Predicting oral druglikeness by iterative stochastic elimination

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 437-445

  Rayan, Anwar ^a   Marcus, David ^a   Goldblum, Amiram ^a  

^a HEBREW UNIVERSITY OF JERUSALEM   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MOLECULES; STOCHASTIC SYSTEMS;

BINARY DECISION; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DISCRIMINATIVE POWER; DRUG CANDIDATES; DRUG DISCOVERY; MOLECULAR ENTITIES; PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; PREDICTIVE POWER;

ITERATIVE METHODS;

DRUG;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BIOAVAILABILITY; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; FACTUAL DATABASE; METABOLISM; MOUTH; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; BIOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; MOUTH; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 77949822709     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci9004354     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Matter, H.; Baringhaus, K. H.; Naumann, T.; Klabunde, T.; Pirard, B. Computational approaches towards the rational design of drug- like compound libraries. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 2001, 4 (6), 453-475.
2. Lobanov, V. S.; Agrafiotis, D. K. Scalable methods for the construction and analysis of virtual combinatorial libraries. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 2002, 5 (2), 167-178.
3. Tropsha, A.; Zheng, W. F. Rational principles of compound selection for combinatorial library design. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 2002, 5 (2), 111-123.
4. 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 Delivery Rev. 1997, 23 (1-3), 3-25.
5. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharm. Toxicol. Methods 2000, 44 (1), 235249.
6. Frimurer, T. M.; By water, R.; Naerum, L.; Lauritsen, L. N.; Brunak, S. Improving the odds in discriminating "Drug-like" from "Non Druglike" compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40 (6), 1315-1324.
7. Dearden, J. C. In silico prediction of ADMET properties: how far have we come. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2007, 3 (5), 635-639
8. van de Waterbeemd, H.; Gifford, E. ADMET in Silico modelling: Towards prediction paradise. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2003, 2 (3), 192-204.
9. Butina, D.; Segall, M. D.; Frankcombe, K. Predicting ADME properties in Silico: methods and models. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7 (11), S83-S88.
10. Ekins, S.; Waller, C. L.; Swaan, P. W.; Cruciani, G.; Wrighton, S. A.; Wikel, J. H. Progress in predicting human ADME parameters in Silico. J. Pharm. Toxicol. Methods 2000, 44 (1), 251-272.
11. Falah, M.; Nassar, T.; Rayan, A. A simple approach discriminating cardio-safe drugs from toxic ones. Bioinformation 2009, 3 (9), 389-393
12. Huuskonen, J.; Salo, M.; Taskinen, J. Aqueous solubility prediction of drugs based on molecular topology and neural network modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38 (3), 450-456.
13. Katritzky, A. R.; Wang, Y. L.; Sild, S.; Tamm, T.; Karelson, M. QSPR studies on vapor pressure, aqueous solubility, and the prediction of water-air partition coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38 (4), 720-725.
14. Mitchell, B. E.; Jurs, P. C. Prediction of aqueous solubility of organic compounds from molecular structure. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38 (3), 489-496.
15. Abraham, M. H.; Le, J. The correlation and prediction of the solubility of compounds in water using an amended solvation energy relationship. J. Pharm. Sci. 1999, 88 (9), 868-880.
16. Jorgensen, W. L.; Duffy, E. M. Prediction of drug solubility from Monte Carlo simulations. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2000, 70 (11), 1155-1158.
17. Breindl, A.; Beck, B.; Clark, T.; Glen, R. C. Prediction of the n-octanol/ water partition coefficient, logP, using a combination of semiempirical MO-calculations and a neural network. J. Mol. Model. 1997, 3 (3), 142-155.
18. Haeberlein, M.; Brinck, T. Prediction of water-octanol partition coefficients using theoretical descriptors derived from the molecular surface area and the electrostatic potential. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1997, (2), 289-294.
19. Hawkins, G. D.; Liotard, D. A.; Cramer, C. J.; Truhlar, D. G. OMNISOL: Fast prediction of free energies of solvation and partition coefficients. J. Org. Chem. 1998, 63 (13), 4305-4313.
20. Buchwald, P.; Bodor, N. Octanol-water partition: Searching for predictive models. Curr. Med. Chem. 1998, 5 (5), 353-380.
21. Tetko, I. V.; Tanchuk, V. Y.; Villa, A. E. P. Prediction of n-octanol/ water partition coefficients from PHYSPROP database using artificial neural networks and E-state indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41 (5), 1407-1421.
