Design of diversity and focused combinatorial libraries in drug discovery

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 318-324

  Young, S Stanley ^a   Ge, Nanxiang ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES   (United States)

^b SANOFI   (France)

Author keywords

Cell based; Combinatorial chemistry; Distance based; Diversity library design; Exchange algorithm; Focused library design; Genetic algorithm; Monomer based; Product based; Robust design; Simulated annealing

Indexed keywords

MONOMER;

CHEMICAL REACTION; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; COMBINATORIAL LIBRARY; DRUG RESEARCH; MEDICAL LITERATURE; REVIEW; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; METHODOLOGY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; DRUG DESIGN; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 4043074225     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Cronin MT: Computational methods for the prediction of drug toxicity. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2000) 3(3):292-297.
2. Kolb HC, Finn MG, Sharpless KB: Click chemistry: Diverse chemical function from a few good reactions. Angew Chem Int Ed (2001) 40(11):2004-2021 This study contrasts dramatically to that of reference [13•]: fast, simple chemistry versus complex chemistry to produce complex molecules is discussed.
3. Carlson R: Design and Optimization in Organic Synthesis. Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands (1992). This book is recommended reading for those who are interested in a systematic approach to reaction optimization. However, there is relatively little literature validating this approach for parallel synthesis.
4. Carlson R, Carlson J, Greenberg A: A novel approach for screening discrete variations in organic synthesis. J Chemometrics (2001) 15(5):455-474. This paper describes a novel strategy for the design of a sequence of reactions aimed at finding optimal reaction conditions. Benchmarking of the method is needed.
5. Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN (Eds): Combinatorial Library Design and Evaluation. Principles, Software Tools, and Applications in Drug Discovery. Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY, USA (2001).
6. Nair VN: Taguchl's parameter design: A panel discussion. Technometrics (1992) 34(2):127-161.
7. Cawse JN (Ed): Experimental Design for Combinatorial and High Throughput Materials Development. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2003).
8. Wu CF, Hamada M: Experiments: Planning, Analysis and Parameter Design Optimization. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, USA (2000).
9. Rusinko A 3rd, Young SS, Drewry DH, Gerritz SW: Optimization of focused chemical libraries using recursive partitioning. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen (2002) 5(2):125-133.
10. Ge N, Cho S, Hermsmeier M, Poss M, Shen CF: Testing non-additivity of biological activity in a combinatorial library. Comb Chem High Throughput Screening (2002) 5(2):147-154.
11. Charles J Manly Discovery Technologies: Neurogen Corporation, Branford, CT, USA. http://www.neurogen.com/mgt.htm
12. Manly CJ, Louise-May S, Hammer JD: The impact of informatics and computational chemistry on synthesis and screening. Drug Disc Today (2001) 6(21):1101-1110. A short cycle time for synthesis and screening (fast screening, model prediction and synthesis) provides an alternative to massive screening for exploring chemical space.
13. Schreiber SL: Target-oriented and diversity-oriented organic synthesis in drug discovery. Science (2000) 287(5460):1964-1969. This paper advocates dependable reactions, in contrast to reference [2•], which supports reactions leading to complex products.
14. Hann M, Hudson B, Lewell X, Lifely R, Miller L, Ramsden N: Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39(5):897-902. A useful list of reagent filters is given.
15. Leach AR, Gillet VJ (Eds): An Introduction to Chemoinformatics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands (2003).
16. Young SS, Wang M, Gu F: Design of diverse and focused combinatorial libraries using an alternating algorithm. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(6):1916-1921.
17. Linusson A, Gottfries J, Lindgren F, Wold S: Statistical molecular design of building blocks for combinatorial chemistry. J Med Chem (2000) 43(7):1320-1328. This paper, along with reference [18•], is a counter-weight to product-based design.
