Enhancements of screening collections to address areas of unmet medical need: an industry perspective

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 289-298

  Drewry, David H ^a   Macarron, Ricardo ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBODY; CARBOHYDRATE DERIVATIVE; CELL NUCLEUS RECEPTOR; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; LIGAND; NATURAL PRODUCT; PROTEIN; PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITOR; PROTEINASE; RAPAMYCIN DERIVATIVE; RNA;

CELL DIFFERENTIATION; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SYNTHESIS; EPIGENETICS; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC DISORDER; HUMAN; HYDROPHILICITY; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN RNA BINDING; REVIEW; STEM CELL;

DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG INDUSTRY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES;

EID: 77952583878     PISSN: 13675931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.03.024     Document Type: Review

References (148)

1. Triggle D.J. The chemist as astronaut: searching for biologically useful space in the chemical universe. Biochem Pharmacol 78 (2009) 217-223. Interesting discussion of strategies to access new biologically interesting compounds; the author points to the prevalent reductionist approach in drug discovery as a key factor that needs to be addressed in the search for new medicines.
2. Jacoby E., and Mozzarelli A. Chemogenomic strategies to expand the bioactive chemical space. Curr Med Chem 16 (2009) 4374-4381. This review highlights several different strategies to make new biologically relevant molecules.
3. Macarron R. Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 11 (2006) 277-279
4. Bender A., Bojanic D., Davies J.W., Crisman T.J., Mikhailov D., Scheiber J., Jenkins J.L., Deng Z., Hill W.A.G., Popov M., et al. Which aspects of HTS are empirically correlated with downstream success?. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 11 (2008) 327-337. This is a very nice review that discusses factors that influence the downstream success of HTS campaigns.
5. Imming P., Sinning C., and Meyer A. Drugs, their targets and the nature and number of drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5 (2006) 821-834
6. Agüero F., Al-Lazikani B., Aslett M., Berriman M., Buckner F.S., Campbell R.K., Carmona S., Carruthers I.M., Chan A.W.E., and Chen F.E.-A. Genomic-scale prioritization of drug targets: the TDR Targets database. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7 (2008) 900-907
7. Landry Y., and Gies J.P. Drugs and their molecular targets: an updated overview. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 22 (2008) 1-18
8. Overington J.P., Al-Lazikani B., and Hopkins A.L. How many drug targets are there?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 5 (2006) 993-996
9. Fuller J.C., Burgoyne N.J., and Jackson R.M. Predicting druggable binding sites at the protein-protein interface. Drug Discov Today 14 (2009) 155-161
10. Hopkins A.L., and Groom C.R. The druggable genome. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1 (2002) 727-730
11. Plewczynski D., and Rychlewski L. Meta-basic estimates the size of druggable human genome. J Mol Model 15 (2009) 695-699
12. Russ A.P., and Lampel S. The druggable genome: an update. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 1607-1610
13. Schalon C., Surgand J.S., Kellenberger E., and Rognan D. A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand-binding sites. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 71 (2008) 1755-1778
14. Egner U., and Hillig R.C. A structural biology view of target drugability. Expert Opin Drug Discov 3 (2008) 391-401
15. Cheng A.C. Predicting selectivity and druggability in drug discovery. Annu Rep Comput Chem 4 (2008) 23-37
16. Cheng A.C., Coleman R.G., Smyth K.T., Cao Q., Soulard P., Caffrey D.R., Salzberg A.C., and Huang E.S. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability. Nat Biotechnol 25 (2007) 71-75
