A practical view of 'druggability'

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 357-361

  Keller, Thomas H ^a   Pichota, Arkadius ^a   Yin, Zheng ^a  

^a Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases (NITD)   (Singapore)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEAD; PROTEIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG INDUSTRY; EVOLUTION; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; GUIDELINES; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROTEINS;

EID: 33746071900     PISSN: 13675931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2006.06.014     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Kola I., and Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3 (2004) 711-715. An excellent review of industry attrition rates over the years. The authors discuss possible causes and remedies. Interestingly, the impact of druggability on these attrition rates is not discussed.
2. Lipinski C.A. Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov Today: Technologies 1 (2004) 337-341. A recent summary of Lipinski's druggability work. The analysis is easily accessible and should give scientist a nice entry to the subject.
3. Sugiyama Y. Druggability: selecting optimized drug candidates. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 1577-1579
4. Sirois S., Hatzakis G., Wei D., Du Q., and Chou K.C. Assessment of chemical libraries for their druggability. Comput Biol Chem 29 (2005) 55-67
5. Hopkins A.L., and Groom C.R. The druggable genome. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1 (2002) 727-730. This paper defined and used the term "protein druggability" for the first time. It is easy to read and provides an essential basis to understand the various aspects of protein druggability.
6. Lipinski C.A., Lombardo F., Dominy B.W., and Feeney P.J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 46 (2001) 3-26
7. Veber D.F., Johnson S.R., Cheng H.Y., Smith B.R., Ward K.W., and Kopple K.D. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability or drugs. J Med Chem 45 (2002) 2615-2623
8. Fichert T., Yazdanian M., and Proudfoot J.R. A structure-permeability study of small drug-like molecules. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 13 (2003) 719-722
9. Wenlock M.C., Austin R.P., Barton P., Davis A.M., and Leeson P.D. A comparison of physicochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J Med Chem 46 (2003) 1250-1256
10. Muegge I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med Res Rev 23 (2003) 302-321
11. Vieth M., Siegel M.G., Higgs R.E., Watson I.A., Robertson D.A., Savin K.A., Durst G.L., and Hipskind P.A. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed drugs. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 224-232
12. Lajiness M., Vieth M., and Erickson J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 7 (2004) 470-477
13. Clardy J., and Walsh C. Lessons from natural molecules. Nature 432 (2004) 829-837
14. Feher M., and Schmidt J.M. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43 (2003) 218-227
15. Oprea T.I. Current trend in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties?. Mol Divers 5 (2002) 199-208
16. Rishton G.M. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov Today 8 (2003) 86-96
17. ••] arguments about protein druggability.
18. Schuffenhauer A., Ruedisser S., Marzinzik A.L., Jahnke W., Blommers M., Selzer P., and Jacoby E. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr Top Med Chem 5 (2005) 751-762
19. Carr R.A.E., Congreve M., Murray C.W., and Rees D.C. Fragment-based lead discovery: leads by design. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 987-992
20. Gould Rothberg B.E., Peña C.E.A., and Rothberg J.M. A systems biology approach to target identification and validation for human chronic disease drug discovery. In: Knäblein J. (Ed). Modern Biopharmaceuticals 1 (2005), Wiley-VCH Verlag 99-125
21. Russ A.P., and Lampel S. The druggable genome: an update. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 1607-1610
22. Orth A.P., Batalov S., Perrone M., and Chanda S.K. The promise of genomics to identify novel therapeutic targets. Expert Opin Ther Targets 8 (2004) 587-596
23. Lipinski C., and Hopkins A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 432 (2004) 855-861. Interesting examination of chemical space and the chances of finding small molecules to modulate biological targets. The authors discuss the strategic differences between the use of compounds as biological tools and compound as drugs.
24. Hopkins A.L., and Groom C.R. Target analysis: a priory assessment of druggability. Ernst Schering Res Found Workshop 42 (2003) 11-17
25. Erbel P., Schiering N., D'Arcy A., Renatus M., Kroemer M., Lim S.P., Yin Z., Keller T.H., Vasudevan S.G., and Hommel U. Structural basis for the activation of flaviviral NS3 proteases from dengue and west Nile virus. Nat Struct Mol Biol (2006)
26. Hajduk P.J., Huth J.R., and Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 1675-1682. This review discusses the determination of druggability-indices by NMR and their application for the computational assessment of proteins with experimental 3D structures. It is easier to read than the rather original, technical publication by the same authors [30].
27. Kellenberger E., Muller P., Schalon C., Bret G., Foata N., and Rognan D. Sc-PDB: an annotated database of druggable binding sites from the protein data bank. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 717-727
28. An J., Totrov M., and Abagyan R. Comprehensive identification of druggable protein ligand binding sites. Genome Inform Ser Workshop Genome Inform 15 (2004) 31-41
29. Darvas F., Dorman G., Puskas L.G., Bucsai A., and Urge L. Chemical genomics for fast and integrated target identification and lead optimization. Med Chem Res 13 (2004) 643-659
30. Lipinski C.A. Filtering in drug discovery. Ann Rep Comp Chem 1 (2005) 155-168
31. Hajduk P.J., Huth J.R., and Fesik S.W. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J Med Chem 48 (2005) 2518-2525. Excellent, rather technical, publication about the experimental determination of druggability by NMR. The authors develop druggability indices that can be used for the de novo assessment of proteins.
32. Brown S.P., and Hajduk P.J. Effect of conformational dynamics on predicted protein druggability. Chem Med Chem 1 (2006) 70-72
33. Hillisch A., Pineda L.F., and Hilgenfeld R. Utility of homology models in the drug discovery process. Drug Discov Today 9 (2004) 659-669
34. Kairys V., Fernandes M.X., and Gilson M.K. Screening drug-like compounds by docking to homology models: a systematic study. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 365-379
35. Haberman A.B. Strategies to move beyond target validation. Genet Eng News 25 (2005) 36
36. Betz U.A.K. How many genomic targets can a portfolio afford?. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 1057-1063
37. Arkin M.R., and Wells J.A. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: progressing towards a dream. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3 (2004) 301-317
38. Horspool K.R., and Lipinski C.A. Advancing new drug delivery concepts to gain the lead. Drug Delivery Tech 3 (2003) 34-46
39. Vajda S., and Guarnieri F. Characterization of protein-ligand interaction sites using experimental and computational methods. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev 9 (2006) 354-362