Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 255-263

  Hann, Mike M ^a   Oprea, Tudor I ^b  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

ACD; Available Chemicals Directory; HAC; HAM; HDO; high activity molecule; high throughput screening; HTS; hydrogen bond acceptors; hydrogen bond donors; MDDR; MDL Drug Data Report; number of rings; RNG; RO5; rotatable bonds; RTB; rule of fives; VTR

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE; CHELATING AGENT; CIMETIDINE; CYTOCHROME P450; FELODIPINE; HYDROXAMIC ACID DERIVATIVE; ISOENZYME; PHOSPHATE; PHOSPHONIC ACID DERIVATIVE; RANITIDINE; THIOL DERIVATIVE;

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HYDROGEN BOND; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PERMEABILITY; PLASMA PROTEIN BINDING; REVIEW; SOLUBILITY; VIRTUAL REALITY; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

CARBOXYLIC ACIDS; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RESEARCH;

EID: 2942564021     PISSN: 13675931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2004.04.003     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Drews J. Innovation deficit revisited: reflections on the productivity of pharmaceutical R&D. Drug Discov Today. 3:1998;491-494
2. Drews J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science. 287:2000;1960-1964
3. Horrobin D.F. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. J R Soc Med. 93:2000;341-345
4. Sneader W: Drug prototypes and their exploitation. Chichester: Wiley, 1996.
5. DeStevens G. Serendipity and structured research in drug discovery. Prog Drug Res. 30:1986;189-203
6. 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. 41:2001;856-864
7. 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. 41:2001;1308-1315
8. Oprea TI: Cheminformatics and the quest for leads in drug discovery. In Handbook of Cheminformatics vol. 4. Edited by Gasteiger J, Engel T. New York: VCH-Wiley; 2003:1508-1531.
9. Brown F. Cheminformatics: what is it and how does it impact drug discovery. Annu Rep Med Chem. 33:1998;375-384
10. Horrobin D.F. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2:2003;151-154 The author questions the relevance of modern pharmaceutical research, by contrasting the lack of congruence between in vitro and in vivo models, and the diminishing interest in good clinical research.
11. 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 Deliv Rev. 23:1997;3-25
12. Boyd DB: Progress in the rational design of therapeutically interesting compounds. In Rational Molecular Design in Drug Research. Edited by Liljefors T, Jorgensen FS, Krogsgaard-Larsen P. Copenhagen: MUNKSGAARD; 1998:15-29.
13. Oprea T.I. Lead structure searching: are we looking at the appropriate property? J Comput Aided Mol Des. 16:2002;325-334
14. Machin P: Designing drugs - where next? In EuroQSAR 2002 - Designing Drugs and Crop Protectants: Processes, Problems and Solutions. Edited by Ford M, Livingstone D, Dearden J, Van de Waterbeemd H. New York: Blackwell Publishing; 2003:1-4.
15. Oprea TI, Li J, Muresan S, Mattes KC: High throughput and virtual screening: choosing the appropriate leads. In EuroQSAR 2002 - Designing Drugs and Crop Protectants: Processes, Problems and Solutions. Edited by Ford M, Livingstone D, Dearden J, Van de Waterbeemd H. New York: Blackwell Publishing; 2003:40-47.
16. Rishton G. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov Today. 8:2003;86-96 Excellent contrast between the druglike and the leadlike concepts.
17. McGovern S.L., Caselli E., Grigorieff N., Shoichet B.K. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J Med Chem. 45:2002;1712-1722 This paper proves experimentally that some compounds active in HTS assays aggregate, forming particles 20-400 nm in diameter. These aggregates may, in turn, act as enzyme inhibitors.
18. Roche O., Schneider P., Zuegge J., Guba W., Kansy M., Alanine A., Bleicher K., Danel F., Gutknecht E.M., Rogers-Evans M., et al. Development of a virtual screening method for identification of 'frequent hitters' in compound libraries. J Med Chem. 45:2002;137-142 This paper evaluates frequent hitters using chemoinformatics tools.
19. Fogel P., Collette P., Dupront A., Garyantes T., Guedin D. The confirmation rate of primary hits: A predictive model. J Biomol Screen. 7:2002;175-190
20. Bohacek R.S., Martin C., Guida W.C. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med Res Rev. 16:1996;3-50
21. The ChemNavigator homepage on http://www.chemnavigator.com
22. According to the PhRMA: (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) website on http://www.phrma.org/issues/researchdev/
23. Weininger D: Combinatorics of small molecular structures. In Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry, Vol. 1. Edited by Von Ragué Schleyer P. New York: Wiley; 1998:425-430.
24. De Laet A., Hehenkamp J.J.J., Wife R.L. Finding drug candidates in virtual and lost/emerging chemistry. J Heterocycl Chem. 37:2000;669-674
25. Ajay, Walters WP, Murcko MA: Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'nondrug-like' molecules?. J Med Chem 1998, 41:3314-3324.
26. Sadowski J., Kubinyi H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J Med Chem. 41:1998;3325-3329
27. WDI: the Derwent World Drug Index, is available from Daylight Chemical Information Systems at http://www.daylight.com