17. Gupta A., Gupta A.K., and Seshadri K. Structural models in the assessment of protein druggability based on HTS data. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23 (2009) 583-592
18. Hajduk P.J., Huth J.R., and Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 1675-1682
19. Hajduk P.J., Huth J.R., and Fesik S.W. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMr-based screening data. J Med Chem 48 (2005) 2518-2525
20. Halgren T.A. Identifying and characterizing binding sites and assessing druggability. J Chem Inf Model 49 (2009) 377-389
21. Seco J., Luque F.J., and Barril X. Binding site detection and druggability index from first principles. J Med Chem 52 (2009) 2363-2371
22. Sugaya N., and Ikeda K. Assessing the druggability of protein-protein interactions by a supervised machine-learning method. BMC Bioinform 10 (2009) 263
23. Walke D.W., Han C., Shaw J., Wann E., Zambrowicz B., and Sands A. In vivo drug target discovery: identifying the best targets from the genome. Curr Opin Biotechnol 12 (2001) 626-631
24. Stumpf M.P.H., Thorne T., De Silva E., Stewart R., Hyeong J.A., Lappe M., and Wiuf C. Estimating the size of the human interactome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105 (2008) 6959-6964
25. Zhu F., Han L., Zheng C., Xie B., Tammi M.T., Yang S., Wei Y., and Chen Y. What are next generation innovative therapeutic targets? Clues from genetic, structural, physicochemical, and systems profiles of successful targets. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 330 (2009) 304-315
26. Bakheet T.M., and Doig A.J. Properties and identification of human protein drug targets. Bioinformatics 25 (2009) 451-457
27. Ernst B., and Magnani J.L. From carbohydrate leads to glycomimetic drugs. Nat Rev Drug Discov 8 (2009) 661-677
28. Spencer R.W. High-throughput screening of historic collections: observations on file size, biological targets, and file diversity. Biotechnol Bioeng 61 (1998) 61-67
29. Paolini G.V., Shapland R.H.B., Van Hoorn W.P., Mason J.S., and Hopkins A.L. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol 24 (2006) 805-815. In this work, the scientists integrated a number of data sources to show which human targets chemical tools and drugs have been identified for, and created a framework for making connections between molecules, their properties, and proteins. It would be great to update the dataset to cope with progress in the field.
30. Weskamp N., Hüllermeier E., and Klebe G. Merging chemical and biological space: structural mapping of enzyme binding pocket space. Proteins 76 (2009) 317-330. Good summary of the importance of protein cavity similarity to understand cross-reactivity of ligands.
31. Payne D.J., Gwynn M.N., Holmes D.J., and Pompliano D.L. Drugs for bad bugs: confronting the challenges of antibacterial discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6 (2007) 29-40
32. Dixon S.J., and Stockwell B.R. Identifying druggable disease-modifying gene products. Curr Opin Chem Biol 13 (2009) 549-555
33. Nielsen T.E., and Schreiber S.L. Towards the optimal screening collection: a synthesis strategy. Angew Chem Int Ed 47 (2008) 48-56
34. Irwin J.J. How good is your screening library?. Curr Opin Chem Biol 10 (2006) 352-356
35. Jacoby E., Schuffenhauer A., Popov M., Azzaoui K., Havill B., Schopfer U., Engeloch C., Stanek J., Acklin P., and Rigollier P.E.-A. Key aspects of the Novartis compound collection enhancement project for the compilation of a comprehensive chemogenomics drug discovery screening collection. Curr Top Med Chem 5 (2005) 397-411
36. Akritopoulou-Zanze I., and Hajduk P.J. Kinase-targeted libraries: the design and synthesis of novel, potent, and selective kinase inhibitors. Drug Discov Today 14 (2009) 291-297
37. Sauer W.H.B., and Schwarz M.K. Molecular shape diversity of combinatorial libraries: a prerequisite for broad bioactivity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43 (2003) 987-1003
