Do biologically relevant compounds have more chance to be drugs?

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2376-2381

  Kong, De Xin ^a,b   Ren, Wei ^b   Lu, Wei ^b   Zhang, Hong Yu ^a  

^a HUAZHONG AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b SHANDONG UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING; CHEMISTRY;

BIOACTIVE COMPOUNDS; DEVELOPMENT PHASIS; DRUG CANDIDATES; DRUG DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE; DRUG DISCOVERY; ENDOGENOUS COMPOUND; SYNTHETIC CHEMICALS;

DRUG PRODUCTS;

BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT; DRUG; LIGAND;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY;

ALGORITHMS; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; LIGANDS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 70350512845     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci900229c     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Buehler, L. K. Advancing Drug Discovery - Beyond Design. Pharmagenomics 2004, 4, 24-26.
2. Hughes, B. 2007 FDA drag approvals: a year of flux. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2008, 7, 107-109.
3. (3) Haney, S. A.; LaPan, P.; Pan, J.; Zhang, J. High-content screening moves to the front of the line. Drue Discovery Today 2006, 11, 889894. (Pubitemid 44403188)
4. (4) Liptrot, C. High content screening - from cells to data to knowledge. Drue Discovery' Today 2001, 6, 832-834. (Pubitemid 32734510)
5. (5) Mateři, W.; Wishart, D. S. Computational systems biology in drag discovery and development: methods and applications. Drue Discovery lapay 2007, 12, 295-303. (Pubitemid 46467486)
6. Bembenek, S. D.; Tounge, B. A.; Reynolds, C. H. Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drag discovery. Drue Discovery Today 2009,14, 278-283.
7. Keith, C. T.; Borisy, A. A.; Stockwell, B. R. Multicomponent therapeutics for networked systems. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2005, 4, 71-78.
8. (8) Zimmermann, G. R.; Lehár, J.; Keith, C. T. Multi-target therapeutics: when the whole is greater than the sum. of the parts. Durg Discovery Today 2007, 12, 34-42. (Pubitemid 46014485)
9. (9) Desai, M. C.; Chackalamannil, S. Rediscovering the role of natural products in drag discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2008, 11, 436-437. (Pubitemid 351950838)
10. Paterson, L.; Anderson, E. A. The renaissance of natural products as drug candidates. Ssipnce 2005, 310, 451-1153
11. Newman, D. J.; Cragg, G. M. Natural products as sources of new drags over the last 25 years. J. Nat. Prod. 2007, 70, 461-477.
12. (12) Ojima, I. Modern natural products chemistry and drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 2587-2588. (Pubitemid 351620777)
13. (13) Balamuragan, R.; Dekker, F. J.; Waldmann, H. Design of compound libraries based on natural product scaffolds and protein structure similarity clustering (PSSC). MaL Biosyst. 2005, 1, 36-45. (Pubitemid 43355013)
14. Breinbauer, R.; Vetter, I. R.; Waldmann, H. From protein domains to drug candidates-natural products as guiding principles in the design and synthesis of compound libraries, Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 2879-2890.
15. Gorse, A. D. Diversity in medicinal chemistry space. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2006, 6, 3-18.
16. (16) Leeson, P. D.; Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev. Drug Discovery 2007, 6, 881-890. (Pubitemid 350042396)
17. Lipinski, C. A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B. W.; Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability and permeability in drag discovery and development settings, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
