The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2006, Pages 2969-2978

  Morphy, Richard ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CARRIER PROTEIN; CELL NUCLEUS RECEPTOR; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; INTEGRIN RECEPTOR; ION CHANNEL; LIGAND; MONOAMINE; MONOAMINE TRANSPORTER; OPIATE AGONIST; OPIATE ANTAGONIST; OPIATE RECEPTOR; OXIDOREDUCTASE; PHOSPHODIESTERASE; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASE; PROTEINASE; RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; TRANSFERASE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

AGONIST; ARTICLE; DATA BASE; DRUG BINDING; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG SELECTIVITY; DRUG TARGETING; HYDROGEN BOND; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; LIGAND BINDING; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY;

CARRIER PROTEINS; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; ESTERASES; HYDROGEN BONDING; INTEGRINS; ION CHANNELS; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; OXIDOREDUCTASES; PEPTIDE HYDROLASES; PEPTIDES; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROTEINS; RECEPTORS, CYTOPLASMIC AND NUCLEAR; RECEPTORS, G-PROTEIN-COUPLED; TRANSFERASES;

EID: 33646715920     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm0512185     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. 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 Delivery Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
2. Teague, S. J.; Davis, A. M.; Leeson, P. D.; Oprea, T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 3743-3747.
3. 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. 2001, 41, 856-864.
4. 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. 2003, 46, 1250-1256.
5. Leeson, P. D.; Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6338-6348.
6. 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. 2004, 47, 224-232.
7. Kelder, J., Grootenhuis, P. D. J., Bayada, D. M., Delbressine, L. P. C., Ploemen, J.-P. Polar molecular surface as a dominating determinant for oral absorption and brain penetration of drugs. Pharm. Res. 1999, 16, 1514-1519.
8. Definitions of the methods used for calculating the numbers of hydrogen bonding groups and rotatable bonds are provided as Supporting Information.
9. Blake, J. F. Examination of the computed molecular properties of compounds selected for clinical development. BioTechniques 2003, 34, S16-S20.
10. 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. Scu. 2001, 41, 1308-1315.
11. The Mann-Whitney point differences in the medians and the p values for the comparisons between target families are provided as Supporting Information.
12. Veber, D. F.; Johnson, S. R.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Smith, B. R.; Ward, K. W.; Kopple, K. D. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2615-2623.
13. There was a strong correlation (Pearson coefficient >0.8) between MW and RB and between PSA and HBA. The least correlated and most independent properties were cLogP and HBD. A table of Pearson coefficients of correlation for all 6 properties is provided in the Supporting Information.
14. Black, J. Drugs from emasculated hormones: the principle of syntopic antagonism. Science 1989, 245, 486-493
15. Beeley, N. R. A. Can peptides be mimicked? Drug Discovery Today 2000, 5, 354-363.
16. Beaumont, K.; Schmid, E.; Smith, D. A. Oral delivery of G protein-coupled receptor modulators: An explanation for the observed class difference. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15, 3658-3664.
17. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods. 2000, 44, 235-249.
18. Klabunde, T.; Hessler, G. Drug design strategies for targeting G-protein-coupled receptors. ChemBioChem 2002, 3, 928-944.
19. Mirzadegan, T.; Diehl, F.; Ebi, B.; Bhakta, S.; Polsky, I.; McCarley, D.; Mulkins, M.; Weatherhead, G.S.; Lapierre J. M.; Dankwardt J.; Morgans D.; Wilhelm R.; Jarnagin K. Identification of the binding site for a novel class of CCR2b chemokine receptor antagonists: binding to a common chemokine receptor motif within the helical bundle. J Biol Chem. 2000, 275, 25562-25571.
20. Bondensgaard, K.; Ankersen, M.; Thogersen, H.; Hansen, B. S.; Wulff, B. S.; Bywater, R. P. Recognition of privileged structures by G-protein coupled receptors. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 888-899.
21. Lajiness, M. S.; Vieth, M.; Erickson, J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2004, 7, 470-477.
22. Congreve, M.; Carr, R.; Murray, C.; Jhoti, H. A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discovery Today 2003, 8, 876-877.