28. MDDR and ACD are available from MDL Information Systems: http://www.mdli.com/products/finders/database_finder/index.jsp. MDDR is developed in cooperation with Prous Science Publishers at http://www.prous.com/ index.html
29. Wagener M., Van Geerenstein V.J. Potential drugs and nondrugs: prediction and identification of important structural features. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 40:2000;280-292
30. Frimurer T.M., Bywater R., Naerum L., Lauritsen L.N., Brunak S. Improving the odds in discriminating "druglike" from "nondruglike" compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 40:2000;1315-1324
31. Brüstle M., Beck B., Schindler T., King W., Mitchell T., Clark T. Descriptors, physical properties and drug-likeness. J Med Chem. 45:2002;3345-3355 The discrimination scheme distinguishes compounds assigned to WDI (drugs) or Maybridge (nondrugs), using principal component analysis. The emerging Kohonen (neural net) map appears to discriminate between drugs and hormones as well.
32. Oprea T.I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 14:2000;251-264
33. Vieth M., Siegel M.G., Higgs R.E., Watson I.A., Robertson D.H., Savin K.A., Durst G.L., Hipskind P.A. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J Med Chem. 47:2004;224-232 The most exhaustive analysis on the properties of orally available drugs carried to date, this study also includes comparative analyses with prior publications.
34. Teague S.J., Davis A.M., Leeson P.D., Oprea T.I. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 38:1999;3743-3748
35. Proudfoot J.R. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 12:2002;1647-1650 This account is a clear illustration of the 'innovation deficit', showing that only 11 drugs launched in 2000 are actually innovative structures.
36. Davis A.M., Teague S.J., Kleywegt G.J. Application and limitations of X-ray crystallographic data in structure-based ligand and drug design. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 42:2003;2718-2736 Pitfalls in atomic models derived from X-ray crystallography can influence structure-based design and virtual screening. Screening libraries based on small, polar templates (leadlike) and their use in virtual and HTS illustrate the complementarity between the two approaches.
37. •].
38. Lipinski C.A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods. 44:2000;235-249
39. Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2:2003;665-668 One of the few papers that points out a common myth from drug discovery analysts: poor pharmacokinetic properties are no longer the main cause of attrition in drug discovery.
40. The WOMBAT: (World of Molecular BioAcTivity) database, is available from Sunset Molecular Discovery at http://www.sunsetmolecular.com
41. oct from structures. Chem Rev. 5:1993;1281-1306
42. Kuntz I.D., Chen K., Sharp K.A., Kollman P.A. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 96:1999;9997-10002
43. Oprea T.I. Virtual screening in lead discovery: a viewpoint. Molecules. 7:2002;51-62
44. Pan Y., Huang N., Cho S., MacKerell A.D. Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 43:2003;267-272
45. Oprea TI, Bologa C, Olah M: Compound selection for virtual screening. In Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery. Edited by Alvarez JC, Shoichet B. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2004:in press.
46. Carr R., Jhoti H. Structure-based screening of low-affinity compounds. Drug Discov Today. 7:2002;522-527
47. Milburn MV: Drug discovery on a proteomic scale. Abstracts of Papers, 224th ACS National Meeting, Boston, MA, USA, August 18-22, 2002, COMP-042.
48. Moore J., Abdlu-Manan N., Fejzo J., Jacobs M., Lepre C., Peng J., Xie X. Leveraging structural approaches: applications of NMR-based screening and X-ray crystallography for inhibitor design. J Synchrotron Radiat. 11:2004;97-100
49. Hann MM, Leach AR, Green DVS: Computational chemistry, molecular complexity and screening set design. In Cheminformatics in Drug Discovery Edited by Oprea TI. New York: Wiley-VCH: 2004:in press.
50. Leach A.R., Green D.V.S., Hann M.M., Judd D.B., Good A.C. Where are the GaPs? A rational approach to monomer acquisition and selection. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 40:2000;1262-1269
51. Congreve M., Carr R., Murray C., Jhoti H. A 'Rule of Three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov Today. 8:2003;876-877
52. Fattori D. Molecular recognition: the fragment approach in lead generation. Drug Discov Today. 9:2004;229-238 The fragment approach, which has conceptually evolved from leadlikeness, is discussed in the context of molecular recognition and medicinal chemistry experience.
53. Tronde A., Norden B., Marchner H., Wendel A.K., Lennernaes H., Hultkvist Bengtsson U. Pulmonary absorption rate and bioavailability of drugs in vivo in rats: structure-absorption relationships and physicochemical profiling of inhaled drugs. J Pharm Sci. 92:2003;1216-1233 Theoretical and experimental studies show the property profile of drugs delivered via inhalation therapy - a significant market for the pharmaceutical sector.
54. Harper G., Pickett S.D., Green D.V.S. Design of a compound screening collection for use in high-throughput screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 7:2004;63-70