The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 881-890

  Leeson, Paul D ^a   Springthorpe, Brian ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENZODIAZEPINE DERIVATIVE; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DRUG; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; HISTAMINE H2 RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; MARAVIROC; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASE INHIBITOR; QUINOLINE DERIVED ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT;

ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG SYNTHESIS; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PATENT; PHARMACOPHORE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TOXICITY TESTING; TREND STUDY;

1-OCTANOL; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; WATER;

EID: 35748934487     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd2445     Document Type: Article

References (67)

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 Del. Rev. 23, 3-25 (1997).
2. Lipinski, C. A. Lead and drug-like compounds: The rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 1, 337-341 (2004).
3. Abraham, M. H., Chadha, H. S., Whiting, G. S. & Mitchell, R. C. Hydrogen bonding. 32. An analysis of water-octanol and water-alkane partitioning and the Δ log P parameter of Seiler. J. Pharm. Sci. 83, 1085-1100 (1994).
4. Wenlock, M. C., Austin, R. P., Barton, P., Davis, A. M. & Leeson, P. D. A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1250-1256 (2003).
5. Vieth, M. et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 224-232 (2004).
6. Proudfoot, J. R. The evolution of synthetic oral drug properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 1087-1090 (2005).
7. Hou, T. Wang, J., Zhang, W. & Xu, X. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 7. Prediction of oral absorption by correlation and classification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47. 208-218 (2007).
8. Linnankoski, J., Maekelae, J. M., Ranta, V.-P, Urtti, A. & Yliperttula, M. Computational prediction of oral drug absorption based on absorption rate constants in humans. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3674-3681 (2006).
9. Veber, D. F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615-2623 (2002).
10. Lu, J. J. et al. Influence of molecular flexibility and polar surface area metrics on oral bioavailability in the rat. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6104-6107 (2004).
11. Martin, Y. C. A bioavailability score. J. Med. Chem. 48, 3164-3170 (2005).
12. Hou, T., Wang, J., Zhang, W. & Xu, X. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 6. can oral bioavailability in humans be effectively predicted by simple molecular property based rules? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 460-463 (2007).
13. Morphy, R. The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds. J. Med. Chem. 49, 2969-2978 (2006).
14. Oprea, T. I. Current trends in lead discovery: Are we looking for the appropriate properties? J. Comp Aided Mol. Design 16, 325-334 (2002).
15. Vieth, M. & Sutherland, J. J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3451-3453 (2006).
16. Paolini, G. V. Shapland, R. H. B., van Hoorn, W. P., Mason, J. S. & Hopkins, A. L. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nature Biotech. 24, 805-815 (2006).
17. Leeson, P. D. & Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6338-6348 (2004).
18. Blake, J. F. Identification and evaluation of molecular properties related to preclinical optimization and clinical fate. Med. Chem. 1, 649-655 (2005).
19. Cheng, A. C. et al. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability. Nature Biotech. 25, 71-75 (2007).
20. Hajduk, P. J., Huth, J. R. & Fesik, S. W. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J. Med. Chem. 48, 2518-2525 (2005).
21. Booth, B. & Zemmel, R. Prospects for productivity. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 451-456 (2004).
22. van de Waterbeemd, H., Smith, D. A, Beaumont, K. & Walker. D. K. Property-based design: Optimization of drug absorption and pharmacokinetics. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1313-1333 (2001).
23. Hansch, C. Quantitative approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships. Acc. Chem. Res. 2, 232-9 (1969).
24. Tute, M. S. Principles and practice of Hansch analysis. Guide to structure-activity correlation for the medicinal chemist. Adv. Drug Res. 6, 1-77 (1971).
25. Kubinyi, H. Lipophilicity and biological activity. Drug transport and drug distribution in model systems and in biological systems. Arzn. Forsch. 29, 1067-1080 (1979).
26. Cronin, M. T. D. The role of hydrophobicity in toxicity prediction. Curr. Comp. Aided Drug Des. 2, 405-413 (2006).
27. Krejsa, C. M. et al. Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. (http://www.cerep.fr/cerep/users/pages/ collaborations/bioprint.asp). Curr. Opin. Drug Disc Dev. 6 470-480 (2003).
28. Rini, A. F., Loging, W. T., Thadeio, P. F. & Volkmann, R. A. Analysis of drug-induced effect patterns to link structure and side effects of medicines. Nature Chem. Biol. 1, 389-397 (2005).