38. Matson S.L., Chatterjee M., Stock D.A., Leet J.E., Dumas E.A., Ferrante C.D., Monahan W.E., Cook L.S., Watson J., Cloutier N.J., et al. Best practices in compound management for preserving compound integrity and accurately providing samples for assays. J Biomol Screen 14 (2009) 476-484
39. Bowes S., Sun D., Kaffashan A., Zeng C., Chuaqui C., Hronowski X., Buko A., Zhang X., and Josiah S. Quality assessment and analysis of biogen idec compound library. J Biomol Screen 11 (2006) 828-835
40. Zitha-Bovens E., Maas P., Wife D., Tijhuis J., Hu Q.N., Kleinöder T., and Gasteiger J. COMDECOM: predicting the lifetime of screening compounds in DMSO solution. J Biomol Screen 14 (2009) 557-565
41. Blaxill Z., Holland-Crimmin S., and Lifely R. Stability through the ages: the GSK experience. J Biomol Screen 14 (2009) 547-556
42. Lane S.J., Eggleston D.S., Brinded K.A., Hollerton J.C., Taylor N.L., and Readshaw S.A. Defining and maintaining a high quality screening collection: the GSK experience. Drug Discov Today 11 (2006) 267-272
43. Han L., Wang Y., and Bryant S.H. A survey of across-target bioactivity results of small molecules in PubChem. Bioinformatics 25 (2009) 2251-2255
44. Peters J.U., Schnider P., Mattei P., and Kansy M. Pharmacological promiscuity: dependence on compound properties and target specificity in a set of recent Roche compounds. ChemMedChem 4 (2009) 680-686
45. Feng B.Y., Simeonov A., Jadhav A., Babaoglu K., Inglese J., Shoichet B.K., and Austin C.P. A high-throughput screen for aggregation-based inhibition in a large compound library. J Med Chem 50 (2007) 2385-2390
46. Shoichet B.K. Screening in a spirit haunted world. Drug Discov Today 11 (2006) 607-615
47. Coan K.E.D., Maltby D.A., Burlingame A.L., and Shoichet B.K. Promiscuous aggregate-based nhibitors promote enzyme unfolding. J Med Chem 52 (2009) 2067-2075
48. Hann M.M., Leach A.R., and Harper G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41 (2001) 856-864
49. Schuffenhauer A., Brown N., Selzer P., Ertl P., and Jacoby E. Relationships between molecular complexity, biological activity, and structural diversity. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 525-535
50. Davis A.M., Keeling D.J., Steele J., Tomkinson N.P., and Tinker A.C. Components of successful lead generation. Curr Top Med Chem 5 (2005) 421-439
51. Axerio-Cilies P., Castañeda I.P., Mirza A., and Reynisson J. Investigation of the incidence of "undesirable" molecular moieties for high-throughput screening compound libraries in marketed drug compounds. Eur J Med Chem 44 (2009) 1128-1134
52. Monge A., Arrault A., Marot C., and Morin-Allory L. Managing, profiling and analyzing a library of 2.6 million compounds gathered from 32 chemical providers. Mol Divers 10 (2006) 389-403
53. Schreiber S.L. Organic chemistry: molecular diversity by design. Nature 457 (2009) 153-154
54. Rishton G.M. Molecular diversity in the context of leadlikeness: compound properties that enable effective biochemical screening. Curr Opin Chem Biol 12 (2008) 340-351. Good description of the concept of lead-likeness, especially as it relates to various types of biological screening.
55. Verheij H.J. Leadlikeness and structural diversity of synthetic screening libraries. Mol Divers 10 (2006) 377-388
56. Harper G., Pickett S.D., and Green D.V.S. Design of a compound screening collection for use in high throughput screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 63-70
57. Brenk R., Schipani A., James D., Krasowski A., Gilbert I.H., Frearson J., and Wyatt P.G. Lessons learnt from assembling screening libraries for drug discovery for neglected diseases. ChemMedChem 3 (2008) 435-444
58. Snowden M., and Green D.V.S. The impact of diversity-based, high-throughput screening on drug discovery: "Chance favours the prepared mind". Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 11 (2008) 553-558. The utility and impact of enhancing compound collections with 'purposeful diversity' is described.
