Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 540-549

  Egan, William J ^a   Walters, W Patrick ^a   Murcko, Mark A ^a  

^a VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

Author keywords

ADME; ADMET; Drug design; Drug like; Drug likeness; Lead optimization; QSAR

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DRUG DESIGN; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; MOLECULAR RECOGNITION; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; ANIMAL; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PHARMACEUTICS;

DRUG;

ANIMALS; HUMANS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 0036654725     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (75)

1. DiMasi JA: Risks in new drug development: Approval success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther (2001) 69:297-307. A comprehensive survey of success rates for NCEs in clinical trials during 1981 to 1992.
2. Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, Oprea T: The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed (1999) 38:3743-3748.
3. 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. A discussion of the differences between leads and drugs which concluded that historical leads were less complex and drug-like.
4. 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 simple ligand-receptor model is used to show that as systems become more complex, the probability of a useful interaction decreases.
5. Proudfoot JR: Drugs, lead, and drug-likeness: An analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett (2002) 12:1647-1650. A survey of leads for drugs launched in 2000 shows that these leads were extremely drug-like.
6. Tukey JW: The future of data analysis. Ann Math Stat (1962) 33:1-67.
7. Navia MA, Chaturvedi PR: Design principles for orally bioavailable drugs. Drug Disc Today (1996) 1:179-189.
8. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ: Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (1997) 23:3-25. A very popular method for assessing solubility, permeability and drug-likeness is described.
9. Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN, Wendoloski JJ: A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative characterization of known drug databases. J Combinatorial Chem (1999) 1:55-68.
10. MDL Information Systems Inc, San Leandro, CA, USA. www.mdli.com
11. Oprea TI: Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2000) 14:251-264.
12. Patent fast-alert: Current Drugs Ltd, London, UK. http://www.current-drugs.com/PRODUCTS/iddb/idpf.htm
13. Physicians' Desk Reference®: Thompson Medical Economics, Montvale, NJ, USA. http://www.pdrel.com/
14. Tounge BA, Pfahler LB, Reynolds CH: Chemical information based scaling of molecular descriptors: A universal chemical scale for library design and analysis. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42: in press.
15. van de Waterbeemd H: Intestinal permeability: Prediction from theory. In: Oral Drug Absorption: Prediction and Assessment. Dressman JB, Lennemäs H (Eds), Marcel Dekker Inc, NY, USA (2000):31-50.
16. Sakaeda T, Okamura N, Nagata S, Yagami T, Honnouchi M, Okumura K, Yamashita F, Hashida M: Molecular and pharmacokinetic properties of 222 commercially available oral drugs in humans. Biol Pharm Bull (2001) 24:935-940.
17. van de Waterbeemd HA, Smith DA, Jones BC: Lipophilicity in PK design: Methyl, ethyl, futile. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2001) 15:273-286. A useful discussion of the utility of lipophilicity in drug design.
18. 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. A very good perspective article on absorption and pharmacokinetics.
19. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD: Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem (2002) 45:2615-2623. A detailed study showing the effects of rotatable bonds on rat oral bioavailability, which was independent of molecular weight.
20. Ertl P, Rohde B, Selzer P: Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. J Med Chem (2000) 43:3714-3717.
21. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc, Mission Viejo, CA, USA. www.daylight.com
22. Egan WJ, Merz KM Jr, Baldwin JJ: Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J Med Chem (2000) 43:3867-3877.
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 Inf Comput Sci (1996) 36:750-763.
24. SPECS and BioSPECS BV, Rijswijk, the Netherlands. http://www.specs.net
25. Oprea TI, Gottfries J: Chemography: The art of navigating in chemical space. J Combinatorial Chem (2001) 3:157-166. An interesting proposal for defining chemical space.
26. Oprea TI, Zamora I, Ungell AL: Pharmacokinetically based mapping device for chemical space navigation. J Combinatorial Chem (2002) in press.