22. Zheng, C. J.; Sun, L. Z.; Han, L. Y.; Ji, Z. L.; Chen, X.; Chen, Y. Z. Drug ADME-associated protein database as a resource for facilitating pharmacogenomics research. Drug Dev. Res. 2004, 62 (2), 134-142.
23. Goshorn, J. Information resources for the twenty-first century: Webbased databases and other resources developed by the Toxicology and Environmental Health Information Program of the USA National Library of Medicine. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 2004, 797 (3), 225225.
24. Klopman, G.; Chakravarti, S. K.; Zhu, H.; Ivanov, J. M.; Saiakhov, R. D. ESP: A method to predict toxicity and pharmacological properties of chemicals using multiple MCASE databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44 (2), 704-715.
25. Renwick, A. G. Toxicology databases and the concept of thresholds of toxicological concern as used by the JECFA for the safety evaluation of flavouring agents. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 149 (1-3), 223-234.
26. Rendic, S.; Kitajima, M.; Ciloy, J. M. Human metabolic databases for drug development and drug interactions. Drug Metab. Rev. 2004, 36, 105-105
27. Hou, B. K.; Kim, J. S.; Jun, J. H.; Lee, D. Y.; Kim, Y. W.; Chae, S.; Roh, M.; In, Y. H.; Lee, S. Y. BioSilico: an integrated metabolic database system. Bioinformatics 2004, 20 (17), 3270-3272.
28. Grootenhuis, P. D. J.; Penzotti, J.; Miller, J.; Xu, R.; Kassel, D. Combining admet in Silico, in vitro, and in vivo for drug discovery. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 279, U457-U457.
29. Migeon, J. C.; Rogalski, S. L.; Krejsa, C. M.; Horvath, D.; Mao, B.; Barbosa, F.; Merrick, S. E.; Mersberg, M.; Lakehai, F. Using large in vitro ADME data sets to predict in vivo properties. Drug Metab. Rev. 2003, 35, 168-168
30. Norris, D. A.; Bremer, T.; Holme, K.; Leesman, G.; Sud, M. The failure of in vitro ADME properties to correctly determine in vivo outcomes. Abstr. Pap. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 226, U453-U453.
31. Egan, W. J.; Merz, K. M.; Baldwin, J. J. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43 (21), 3867-3877.
32. Wessel, M. D.; Jurs, P. C.; Tolan, J. W.; Muskal, S. M. Prediction of human intestinal absorption of drug compounds from molecular structure. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38 (4), 726-735.
33. Kubinyi, H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2003, 2 (8), 665-668.
34. Abad-Zapatero, C. A Sorcerer's apprentice and the rule of five: from rule-of-thumb to commandment and beyond. Drug Discovery Today 2007, 72 (23-24), 995-997.
35. Keseru, G. M.; Makara, G. M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2009, 8 (3), 203-212.
36. Leeson, P. D.; Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2007,6(11), 881-890
37. Bai, J. P. F.; Utis, A.; Crippen, G.; He, H. D.; Fischer, V.; Tullman, R.; Yin, H. Q.; Hsu, C. P.; Jiang, L.; Hwang, K. K. Use of classification regression tree in predicting oral absorption in humans. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44 (6), 2061-2069.
38. Bergstrom, C. A. S.; Strafford, M.; Lazorova, L.; Avdeef, A.; Luthman, K.; Artursson, P. Absorption classification of oral drugs based on molecular surface properties. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46 (4), 558-570.
39. Martin, Y. C. A bioavailability score. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48 (9), 3164-3170.
40. 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. 2003, 46 (7), 1250-1256.
41. Yoshida, F.; Topliss, J. G. QSAR model for drug human oral bioavailability. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43 (13), 2575-2585.
42. Veber, D. F.; Johnson, S. R.; Cheng, H. Y.; Smith, B. R.; Ward, K. W.; Kopple, K. D. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45 (12), 2615-2623.
43. Hou, T. J.; Wang, J. M.; Zhang, W.; Xu, X. J. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 6. Can oral bioavailability in humans be effectively predicted by simple molecular property-based rules. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47 (2), 460-463.
44. Biswas, D.; Roy, S.; Sen, S. A simple approach for indexing the oral druglikeness of a compound: discriminating druglike compounds from nondruglike ones. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46 (3), 1394-1401
45. Hutter, M. C. Separating drugs from nondrugs: A statistical approach using atom pair distributions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47 (1), 186-194.
46. Schneider, N.; Jackels, C.; Andres, C.; Hutter, M. C. Gradual in Silico filtering for druglike substances. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48 (3), 613-628.
47. Takaoka, Y.; Endo, Y.; Yamanobe, S.; Kakinuma, H.; Okubo, T.; Shimazaki, Y.; Ota, T.; Sumiya, S.; Yoshikawa, K. Development of a method for evaluating drug-likeness and ease of synthesis using a data set in which compounds are assigned scores based on chemists' intuition. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43 (4), 1269-1275.