18. Cheng, A. C.; Coleman, R. G.; Smyth, K. T.; Cao, Q.; Soulard, P.; Caffrey, D. R.; Salzberg, A. C.; Huang, E. S. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule draggability. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 71-75.
19. Keller, T. H.; Pichota, A.; Yin, Z. A practical view of 'draggability'. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2006, 10, 357-361.
20. Sirois, S.; Hatzakis, G.; Wei, D.; Du, Q.; Chou, K. C. Assessment of chemical libraries for their draggability. Comput. Biol. Chem. 2005, 29, 55-67.
21. Sugiyama, Y. Draggability: selecting optimized drag candidates. Drue Discovery Today 2005, 10, 1577-1579.
22. Hann, M. M.; Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8, 255-263.
23. Rishton, G. M. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drue Discovery Today 2003, 8, 86-96.
24. (24) Modi, S. Positioning ADMET in silico tools in drug discovery. Drue Discovery Today 2004, 9, 14-15. (Pubitemid 38169025)
25. A decade of drag-likeness. Ntff. Rev. Drug Discovery 2007, 6, 853-853 (editorial).
26. Putta, S.; Landram, G. A.; Penzotti, J. E. Conformation mining: an algorithm for finding biologically relevant conformations. J. Med, Chem 2005, 48, 3313-3318.
27. Koch, M. A.; Schuffenhauer, A.; Scheck, M.; Wetzel, S.; Casaulta, M.; Odermatt, A.; Ertl, P.; Waldmann, H. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Pjoc. Natl. Acad. Sci U.S.A. 2005, 102, 17272-17277.
28. (28) Koch, M. A.; Waldmann, H. Protein structure similarity clustering and natural product structure as guiding principles in drug discovery. Durg Discovery Today 2005, 10, 471-483. (Pubitemid 40500365)
29. (29) Larsson, J.; Gottfries, J.; Muresan, S.; Backlund, A. ChemGPS-NP: tuned for navigation in biologically relevant chemical space. J.Natlat. Prod. 2007, 70, 789-794. (Pubitemid 46953601)
30. (30) Meggers, E. Exploring biologically relevant chemical space with metal complexes. Curr, Opin. Chem. Biol, 2007, 11, 287-292. (Pubitemid 46963074)
31. Shelat, A. A.; Guy, R. K. Scaffold composition and biological relevance of screening libraries. N£}. Chem. Biol. 2007, 3, 442-446.
32. Feher, M.; Schmidt, J. M. Property distributions: differences between, drags, natural products, and molecules from, combinatorial chemistry. . Chem. Inf. Comput. Sd. 2003, 43, 218-227.
33. Kanehisa, M.; Goto, S.; Kawashima, S.; Nakaya, A. The KEGG databases at GenomeNet. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 42-46.
34. Kanehisa, M..; Goto, S.; Hattori, M.; Aoki-Kinoshita, K. F.; Itoh, M.; Kawashima, S.; Katayama, T.; Araki, M.; Hirakawa, M. From genomics to chemical genomics: new developments in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, D354-357.
35. Holliday, J. D.; Ranade, S. S.; Willett, P. A fast algorithm for selecting sets of dissimilar molecules from large chemical databases. Quant. Staict.-Act. ReL 1995, 14, 501-506.
36. Dictionary of natural products, version 17.1; Chapman & Hall/CRC: London, England, 2008.
37. MDL databases (CMC, ACD-3D, MDDR, ToxFinder), version 2004.1; Elsevier MDL: San Leandro, CA, 2004.
38. Ajay, A.; Walters, W. P.; Murcko, M. A. Can. we learn, to distinguish between "drag-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules. .7. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 3314-3324.
39. Frimurer, T. M.; Bywater, R.; Naeram, L.; Lauritsen, L. N.; Branak, S. Improving the odds in discriminating "drag-like" from "non druglike" compounds, ¿¿hem. Inf. Comput. Sei. 2000, 40, 1315-1324.
40. Ertl, P.; Roggo, S.; Schuffenhauer, A. Natural product-likeness score and its application for prioritization of compound libraries. J. Chem. Inf Model. 2008, 48, 68-74.