18. Andrews KM, Cramer RD: Toward general methods of targeted library design: Topomer shape similarity searching with diverse structures as queries. J Med Chem (2000) 43(9):1723-1740. This paper, along with reference [17•], is a counter-weight to product-based design.
19. Rose S: Statistical design and application to combinatorial chemistry. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(2):133-138.
20. Feng J, Lurati L, Ouyang H, Robinson T, Wang Y, Yuan S, Young SS: Predictive toxicology: Benchmarking molecular descriptors and statistical methods. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(5):1463-1470.
21. Brown RD, Martin YC: Use of structure-activity data to compare structure-based clustering method and descriptor for use in compound selection. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1996) 36(3):572-583.
22. Carhart RE, Smith DH, Ventkataraghavan R: Atom pairs as molecular features In structure-activity studies: Definition and application. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1985) 25(2):64-73. Atom pairs are effective and interpretable, and contrast to more opaque descriptors such as topological indices and BCUTs.
23. Evensen E, Eksterowtoz JE, Stanton RV, Oshiro C, Grootenhuis PD, Bradley EK: Comparing performance of computational tools for combinatorial library design. J Med Chem (2003) 46(24):5125-5128.
24. Lam RL, Welch WJ: Molecular diversity and similarity in the design and analysis of drug-discovery data. In: Chemoinformatics: Methods and Protocols. Bajorath J (Ed), The Humana Press Inc, Totowa, NJ, USA (2004): in press. This work, along with reference [25•], indicates that intelligent designs offer little, if any, gain over random designs for statistical model building. This conclusion would follow if the relatively few compounds we build were far apart in the vastness of chemical space.
25. Young SS, Hawkins DM: Using recursive partitioning analysis to evaluate compound selection methods. In: Chemoinformatics: Methods and Protocols. Bajorath J (Ed), The Humana Press Inc, Totowa, NJ, USA (2004): in press. This work, along with reference [24•], indicates that intelligent designs offer little, if any, gain over random designs for statistical model building. This conclusion would follow if the relatively few compounds we build were far apart in the vastness of chemical space.
26. Stanton DT: Evaluation and use of BCUT descriptors in QSAR and QSPR studies. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39(1):11-20. This study provides empirical validation of a relatively low dimension, 5D or 6D, chemical space.
27. Austel V: A manual method for systematic drug design. Eur J Med Cnem (1982) 17(1):9-16. This paper is of historical interest and points directly to the approaches reported in references [17•] and [18•], and reagent-based library design.
28. Menard PR, Mason JS, Morize I, Bauerschmidt S: Chemistry space metrics in diversity analysis, library design, and compound selection. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1998) 38(3):1204-1213.
29. Beno BR, Mason JS: The design of combinatorial libraries using properties and 3D pharmacophore fingerprints. Drug Disc Today (2001) 6(5):251-258.
30. Stanton RV, Mount J, Miller JL: Combinatorial library design: Maximizing model-fitting compounds within matrix synthesis constraints. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40(3):701-705.
31. Bravi G, Green DV, Hann MM, Leach AR: PLUMS: A program for the rapid optimisation of focused libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40(6):1441-1448.
32. OpenEye Scientific Software, Philadelphia, PA, USA. http://www. eyesopen.com/
33. Cronin MT: Computational methods for the prediction of drug toxicity. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2000) 3(3):292-297.
34. Lam RL, Welch WJ, Young SS: Uniform coverage designs for molecule selection. Technometrics (2002) 44:99-109. As it is impossible to densely cover a high-dimensional space, a cell-based design is used to cover low-dimensional projections of the high-dimensional space.
35. Drewry D, Young SS: Approaches to the design of combinatorial libraries. Chemometrics Intel Lab Systems (1999) 48(1):1-20.
36. Rose S, Stevens A: Computational design strategies for combinatorial libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(3):331-339. An excellent review of the statistical/theoretical aspects of library design.
37. Shedden K, Brumer J, Chang TY, Rosania GR: Chemoinformatic analysis of a supertargeted combinatorial library of styryl molecules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(6):2068-2080.