27. VolSurf: Tripos Inc, St Louis, MO, USA. http://www.tripos.com/software/volsurf.html
28. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J: Identification of biological activity profiles using substructural analysis and genetic algorithms. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1998) 38:165-179.
29. Derwent Information, London, UK. www.derwent.com
30. InfoChem GmbH, München, Germany. http://www.infochem.de/
31. Gálvez J, de Julián-Ortiz JV, García-Domenech R: General topological patterns of known drugs. J Molecular Graphics Modeling (2002) 20:84-94.
32. O'Neil MJ, Smith A, Heckelman PE, Budavar S (Eds): The Merck Index. Merck Research Laboratories, Division of Merck & Co Ltd, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA (2001).
33. Ajay A, Walters WP, Murcko MA: Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? J Med Chem (1998) 41:3314-3324. Describes the use of a Bayesian neural network to classify drugs versus non-drugs.
34. Wagener M, van Geerestein VJ: Potential drugs and nondrugs: Prediction and identification of important structural features. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:280-292.
35. Sadowski J, Kubinyi H: A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and non-drugs. J Med Chem (1998) 41:3325-3329.
36. Frimurer TM, Bywater R, Naerum 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.
37. CONCORD: Tripos Inc, St Louis, MO, USA. http://www.tripos.com/software/concord.html
38. Roche O, Schneider P, Zuegge J, Guba W, Kansy M, Alanine A, Bleicher K, Danel F, Gutknecht EM, 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, Zimmermann G, Schneider G: Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "Frequent Hitters" in compound libraries. J Med Chem (2002) 45:137-142. A computational screen for non-specific screening hits.
39. McGovern SL, Caselli E, Grigorieff N, Shoichet BK: A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J Med Chem (2002) 45:1712-1722. The authors demonstrated that aggregate formation appears to explain the non-specific activity of many promiscuous screening hits.
40. Bemis GW, Murcko MA: The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem (1996) 39:2887-2893. An analysis of the scaffolds found in know drugs. The authors identified 32 scaffolds which describe 50% of the drugs in the CMC database.
41. Bemis GW, Murcko MA: Properties of known drugs. 2. Side chains. J Med Chem (1999) 42:5095-5099. An analysis of the side chains found in known drugs. The authors identified 20 side chains which describe 73% of the drugs in the CMC database.
42. Lewell XQ, Smith R: Drug-motif-based diverse monomer selection: Method and application in combinatorial chemistry. J Molecular Graphics Modeling (1997) 15:43-48.
43. Lewell XQ, Judd DB, Watson SP, Hann MM: RECAP-retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: A powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1998) 38:511-522.
44. BIOSTER: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.accelrys.com/chem_db/bioster.html
45. Schuffenhauer A, Gillet VJ, Willett P: Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: Analysis of the BIOSTER database using two-dimensional fingerprints and molecular field descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:295-307.
46. Sheridan RP: The most common chemical replacements in drug-like compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42:103-108. The use of drug databases to develop and automate methods for identifying isosteric replacements are described.
47. Lee M-L, Schneider G: Scaffold architecture and pharmacophoric properties of natural products and trade drugs: Application in the design of natural product-based combinatorial libraries. J Combinatorial Chem (2001) 3:284-289. A comparison of a library of natural products with a collection of marketed drugs.
48. BioscreenNP: InterBioscreen Ltd, Moscow, Russia.
49. Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, Schmid G: "Scaffold-Hopping" by topological pharmacophore search: A contribution to virtual screening. Angew Chem Int Ed (1999) 38:2894-2896.
50. Leach AR, Bradshaw J, Green DVS, Hann MM, Delany JJ III: Implementation of a system for reagent selection and library enumeration, profiling, and design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39:1161-1172.
51. Rishton GM: Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Disc Today (1997) 2:382-384.
52. Hann M, Hudson B, Lewell X, Lifely R, Miller L, Ramsden N: Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39:897-902.
53. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA: Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Disc Today (1998) 3:160-178.