59. Lowrie J.F., Delisle R.K., Hobbs D.W., and Diller D.J. The different strategies for designing GPCR and kinase targeted libraries. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 495-510
60. Gregori-Puigjané E., and Mestres J. Coverage and bias in chemical library design. Curr Opin Chem Biol 12 (2008) 359-365
61. Stewart E.L., Brown P.J., Bentley J.A., and Willson T.M. Selection, application, and validation of a set of molecular descriptors for nuclear receptor ligands. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 407-412
62. Aronov A.M., McClain B., Moody C.S., and Murcko M.A. Kinase-likeness and kinase-privileged fragments: toward virtual polypharmacology. J Med Chem 51 (2008) 1214-1222
63. Deanda F., Stewart E.L., Reno M.J., and Drewry D.H. Kinase-targeted library design through the application of the pharmprint methodology. J Chem Inf Model 48 (2008) 2395-2403
64. Decornez H., Gulyás-Forró A., Papp A., Szabó M., Sármay G., Hajdú I., Cseh S., Dormán G., and Kitchen D.B. Design, selection, and evaluation of a general kinase-focused library. ChemMedChem 4 (2009) 1273-1278
65. Gozalbes R., Simon L., Froloff N., Sartori E., Monteils C., and Baudelle R. Development and experimental validation of a docking strategy for the generation of kinase-targeted libraries. J Med Chem 51 (2008) 3124-3132
66. Sun D., Chuaqui C., Deng Z., Bowes S., Chin D., Singh J., Cullen P., Hankins G., Lee W.C., Donnelly J., et al. A kinase-focused compound collection: compilation and screening strategy. Chem Biol Drug Des 67 (2006) 385-394
67. Ertl P., Roggo S., and Schuffenhauer A. Natural product-likeness score and its application for prioritization of compound libraries. J Chem Inf Model 48 (2008) 68-74
68. Ji H.F., Li X.J., and Zhang H.Y. Natural products and drug discovery: can thousands of years of ancient medical knowledge lead us to new and powerful drug combinations in the fight against cancer and dementia?. EMBO Rep 10 (2009) 194-200
69. Li J.W.H., and Vederas J.C. Drug discovery and natural products: end of an era or an endless frontier?. Science 325 (2009) 161-165
70. Chin Y.W., Balunas M.J., Chai H.B., and Kinghorn A.D. Drug discovery from natural sources. AAPS J 8 (2006) E239-E253
71. Butler M.S. The role of natural product chemistry in drug discovery. J Nat Prod 67 (2004) 2141-2153
72. Cragg G.M., Grothaus P.G., and Newman D.J. Impact of natural products on developing new anti-cancer agents. Chem Rev 109 (2009) 3012-3043
73. Newman D.J., and Cragg G.M. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. J Nat Prod 70 (2007) 461-477. A comprehensive review of the source of drugs affirming natural products as a very special source of unique starting points for drug discovery.
74. Butler M.S. Natural products to drugs: natural product-derived compounds in clinical trials. Nat Prod Rep 25 (2008) 475-516
75. Harvey A.L. Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 13 (2008) 894-901
76. Hert J., Irwin J.J., Laggner C., Keiser M.J., and Shoichet B.K. Quantifying biogenic bias in screening libraries. Nat Chem Biol 5 (2009) 479-483. Introduces an interesting approach to quantify the similarity of screening sets to biogenic molecules (metabolites and natural products), leading to the suggestion that pushing this bias even further will enhance success.
77. Gupta S., and Aires-de-Sousa J. Comparing the chemical spaces of metabolites and available chemicals: models of metabolite-likeness. Mol Divers 11 (2007) 23-36
78. Dobson P.D., Patel Y., and Kell D.B. 'Metabolite-likeness' as a criterion in the design and selection of pharmaceutical drug libraries. Drug Discov Today 14 (2009) 31-40. This paper compares the similarity of known drugs and library compounds to naturally occurring metabolites. Based on the descriptors used here, drugs are more similar to metabolites than library compounds are, and this information can be used to narrow the search space as we strive to make biologically active compounds.