48. Wagener, M.; van Geerestein, V. J. Potential drugs and nondrugs: Prediction and identification of important structural features. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40 (2), 280-292.
49. Xu, J.; Stevenson, J. Drug-like index: A new approach to measure drug-like compounds and their diversity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000,40(5), 1177-1187.
50. Zernov, V. V.; Balakin, K. V.; Ivaschenko, A. A.; Savchuk, N. P.; Pletnev, I. V. Drug discovery using support vector machines. The case studies of drug-likeness, agrochemical-likeness, and enzyme inhibition predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43 (6), 2048-2056.
51. Zheng, S. X.; Luo, X. M.; Chen, G.; Zhu, W. L.; Shen, J. H.; Chen, K. X.; Jiang, H. L. A new rapid and effective chemistry space filter in recognizing a druglike database. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45 (4), 856-862.
52. Zuccotto, F. Pharmacophore features distributions in different classes of compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43 (5), 1542-1552.
53. 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. 2001, 41 (3), 856-864.
54. Oprea, T. I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14 (3), 251-264.
55. Oprea, T. I. Current trends in lead discovery: Are we looking for the appropriate properties. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 76 (5-6), 325-334.
56. Oprea, T. I.; Allu, T. K.; Fara, D. C.; Rad, R. F.; Ostopovici, L.; Bologa, C. G. Lead-like, drug-like or "pub-like": how different are they. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2007, 27 (1-3), 113-119.
57. 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. 2001, 41 (5), 1308-1315.
58. Rishton, G. M. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discovery Today 2003, 8 (2), 86-96.
59. Wunberg, T.; Hendrix, M.; Hillisch, A.; Lobell, M.; Meier, H.; Schmeck, C.; Wild, H.; Hinzen, B. Improving the hit-to-lead process: data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discovery Today 2006, 77 (3-4), 175-180.
60. Dobson, P. D.; Patel, Y.; Kell, D. B. 'Metabolite-likeness' as a criterion in the design and selection of pharmaceutical drug libraries. Drug Discovery Today 2009, 14 (1-2), 31-40.
61. Ritchie, T. J.; Luscombe, C. N.; Macdonald, S. J. F. Analysis of the Calculated Physicochemical Properties of Respiratory Drugs: Can We Design for Inhaled Drugs Yet. J. Chem Inf. Model. 2009, 49 (4), 1025-1032.
62. Vistoli, G.; Pedretti, A.; Testa, B. Assessing drug-likeness - what are we missing. Drug Discovery Today 2008, 73 (7-8), 285-294.
63. Glick, M.; Grant, G. H.; Richards, W. G. Docking of flexible molecules using multiscale ligand representations. J. Med. Chem. 2002,45 (21), 4639-4646.
64. Rayan, A.; Senderowitz, H.; Goldblum, A. Exploring the conformational space of cyclic peptides by a stochastic search method. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2004, 22 (5), 319-333
65. Sadowski, J. Optimization of the drug-likeness of chemical libraries. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20 (1), 17-28.
66. Ajay; Walters, W. P.; Murcko, M. A. Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug- like" molecules. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 47 (18), 3314-3324.
67. Sadowski, J.; Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J. Med Chem. 1998, 41 (18), 3325-3329.
68. Anzali, S.; Barnickel, G.; Cezanne, B.; Krug, M.; Filimonov, D.; Poroikov, V. Discriminating between drugs and nondrugs by prediction of activity spectra for substances (PASS). J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44 (15), 2432-2437.
69. Muegge, I.; Heald, S. L.; Brittelli, D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44 (12), 1841-1846.
70. Gorelik, B.; Goldblum, A. High quality binding modes in docking ligands to proteins. Proteins 2008, 77 (3), 1373-1386
71. Rayan, A.; Noy, E.; Chema, D.; Levitzki, A.; Goldblum, A. Stochastic algorithm for kinase homology model construction. Curr. Med. Chem. 2004 Mar, 77 (6), 675-692
72. Kubinyi, H. From narcosis to hyperspace: The history of QSAR. Quant. Struct-Act Relat 2002, 27 (4), 348-356.
73. Pospisil, P.; Ballmer, P.; Scapozza, L.; Folkers, G. Tautomerism in computer-aided drug design. J. Recept. Signal Transduction 2003, 23 (4), 361-371.
74. Tetko, I. V.; Bruneau, P. Application of ALOGPS to predict 1-octanol/ water distribution coefficients, logP, and logD, of AstraZeneca inhouse database. J. Pharm. Sci. 2004, 93 (12), 3103-3110.
75. MOE. http://www.chemcomp.com/JournaLof-CCG/Features/descr.htm (accessed Jan. 2010).
76. Pirard, B. Computational methods for the identification and optimization of high quality leads. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 2004, 7 (4), 271-280.