29. Hopkins, A. L., Mason, J. S. & Overington, J. P. Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 127-136 (2006).
30. Morphy, R. & Rankovic, Z. The physicochemical challenges of designing multiple ligands. J. Med. Chem. 49, 4961-4970 (2006).
31. Price, D.A. et al. Overcoming HERG affinity in the discovery of the CCR5 antagonist maraviroc. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16, 4633-4637 (2006).
32. Cumming, J. G. et al. Modulators of the human CCR5 receptor. SAR of substituted 1-(3-(4- methanesulfonylphenyl)-3-phenylpropyl)-piperidinyl phenylacetamides. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16, 3533-3536 (2006).
33. Kim, D. et al. Potent 1,3,4-trisubstituted pyrrolidine CCR5 receptor antagonists: Effects of fused heterocycles on antiviral activity and pharmacokinetic properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 2129-2134 (2005).
34. Kazmierski, W. M. et al. CCR5 Antagonists as Therapeutic Agents. World Patent WO2004054974 (2004).
35. Waring, M. J. & Johnstone, C. A quantitative assessment of hERG liability as a function of lipophilicity. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 1759-1764 (2007).
36. Baciu, M. et al. Degradative transport of cationic amphiphilic drugs across phospholipid bilayers. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 364, 2597-2614 (2006).
37. Leach, A. R., Hann, M. M., Burrows, J. N. & Griffen, E. J. Fragment screening: An introduction. Mol. Biosyst. 2, 429-446 (2006).
38. Uetrecht, J. Prediction of a new drug's potential to cause idiosyncratic reactions. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Devel. 4, 55-59 (2001).
39. van de Waterbeemd, H. & Gifford, E. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192-204 (2003).
40. van de Waterbeemd, H. & Jones, B. C. Predicting oral absorption and bioavailability. Prog. Med. Chem. 41, 1-59 (2003).
41. Lobell, M. et al. In silico ADMET traffic lights as a tool for the prioritization of HTS hits. ChemMedChem 1, 1229-1236 (2006).
42. Wunberg, T. et al. Improving the hit-to-lead process: Data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discov. Today 11, 175-180 (2006).
43. Davis, A. M., Keeling, D. J., Steele, J., Tomkinson, N. P. & Tinker, A. C. Components of successful lead generation. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5, 421-439 (2005).
44. Steinmeyer, A. The hit-to-lead process and Schering AG: Strategic aspects. ChemMedChem 6, 1-7, (2005).
45. Bleicher, K. H., Nettekoven, M. Peters, J.-U. & Wyler, R. Lead generation: Sowing the seeds for future success. Chimia 58, 588-600 (2004).
46. Jacoby, E. et al. Key aspects of the Novartis Compound Collection Enhancement Project for the compilation of a comprehensive chemogenomics drug discovery screening collection. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5 397-411 (2005).
47. 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).
48. Makara, G. M. On sampling of fragment space. J. Med. Chem. 50 3214-3221 (2007).
49. 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. Comp. Sci. 41, 856-864 (2001).
50. 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. Comp. Sci. 41, 1308-1315 (2001).
51. Hopkins, A. L. & Polinsky, A. Knowledge and intelligence in drug design. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 41, 425-437 (2006).
52. Lombardino, J. G. & Lowe, J. A. A guide to drug discovery: The role of the medicinal chemist in drug discovery - then and now. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 853-862 (2004).
53. MacCoss, M. & Baillie, T. A. Organic chemistry in drug discovery. Science 303, 1810-1613 (2004).
54. Leeson P. D., Davis, A. M. & Steele, J. Drug-like properties: Guiding principles for design - or chemical prejudice? Drug Discov. Today Technol. 1, 189-195 (2004).
55. Ma, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry. reduce attrition rates? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-716 (2004).
56. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (FDA Orange Book). FDA web site [online], (2007).
57. Science Integrity®. ©Prous Science, a Thomson Scientific business; all rights reserved (2007).
58. Wood, A. Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry Volume 41 503-522 (Academic Press, Burlington, 2006).
59. American Chemical Society. Chemical Abstract Database (CAS): Scifinder. CAS web site [online]. (2007).
60. Merck Research Laboratories. The Merck Index. Cambridge Soft web site [online], (2007).
61. Gray, N. Changing Landscapes: A Special Report on the World's Top 50 Pharma Companies, Pharmaceutical Executive web site [online], (2006).
62. GVK Bio. GVK Bio databases. GVK Bio web site [online], (2007).
63. 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. 15, 3658-3664 (2005).
64. SAS Institute. JMP Statistical Software. SAS Institute web site [online]. (2007)
65. TIBCO Software Inc. Spotfire DecisionSite product suite. TIBCO, Software web site [online], (2007).
66. Azzaoui, K. et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem 2, 874-880 (2007).
67. Bender, A. et al. Analysis of pharmacology data and the prediction of adverse drug reactions and off-target effects from chemical structure. ChemMedChem 2, 861-813 (2007).