79. Sukuru S.C.K., Jenkins J.L., Beckwith R.E.J., Scheiber J., Bender A., Mikhailov D., Davies J.W., and Glick M. Plate-based diversity selection based on empirical HTS data to enhance the number of hits and their chemical diversity. J Biomol Screen 14 (2009) 690-699
80. Singh N., Guha R., Giulianotti M.A., Pinilla C., Houghten R.A., and Medina-Franco J.L. Chemoinformatic analysis of combinatorial libraries, drugs, natural products, and molecular libraries Small Molecule Repository. J Chem Inf Model 49 (2009) 1010-1024
81. Feher M., and Schmidt J.M. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products, and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43 (2003) 218-227
82. Shelat A.A., and Guy R.K. The interdependence between screening methods and screening libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol 11 (2007) 244-251
83. Shelat A.A., and Guy R.K. Scaffold composition and biological relevance of screening libraries. Nat Chem Biol 3 (2007) 442-446
84. Grabowski K., Baringhaus K.H., and Schneider G. Scaffold diversity of natural products: inspiration for combinatorial library design. Nat Prod Rep 25 (2008) 892-904
85. Ganesan A. The impact of natural products upon modern drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 12 (2008) 306-317. This paper presents a detailed look at the properties of 24 drugs that came from natural products, and highlights the importance of log P and the number of H-bond donors. Ganesan presents strong arguments for continued efforts in natural product research as a means for identifying valuable medicines.
86. Beghyn T., Deprez-Poulain R., Willand N., Folleas B., and Deprez B. Natural compounds: leads or ideas? Bioinspired molecules for drug discovery. Chem Biol Drug Des 72 (2008) 3-15
87. Balamurugan R., Dekker F.J., and Waldmann H. Design of compound libraries based on natural product scaffolds and protein structure similarity clustering (PSSC). Mol Biosyst 1 (2005) 36-45
88. Rosén J., Gottfries J., Muresan S., Backlund A., and Oprea T.I. Novel chemical space exploration via natural products. J Med Chem 52 (2009) 1953-1962. This paper contains an analysis of the chemical space of drugs and natural products using the ChemGPS-NP tool and features identification of low density regions, regions of intersection, and natural products with similarity (using these property-based descriptors) to known drugs.
89. Larsson J., Gottfries J., Muresan S., and Backlund A. ChemGPS-NP: tuned for navigation in biologically relevant chemical space. J Nat Prod 70 (2007) 789-794
90. Grabowski K., and Schneider G. Properties and architecture of drugs and natural products revisited. Curr Chem Biol 1 (2007) 115-127
91. Dekker F.J., Koch M.A., and Waldmann H. Protein structure similarity clustering (PSSC) and natural product structure as inspiration sources for drug development and chemical genomics. Curr Opin Chem Biol 9 (2005) 232-239
92. Koch M.A., and Waldmann H. Protein structure similarity clustering and natural product structure as guiding principles in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 10 (2005) 471-483
93. Koch M.A., Wittenberg L.O., Basu S., Jeyaraj D.A., Gourzoulidou E., Reinecke K., Odermatt A., and Waldmann H. Compound library development guided by protein structure similarity clustering and natural product structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101 (2004) 16721-16726
94. Arve L., Voigt T., and Waldmann H. Charting biological and chemical space: PSSC and SCONP as guiding principles for the development of compound collections based on natural product scaffolds. QSAR Comb Sci 25 (2006) 449-456
95. Koch M.A., Schuffenhauer A., Scheck M., Wetzel S., Casaulta M., Odermatt A., Ertl P., and Weldmann H. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 17272-17277