54. Muegge I, Heald SL, Brittelli D: Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1841-1846.
55. Bravi G, Green DVS, Hann MM, Leach AR: PLUMS: A program for the rapid optimization of focused libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:1441-1448.
56. Brown RD, Martin YC: Designing combinatorial library mixtures using a genetic algorithm. J Med Chem (1997) 40:2304-2313.
57. Zheng W, Cho SJ, Tropsha A: Rational combinatorial library design. 1. Focus-2D: A new approach to the design of targeted combinatorial chemical libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1998) 38:251-258.
58. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J, Green DVS: Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimize diversity and physical properties. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39:169-177.
59. Rassokhin DN, Agrafiotis DK: Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic and its application in library design. J Molecular Graphics Modeling (2000) 18:368-382. A novel method for comparing the distribution of a set of properties from a chemical library with the same distribution from a drug database using a non-parametric statistical technique.
60. Zheng W, Hung ST, Saunders JT, Seibel GL: PICCOLO: A tool for combinatorial library design via multicriterion optimization. Pacific Symp Biocomput (2000):588-599.
61. Brown RD, Hassan M, Waldman M: Combinatorial library design for diversity, cost efficiency, and drug-like character. J Molecular Graphics Modeling (2000) 18:427-437.
62. Pickett SD, McLay IM, Clark DE: Enhancing the hit-to-lead properties of lead optimization libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:263-272.
63. McKenna JM, Halley F, Souness JE, McLay IM, Pickett SD, Collis AJ, Page K, Ahmed I: An algorithm-directed two-component library synthesized via solid-phase methodology yielding potent and orally bioavailable p38 MAP kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem (2002) 45:2173-2184. Impressive results in the application of optimization to the design of lead compounds.
64. Gillet VJ, Khatib W, Willett P, Fleming PJ, Green DVS: Combinatorial library design using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42:375-385. A novel method for balancing multiple objectives during the design of a combinatorial library.
65. Fonesca CM, Fleming PJ: Genetic algorithms for multiobjective optimization: Formulation, discussion and generalization. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Forrest S (Ed), Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA (1993):416-423.
66. Xu J, Stevenson J: Drug-like index: A new approach to measure drug-like compounds and their diversity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:1177-1187.
67. Wang J, Ramnarayan K: Toward designing drug-like libraries: A novel computational approach for prediction of drug feasibility of compounds. J Combinatorial Chem (1999) 1:524-533.
68. Sheridan RP, Singh SB, Fluder EM, Kearsley SK: Protocols for bridging the peptide to non-peptide gap in topological similarity searches. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1395-1406.
69. Hull RD, Singh SB, Nachbar RB, Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK, Fluder EM: Latent semantic structure indexing (LaSSI) for defining chemical similarity. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1177-1184. This paper introduces an interesting similarity measure for database searching.
70. Hull RD, Singh SB, Nachbar RB, Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK, Fluder EM: Chemical similarity searches using latent semantic structural indexing (LaSSI) and comparison to TOPOSIM. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1185-1191.
71. Singh SB, Sheridan RP, Fluder EM, Hull RD: Mining the chemical quarry with joint chemical probes: An application of latent semantic structure indexing (LaSSI) and TOPOSIM (Dice) to chemical database mining. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1564-1575.
72. Dixon SL, Merz KM Jr: One-dimensional molecular representations and similarity calculations: Methodology and validation. J Med Chem (2001) 44:3795-3809. A novel method for reducing 3D or 2D molecular information to one dimension for similarity searching.
73. 2: Accelrys Inc, San Diego, CA, USA. http://www.accelrys.com/cerius2/3DKeys.html
74. Clark DE, Grootenhuis PDJ: Progress in computational methods for the prediction of ADMET properties. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5:382-390.
75. Czerminski R, Yasd A, Hartsough D: Use of support vector machine in pattern classification: Application to QSAR studies. Quant Struct-Act Relat (2001) 20:227-240. A good introduction to Support Vector Machines.