Assessing drug-likeness - what are we missing?

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 13, Issue 7-8, 2008, Pages 285-294

  Vistoli, Giulio ^a   Pedretti, Alessandro ^a   Testa, Bernard ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^b LAUSANNE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACETYLCHOLINE; ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; AMINOPHENAZONE; AMOBARBITAL; ATENOLOL; ATROPINE; CHLORPHENIRAMINE; DRUG; EPHEDRINE; INDOMETACIN; KETOPROFEN; KETOROLAC; LIDOCAINE; METOPROLOL; OXPRENOLOL; PIROXICAM; PROPRANOLOL;

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG CONFORMATION; DRUG DISPOSITION; DRUG INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOLECULE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOKINETICS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 41549115075     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.11.007     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Hopkins A.L., and Groom C.R. The druggable genome. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1 (2002) 727-730
2. Lipinski C., and Hopkins A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 432 (2004) 855-861
3. Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2 (2003) 665-668
4. Cheng A.C., et al. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability. Nat. Biotechnol. 25 (2007) 71-75
5. Dawkins R. The Selfish Gene (1989), Oxford University Press
6. Leeson P.D., and Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6 (2007) 881-890
7. Testa B., et al. Musings on ADME predictions and structure-activity relations. Chem. Biodivers. 2 (2005) 1411-1427
8. Ettmayer P., et al. Lessons learned from marketed and investigational prodrugs. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 2393-2404
9. Testa B. Prodrug research: futile or fertile?. Biochem. Pharmacol. 68 (2004) 2097-2106
10. Testa B. Prodrug objectives and design. In: Testa B., van de Waterbeemd H., Taylor J.B., and Triggle D.J. (Eds). ADME-Tox Approaches, Vol. 5 Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II (2007), Elsevier 1009-1041
11. Feher M., and Schmidt J.M. Property distribution: differences between drugs, natural products, and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003) 218-227
12. Ajay A., et al. Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? J. Med. Chem. 41 (1998) 3314-3324
13. Sadowski J., and Kubinyi H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J. Med. Chem. 41 (1998) 3325-3329
14. Hutter M.C. Separating drugs from nondrugs: a statistical approach using atom pair distribution. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 47 (2007) 186-194
15. Good A.C., and Hermsmeier M.A. Measuring CAMD technique performance. 2. How "druglike" are drugs? Implications of random test set selection exemplified using druglikeness classification models. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 47 (2007) 110-114
16. Lipinski C.A., et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23 (1997) 3-25
17. Wu C.Y., and Benet L.Z. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/elimination interplay and development of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Pharm. Res. 22 (2005) 11-23
18. Hann M.M., et al. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001) 856-864
19. Oprea T.I., et al. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001) 1308-1315
20. Oprea T.I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties?. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Design 16 (2002) 325-334
21. Veber D.F., et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45 (2002) 2615-2623
22. Hann M.M., and Oprea T.I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8 (2004) 255-263
23. Lajiness M.S., et al. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 7 (2004) 470-477
24. Vieth M., et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 224-232
25. Leeson P.D., and Davis A.M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 63386348
26. Refsgaard H.H.F., et al. In silico prediction of membrane permeability from calculated molecular parameters. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 805-811
27. Keller T.H., et al. A pactical view of "druggability". Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 10 (2006) 357-361
28. Morphy R. The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 2969-2978
29. Vieth M., and Sutherland J.J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 3451-3453
30. Lobell M., et al. In silico ADMET traffic lights as a tool for the prioritization of HTS hits. ChemMedChem 1 (2006) 1229-1236
31. Martin Y.C. A bioavailability score. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 3164-3170
32. Vistoli G., et al. The solute-solvent system: solvent constraints on the conformational dynamics of acetylcholine. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124 (2002) 7472-7480
33. Vistoli G., et al. Solvent constraints on the property space of acetylcholine. I. Isotropic solvents. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 1759-1767
34. Vistoli G., et al. Solvent constraints on the property space of acetylcholine. II. Ordered media. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 6926-6935
35. Vistoli G., et al. The conformational and property space of acetylcholine bound to muscarinic receptors: an entropy component accounts for the subtype selectivity of acetylcholine. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 464 (2007) 112-121
36. Pedretti A., et al. Muscarinic receptors: a comparative analysis of structural features and binding modes through homology modelling and molecular docking. Chem. Biodiver. 3 (2006) 481-501
37. Gaillard P., et al. Molecular lipophilicity potential, a tool in 3D-QSAR. Method and applications. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Design 8 (1994) 83-96
38. Carrupt P.A., et al. Computational approaches to lipophilicity: methods and applications. Rev. Comput. Chem. 11 (1997) 241-315
39. Pedretti A., Villa L., and Vistoli G. VEGA: a versatile program to convert, handle and visualize molecular structure on windows-based PCs. J. Mol. Graph 21 (2002) 47-49
40. Vistoli G., et al. Range and sensitivity as descriptors of molecular property spaces in dynamic QSAR analyses. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 4947-4952
41. Avdeef A. Absorption and Drug Development. Solubility, Permeability and Charge State (2003), Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken
42. Carrupt P.A., et al. Morphine 6-glucuronide and morphine 3-glucuronide as molecular chameleons with unexpected lipophilicity. J. Med. Chem. 34 (1991) 1272-1275
43. Magnusson B.M., et al. Molecular size as the main determinant of solute maximum flux across the skin. J. Invest. Dermatol. 122 (2004) 993-999
44. Geinoz S., et al. Quantitative structure-permeation relationships (QSPeRs) to predict skin permeation: a critical evaluation. Pharm. Res. 21 (2004) 83-92
45. Rey S., et al. Development of molecular hydrogen bonding potentials (MHBPs) and their application to structure-permeation relations. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Design 19 (2001) 521-535