41. Ertl, P.; Schuffenhauer, A. Cheminformatics analysis of natural products: lessons from nature inspiring the design of new drugs. Prog. Drug Res. 2008, 66 (217), 219-235.
42. Grabowski, K.; Schneider, G. Properties and Architecture of drugs and natural products revisited. Curr. Chem. Biol. 2007, 1, 115-127.
43. Wetzel, S.; Schuffenhauer, A.; Roggo, S.; Ertl, P.; Waldmann, H. Cheminformatics analysis of natural products and their chemical space. Chimia 2007, 61, 355-360.
44. Ernst, E. When natural is not harmless. Int J. Clin. Pract. 2006, 60, 380-380
45. Natural doesn't mean harmless. New Sci. 2008, 197, 5-5 (editorial).
46. Ganesan, A. The impact of natural products upon modern drag discovery. Curr Opin. Chem. Biol, 2008, 12, 306-317.
47. Fink, T.; Reymond, J. L. Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C., N., O., F: assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ring systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery, ¿¿hem. Inf. Model, 2007, 47, 342-353.
48. Fink, T.; Bruggesser, H.; Reymond, J. L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Aneew. Chem., Int Ed. 2005, 44, 1504-1508.
49. Ji, H. F.; Kong, D. X.; Shen, L.; Chen, L. L.; Ma, B. G.; Zhang, H. Y. Distribution patterns of small-molecule ligands in the protein universe and implications for origin of life and drag discovery. Genome Biol. 2007, 5, R176.
50. Sadreyev, R. L; Grishin, N. V. Exploring dynamics of protein structure determination and homology-based prediction to estimate the number of superfamilies and folds. BMC Struct. Biol. 2006, 6, 6.
51. Leonov, H.; Mitchell, J. S.; Arkin, I. T. Monte Carlo estimation of the number of possible protein folds: effects of sampling bias and folds distributions. Pjpteins 2003, 51, 352-359.
52. Govindarajan, S.; Recabarren, R.; Goldstein, R. A. Estimating the total number of protein folds. Pjjpteins 1999, 35 408-414.
53. (53) Liu, X.; Fan, K.; Wang, W. The number of protein folds and their distribution over families in nature. Proteins 2004, 54, 491-499. (Pubitemid 38197361)
54. Dobson, P. D.; Kell, D. B. Carrier-mediated cellular uptake of pharmaceutical drugs: an exception or the rale. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2008, 7, 205-220.
55. Kell, D. B. Systems biology, metabolic modelling and metabolomics in drag discovery and development. Drue Discovery Today 2006, 11, 1085-1092.
56. Dobson, P. D.; Patel, Y.; Kell, D. B. 'Metabolite-likeness' as a criterion in the design and selection of pharmaceutical drug libraries. Drue Discovery Today 2009, 14, 31-40.
57. (57) Gupta, S.; Aires-de-Sousa, J. Comparing the chemical spaces of metabolites and available chemicals: models of metabolite-likeness. Mal- Diversity 2007, 11, 23-36. (Pubitemid 46639419)
58. Sheridan, R. P.; Kearsley, S. K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods. Drue Discovery Today 2002, 7, 903-911.
59. (59) Gozalbes, R. Does structural similarity reflect biological activity. Drue Discovery Today 2006, 11, 957-957 (Pubitemid 44403182)
60. Bender, A.; Mussa, H. Y.; Glen, R. C.; Reiling, S. Molecular similarity searching using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naive Bayesian classifier. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 170-178.
61. Bender, A.; Mussa, H. Y.; Glen, R. C.; Reiling, S. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1708-1718.
62. Cerius 2, version 4.11 L; Accelrys: San Diego, CA, 2006.
63. Pipeline Pilot Student Edition, version 6.1.5; SciTegic Accelrys: San Diego, CA, 2007.
64. R statistics packages, version 2.6.2; The R Foundation for Statistical Computing: 2008;ISBN 3-900051-07-10
65. Sybyl, version 7.0; Tripos: Louis, MO, 2004.
66. Dragon, version 5.0; Talete SRL: Milan, Italy, 2005.