Selection criteria for drug-like compounds

Medicinal Research Reviews

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 302-321

  Muegge, Ingo ^a,b  

^a BAYER CORPORATION   (United States)

^b BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision tree; Diversity; Drug database; Library design; Neural network; Non drug

Indexed keywords

DRUG LIKE COMPOUND; LIGAND; NATURAL PRODUCT; NEW DRUG; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIOISOSTERE; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DATA BASE; DECISION THEORY; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG COMBINATION; DRUG DATABASE; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG INTERACTION; DRUG PENETRATION; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SOLUBILITY; DRUG SYNTHESIS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HYDROGEN BOND; LIBRARY DESIGN; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PARTITION COEFFICIENT; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHARMACOPHORE; PROTEIN INTERACTION; RECURSIVE PARTITIONING; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; STEREOCHEMISTRY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; SURFACE PROPERTY;

ALGORITHMS; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOLOGY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0037404468     PISSN: 01986325     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/med.10041     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Martin EJ, Critchlow RE. Beyond mere diversity: Tailoring combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Comb Chem 1999;1:32-45.
2. Barn D, Caulfield W, Cowley R, Dickins R, Bakker WI, McGuire R, Morphy JR, Rankovic Z, Thom M. Design and synthesis of a maximally diverse and drug like screening library using REM resin methodology. J Comb Chem 2001;3:534-541.
3. Lipinski CA. Drug-like properties and the cause of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2000;44:235-249.
4. Clark DE, Pickett SD. Computational methods for the prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Drug Discovery Today 2000;5:49-58.
5. Walters WP, Ajay, Murcko MA. Recognizing molecules with drug-like properties. Curr Opin Chem Biol 1999;3:384-387.
6. Walters WP, Murcko MA. Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Advanced Drug Deliv Rev 2002;54:255-271.
7. Wang J, Ramnarayan K. Toward designing drug-like libraries: A novel computational approach for prediction of drug feasibility of compounds. J Comb Chem 1999;1:524-533.
8. 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.
9. Martin YC. Challenges and prospects for computational aids to molecular diversity. Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design 1997;7/8:159-172.
10. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discovery Today 1998;3:160-178.
11. Martin EJ, Blaney JM, Siani MA, Spellmeyer DC, Wong AK, Moos WH. Measuring diversity: Experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Med Chem 1995;38:1431-1436.
12. Spencer RW. High-throughput screening of historic collections: Observations on file size, biological targets, and file diversity. Biotechnol Bioeng 1998;61:61-67.
13. Ekins S, Rose J. In silico ADME/Tox: The state of the art. J Mol Graph Model 2002;20:305-309.
14. Kelder J, Grootenhuis PDJ, Bayada DM, Delbressinc LPC, Ploemen JP. Polar molecular surface as a dominating determinant for oral absorption and brain penetration of drugs. Pharm Res 1999;16:1514-1519.
15. Egan WJ, Merz KM, Jr., Baldwin JJ. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J Med Chem 2000;43:3867-3877.
16. Clark DE. 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;8:807-814.
17. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews 1997;23:3-25.
18. Walters WP, Murcko MA. Library filtering systems and prediction of drug-like properties. Meth Principles Med Chem 2000;10:15-30.
19. Podlogar BL, Muegge I, Brice LJ. Computational methods to estimate drug development parameters. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery & Development 2001;4:102-109.
20. Matter H, Baringhaus KH, Naumann T, Klabunde T, Pirard B. Computational approaches towards the rational design of drug-like compound libraries. Comb Chem & High Throughput Screen 2001;4:453-475.
21. Muegge I. Pharmacophore features of potential drugs. Chem Eur J 2002;8:1976-1981.
22. Comprehensive Medical Chemistry is available from MDL Information Systems Inc., San Leandro, CA, 94577 and contains drugs already on the market.
23. World Drug Index is available from Derwent Information, London, UK. Website www.derwent.com
24. MACCS-II Drug Data Report is available from MDL Information Systems Inc., San Leandro, CA, 94577 and contains biologically active compounds in the early stages of drug development.
25. Oprea TI. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2000;14: 251-264.
26. The Available Chemicals Database (version 99.2) was provided by Mdl Information Systems, Inc., 1999.
27. 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 Comb Chem 1999;1:55-68.
28. 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.
29. Rishton GM. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov Today 1997;2:382-384.
30. National Toxicology Program. http://ntp-server.nichs.nih.gov
31. RTECS C2(96-4); National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 1996. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, D.C., URL: www.ccohs.ca
32. Klopman G, Rosenkranz HS. Approaches to SAR in carcinogenesis and mutagenesis. Prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity using MULTI-CASE. Mutat Res 1994;305:33-46.
