The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 203-212

  Keserü, György M ^a   Makara, Gergely M ^b  

^a Discovery Chemistry   (Hungary)

^b MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BETA SECRETASE; LEAD; MITOGEN ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE P38; THIOPHENE DERIVATIVE;

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; DATA BASE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SOLUBILITY; DRUG SYNTHESIS; DRUG TARGETING; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HYDROPHOBICITY; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG INDUSTRY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 61649109015     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd2796     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Carney, S. How can we avoid the productivity gap? Drug Discov. Today 10, 1011-1013 (2005).
2. Goodnow, R. A. & Gillespie, P. in Progress in Medicinal Chemistry Vol. 45 Ch. 1 (eds King, F. D. & Lawton, G.) 1-61 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006).
3. Keseru, G. M. & Makara, G. M. Hit discovery and hit-to-lead approaches. Drug Discov. Today 11, 741-748 (2006).
4. 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).
5. Deprez, B. & Deprez-Poulain R. Trends in hit-to-lead: An update. Front. Med. Chem. 3, 653-673 (2006).
6. CMR International. Drug Discovery Performance Metrics Programme. CMR International web site [online], http://www.cmr.org/ddpmp.asp (2004).
7. Edwards, R. A., Zhang, K. & Firth, L. Benchmarking chemistry functions within pharmaceutical drug discovery and preclinical development. Drug Discov. World 67-71 (2002).
8. CMR International. Drug Discovery Performance Metrics Programme, CMR International. CMR International web site [online], http://www.cmr.org/ddpmp.asp (2005).
9. Proudfoot, J. R. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: An analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 12, 1647-1650 (2002).
10. 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. 41, 856-864 (2001).
11. Hann, M. M. & Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 255-263 (2004).
12. 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, 3-25 (1997).
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. Leeson, P. D. & Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881-890 (2007).
15. Fox, S. et al. High throughput screening: Update on practices and success. J. Biomol. Screen. 11, 864-869 (2006).
16. Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S., Sopchak, L., Boggs, A. & Comley, J. High throughput screening: Searching for higher productivity. J. Biomol. Screen. 9, 354-358 (2004).
17. Parker, C. N. & Bajorath, J. Towards unified compound screening strategies: A critical evaluation of error sources in experimental and virtual high-throughput screening. QSAR Comb. Sci. 25, 1153-1161 (2006).
18. Macarron, R. Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 11, 277-279 (2006).
19. Harper, G., Pickett, S. D. & Green, D. V. S. Design of a compound screening collection for use in high throughput screening. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 7, 63-70 (2004).
20. Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S. & Yund, M. A. High throughput screening for drug discovery: Continually transitioning into new technology. J. Biomol. Screen. 4, 183-186 (1999).
21. Inglese, J. et al. Quantitative high-throughput screening: A titration-based approach that efficiently identifies biological activities in large chemical libraries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 31, 11473-11478 (2006).
22. Crisman, T. J. et al. "Plate Cherry Picking": A novel semi-sequential screening paradigm for cheaper, faster, information-rich compound selection. J. Biomol. Screen. 12, 320-327 (2007).
23. Di, L. & Kerns, E. H. Biological assay challenges from compound solubility: Strategies for bioassay optimization. Drug Discov. Today 11, 447-451 (2006).
24. Andrews, P. R., Craik D. J. & Martin, J. L. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27 1648-1657 (1984).
25. Veber, D. F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615-2623 (2002).
26. Congreve, M., Carr, R., Murray, C. & Jhoti, H. A 'Rule of Three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today 8, 876-877 (2003).
27. Hopkins, A. L., Groom, C. R. & Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: A useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430-431 (2004).
28. Makara, G. M. & Athanasopoulos, J. Improving success rates for lead generation using affinity binding technologies. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 16, 666-673 (2005).
29. Golebiowski, A., Klopfenstein, S. R. & Portlockz D. E. Lead compounds discovered from libraries: Part 2. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7 308-325 (2003).
30. Rees, D. C., Congreve, M., Murray, C. W. & Carr, R. Fragment-based lead discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 660-672 (2004).
31. Alex, A. A. & Flocco, M. M. Fragment-based drug discovery: What has it achieved so far? Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 7, 1544-1567 (2007).
32. Harvey, A. L. Natural products as a screening resource. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 11, 480-484 (2007).
33. McInnes, C. Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 11, 494-502 (2007).
34. Wyss, D. F., McCoy, M. A. & Senior, M. M. NMR-based approaches for lead discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5, 630-647 (2002).
35. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 235-249 (2000).
36. 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. Sci. 41, 1308-1315 (2001).
37. Oprea, T. I. et al. Lead-like, drug-like or "pub-like": How different are they? J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 21, 113-119 (2007).
38. Fobare, W. F. et al. Thiophene substituted acylguanidines as BACE1 inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 5353-5356 (2007).
39. Coburn, C. A. et al. Identification of a small molecule nonpeptide active site β-secretase inhibitor that displays a nontraditional binding mode for aspartyl proteases. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6117-6119 (2004).
40. Durham T. B. & Shepherd, T. A. Progress toward the discovery and development of efficacious BACE inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 9, 776-791 (2006).
41. Congreve, M. et al. Application of fragment screening by X-ray crystallography to the discovery of aminopyridines as inhibitors of β-secretase. J. Med. Chem. 50, 1124-1132 (2007).
42. Edwards, P. D. et al. Application of fragment-based lead generation to the discovery of novel, cyclic amidine β-secretase inhibitors with nanomolar potency, cellular activity, and high ligand efficiency. J. Med. Chem. 50, 5912-5925 (2007).
43. Kuglstatter, A. et al. Tyramine fragment binding to BACE-1 Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 1304-1307 (2008).
44. Reynolds, C. H., Tounge, B. A. & Bembenek, S. D. Ligand binding efficiency: Trends, physical basis, and implications J. Med. Chem. 51, 2432-2438 (2008).
45. Congreve, M., Chessari, G., Tisi, D. & Woodhead, A. J. Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 51 3661-3680 (2008).