst (2002) 60:5-11. This paper describes application of recursive partitioning to a large, heterogeneous dataset. The Ames data are available from the authors.
80. Rosenkranz HS, Cunningham AR: Chemical categories for health hazard identification: A feasibility study. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol (2001) 33:313-318.
81. Gottmann E, Kramer S, Pfahringer B, Helma C: Data quality in predictive toxicology: Reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environ Health Perspect (2001) 109:509-514.
82. Technology. Camitro Corporation, Menlo Park, CA, USA. http://www.camitro.com/technology.htm
83. Absolve. Sirius Analytical Instruments Ltd, East Sussex, UK. http://www.sirius-analytical.com/absolv.htm
84. iDEA. Lion Biosciences AG, Heidelberg, Germany. http://www.lionbioscience.com/solutions/idea
85. METEOR. LHASA Ltd, Leeds, UK. http://www.chem.leeds. ac.uk/luk/meteor/
86. QikProp. Schrodinger Inc, Portland, OR, USA. http://www. schrodinger.com/Products/qikprop.html
87. QMPRPlus. Simulations Plus Inc, Lancaster, CA, USA. http://www.simulations-plus.com/products/qmpr_plus.html
88. ACD/solubility DB. Advanced Chemistry Development Inc, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. http://www.acdlabs.com/products/ phys_chem.lab/aqsol/
89. VolSurf. Tripos Inc, St Louis, MO, USA. http://www. tripos.com/software/volsurf.html
90. Sietsema WK: The absolute oral bioavailability of selected drugs. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol (1989) 27:179-211.
91. Yoshida F, Topliss JG: QSAR model for drug human oral bioavailability. J Med Chem (2000) 43:2575-2585.
92. Klopman G, Shi LM, Ramu A: Quantitative structure-activity relationship of multidrug resistance reversal agents. Mol Pharmacol (1997) 52:323-334.
93. Vožeh S, Schmidlin O, Taeschner W: Pharmacokinetic drug data. Clin Pharmacokin (1988) 15:254-282.
94. Hardman JG, Limbird LE (Eds): Appendix II. In: Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, 9th Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA (1995):1707-1792.
95. Protein Structure Prediction Center, Livermore, CA, USA. http://predictioncenter.llnl.gov/
96. Ewing TJA, Patel PI, Tieu H, Korzekwa KR: Predicting metabolic stability of drug molecules. US-20010044699 (2001).