33. Enslein K, Gombar VK, Blake BW. Use of SAR in cumputer-assisted prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program. Mutat Res 1994;305:47-61.
34. Lhasa Ltd., School of Chemistry, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. URL: www.chem.leeds.ac.uk/LUK/ derek/index.html
35. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996;39:2887-2893.
36. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. Properties of known drugs. 2. Side chains. J Med Chem 1999;42:5095-5099.
37. Wang J, Lai L, Tang Y. Structural features of toxic chemicals for specific toxicity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999;39:1173-1189.
38. Lewell XQ, Smith R. Drug-motif-based diverse monomer selection: Method and application in combinatorial chemistry. J Mol Graph Model 1997;15:43-48.
39. Sheridan RP. The most common chemical replacements in drug-like compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2002;42:103-108.
40. Muegge I, Brittelli D, Heald SL. Simple selection criteria for drug like chemical matter. J Med Chem 2001;44:1841-1846.
41. Top 200 drugs URL: http://www.destinationrx.com/learningcenter/topdrugs.asp?sort=rank
42. Ajay, Walters WP, Murcko MA. Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'nondrug-like' molecules? J Med Chem 1998;41:3314-3324.
43. Sadowski J, Kubinyi H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J Med Chem 1998;41:3325-3329.
44. Wagener M. vanGeerestein VJ. Potential drugs and nondrugs: Prediction and identification of important structural features. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40:280-292.
45. Viswanadhan VN, Ghose AK, Revankar GR, Robins RK. Atomic physicochemical parameters for three dimensional structure directed quantitative structure-activity relationships. 4. Additional parameters for hydrophobic and dispersive interactions and their application for an automated superposition of certain naturally occurring nucleoside antibiotics. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1989;29:163-172.
46. Frimurer TM, Bywater R, Naerum L, Lauritsen LN, Brunak S. Improving the odds in discriminating "drug-like" from "nondrug-like" compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40:1315-1324.
47. Ajay, Bemis GW, Murcko MA. Designing libraries with CNS activity. J Med Chem 1999;42:4942-4951.
48. Quinlan JR, C5.0, release 1.08a; Rule Quest Research Pty Ltd., St Ives, NSW, Australia. URL: http://www.rulequest.com
49. Hall LH, Kier LB. The molecular connectivity chi indexes and kappa shape indexes in structure-property modeling. In: Reviews in computational chemistry, Boyd DB, Lipkowitz KB, Editors, John Wiley, New York, 1991, p. 367-422 ff.
50. Quinlan JR. C4.5, Programs for machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann, 1993.
51. Brustle M, Beck B, Schindler T, King W, Mitchell T, Clark T. Descriptors, physical properties, and drug-likeness. J Med Chem 2002;45:3345-3355.
52. 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.
53. Borodina Y, Filimonov D, Poroikov V. Computer-aided prediction of receptor profile for drug-like compounds. SAR and QSAR in Environm Res 2002;13:433-443.
54. 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.
55. SPECS/BioSPECS Database, version 94.5. Brandon Associates, Merrimack, NH 03054.
56. Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, Oprea T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed 1999;38:3743-3748.
57. Andrews PR, Craik DJ, Martin JL. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 1984;27:1648-1657.
58. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., Mission Viejo, CA. URL: www.daylight.com
59. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J, Green D. Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimize diversity and physical properties. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Science 1999;39:169-177.
60. Zheng W, Hung ST, Saunders JT, Seibel GL. PICCOLO: A tool for combinatorial library design via multicriterion optimization. Pac Symp Biocomput 2000;588-599.
61. 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.
62. Henkel T, Brunne RM, Muller H, Reichel F. Statistical investigation into the structural complementarity of natural products and synthetic compounds. Angew Chem Int Ed 1999;38:643-647.
63. DNP: Dictionary of Natural Products on CD-Rom (Chapman & Hall), 78318 structures (June 1996).
64. BNPD: Bioactive natural product database, Szenzor Management Consulting Company, Budapest, Hungary (by Berdy), 29432 entries of natural products with described biological activity (July 1996).
65. Drugs in-house database of compounds in development, 14596 entries (July 1996).
66. Leach AR, Bradshaw J, Green DVS, Hann MM. Implementation of a system for reagent selection and library enumeration, profiling, and design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999;39:1161-1172.
67. 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.
68. SPRESI distributed by Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc., Mission Viejo, CA.
69. Galvez J, deJulian-Ortiz JV, Garcia-Domenech R. General topological patterns of known drugs. J Mol Graph Model. 2001;20:84-94.
70. Brunne RM, Hessler G, Muegge I. Virtual compound libraries and molecular modeling. In: Handbook of combinatorial chemistry, Nicolaou KC, Hanko R, and Hartwig W, Editors, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2002, p. 761-783 ff.
71. 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.
72. Muegge I, Enyedy I. Virtual Screening. in Burger's Medicinal Chemistry, 6th Edition, Vol. 1, Abraham D, Ed., Wiley, New York, 2003.
73. Proudfoot JR. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: An analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2002;12:1647-1650.