Drug research: Myths, hype and reality

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 2, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 665-668

  Kubinyi, Hugo ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALPHA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; ANALGESIC AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; IMATINIB; MORPHINE; NEUROLEPTIC AGENT; OLANZAPINE;

ARTICLE; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EXCRETION; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SPECIFICITY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; HUMAN; PHARMACOGENOMICS; PHARMACOPHORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SIDE EFFECT; CHEMISTRY; METHODOLOGY; NOTE; PHARMACEUTICS; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHARMACOLOGY; RESEARCH;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; HUMANS; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHARMACOLOGY; RESEARCH; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 0043069489     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd1156     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Horrobin, D. F. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 151-154 (2003).
2. Drews, J. Strategic trends in the drug industry. Drug Discov. Today 8, 411-420 (2003).
3. Hopkins, A. L. & Groom, C. R. The druggable genome. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 727-730 (2002).
4. Lahana, R. How many leads from HTS? Drug Discov. Today 4, 447-448 (1999).
5. Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo F., Dominy B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Del. Rev. 23, 3-25 (1997).
6. 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. 43, 3714-3717 (2000).
7. Cruciani, G., Pastor, M. & Guba, W. VolSurf: a new tool for the pharmacokinetic optimization of lead compounds. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 11 (Suppl. 2) S29-S39 (2000).
8. Kelder, J., Grootenhuis, P. D., Bayada, D. M., Delbressine, L. P. & Ploemen, J. P. Polar molecular surface as a dominating determinant for oral absorption and brain penetration of drugs. Pharm. Res. 16, 1514-1519(1999).
9. Bergström, C. A. S. et al. Absorption classification of oral drugs based on molecular surface properties. J. Med. Chem. 46, 558-570 (2003).
10. Veber, D. F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615-2623 (2002).
11. Wenlock, M. C., Austin, R. P., Barton, P., Davis, A. M. & Leeson, P. D. A comparison of physicochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1250-1256 (2003).
12. Prentis, R. A., Lis, Y. & Walker, S. R. Pharmaceutical innovation by the seven UK-owned pharmaceutical companies (1964-1985). Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 25, 387-396(1988).
13. Kennedy, T. Managing the drug discovery/ development interface. Drug Discov. Today 2, 436-444(1997).
14. van de Waterbeemd, H. & Gifford, E. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192-204 (2003).
15. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 235-249 (2000).
16. Ajay, A., Walters, W. P. & Murcko, M. A. Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'nondrug-like' molecules? J. Med. Chem. 41, 3314-3324 (1998).
17. Sadowski, J. & Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J. Med. Chem. 41, 3325-3329 (1998).
18. Teague, S. J., Davis, A. M., Leeson, P. D. & Oprea, T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38, 3743-3748 (1999).
19. Oprea, T. I., Davis, A. M., Teague, S. J. & Leeson, P. D. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1308-1316 (2001).
20. Proudfoot, J. R. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 12, 1647-1650 (2002).
21. Hann, M. M., Leach, A. R. & Harper, G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem, inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 856-864 (2001).
22. Carr, R. & Hann, M. The right road to drug discovery? Fragment-based screening casts doubt on the Lipinski route. Modern Drug Discov. April, 45-48 (2002)
23. Lommerse, J. P. M., Price, S. L. & Taylor, R. Hydrogen bonding of carbonyl, ether, and ester oxygen atoms with alkanol hydroxyl groups. J. Comput. Chem. 18, 757-774(1997).
24. Böhm, H.-J., Brode, S., Hesse, U. & Klebe, G. Oxygen and nitrogen in competitive situations: which is the hydrogen-bond acceptor? Chem. Eur. J. 2, 1509-1513 (1996).
25. Kubinyi, H. in Pharmacokinetic Optimization in Drug Research: Biological, Physicochemical, and Computational Strategies (eds Testa, B., van de Waterbeemd, H., Folkers, G. & Guy, R.) 513-524 (Helvetica Chimica Acts and Wiley-VCH, Zurich, 2001).
26. Sneader, W. Drug Prototypes and Their Exploitation. (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1996).
27. Wermuth, C. G. The Practice of Medicinal Chemistry. (Academic, London, 1996).
28. Watson, J. D. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. (Atheneum, New York, 1968).
29. Watson, J. D., with Berry, A. DNA. The Secret of Life, (William Heinemann, London, 2003).
30. Finding the flaws [online] (cited May 2003) http://www.phy.cam,ac.uk/camphy/dna/dna13_1.htm (2003).
31. A working model! [online] (cited May 2003) http://www.phy.cam.ac.uk/camphy/dna/dna14_1.htm (2003).