96. Wetzel S., Klein K., Renner S., Rauh D., Oprea T.I., Mutzel P., and Waldmann H. Interactive exploration of chemical space with Scaffold Hunter. Nat Chem Biol 5 (2009) 581-583
97. Renner S., Van Otterlo W.A.L., Dominguez Seoane M., Möcklinghoff S., Hofmann B., Wetzel S., Schuffenhauer A., Ertl P., Oprea T.I., Steinhilber D., et al. Bioactivity-guided mapping and navigation of chemical space. Nat Chem Biol 5 (2009) 585-592
98. Sunderhaus J.D., and Martin S.F. Applications of multicomponent reactions to the synthesis of diverse heterocyclic scaffolds. Chem Eur J 15 (2009) 1300-1308
99. Thomas G.L., Spandl R.J., Glansdorp F.G., Welch M., Bender A., Cockfield J., Lindsay J.A., Bryant C., Brown D.F., Loiseleur O., et al. Anti-MRSA agent discovery using diversity-oriented synthesis. Angew Chem Int Ed 47 (2008) 2808-2812
100. DiMicco S., Vitale R., Pellechia M., Rega M.F., Riva R., Basso A., and Bifulco G. Identification of lead compounds as antagonists of protein Bcl-xL with a diversity-oriented multidisciplinary approach. J Med Chem 52 (2009) 7856-7867
101. Zhou A., Rayabarapu D., and Hanson P.R. "Click, click, cyclize": a dos approach to sultams utilizing vinyl sulfonamide linchpins. Org Lett 11 (2009) 531-534
102. Waldmann H., Kühn M., Liu W., and Kumar K. Reagent-controlled domino synthesis of skeletally-diverse compound collections. Chem Commun 10 (2008) 1211-1213
103. Morton D., Leach S., Cordier C., Warriner S., and Nelson A. Synthesis of natural product-like molecules with over eighty distinct scaffolds. Angew Chem Int Ed 48 (2009) 104-109. This paper presents an elegant example of diversity oriented synthesis and the power of the ring closing metathesis reaction.
104. Kombarov R., Altieri A., Genis D., Kirpichenok M., Kochubey V., Rakitina N., and Titarenko Z. BioCores: identification of a drug/natural product-based privileged structural motif for small-molecule lead discovery. Mol Divers 14 (2010) 193-200
105. Marcaurelle L.A., Johannes C., Yohannes D., Tillotson B.P., and Mann D. Diversity-oriented synthesis of a cytisine-inspired pyridone library leading to the discovery of novel inhibitors of Bcl-2. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 19 (2009) 2500-2503
106. Garner J., and Harding M.M. Design and synthesis of α-helical peptides and mimetics. Org Biomol Chem 5 (2007) 3577-3585
107. Biros S.M., Moisan L., Mann E., Carella A., Zhai D., Reed J.C., and Rebek J. Heterocyclic α-helix mimetics for targeting protein-protein interactions. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 17 (2007) 4641-4645
108. Haridas V. From peptides to non-peptide alpha-helix inducers and mimetics. Eur J Org Chem 30 (2009) 5112-5128
109. Moisan L., Odermatt S., Gombosuren N., Carella A., and Rebek J. Synthesis of an oxazole-pyrrole-piperazine scaffold as an α-helix mimetic. Eur J Org Chem 10 (2008) 1673-1676
110. Restorp P., and Rebek J. Synthesis of α-helix mimetics with four side-chains. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 18 (2008) 5909-5911
111. Saraogi I., and Hamilton A.D. α-Helix mimetics as inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. Biochem Soc Trans 36 (2008) 1414-1417
112. Lomlim L., Einsiedel J., Heinemann F.W., Meyer K., and Gmeiner P. Proline derived spirobarbiturates as highly effective α-turn mimetics incorporating polar and functionalizable constraint elements. J Org Chem 73 (2008) 3608-3611
113. Hirschmann R.F., Nicolaou K.C., Angeles A.R., Chen J.S., and Smith III A.B. The β-D-glucose scaffold as a β-turn mimetic. Acc Chem Res 42 (2009) 1511-1520
114. Sun H., Nikolovska-Coleska Z., Yang C.Y., Qian D., Lu J., Qiu S., Bai L., Peng Y., Cai Q., and Wang S. Design of small-molecule peptidic and nonpeptidic smac mimetics. Acc Chem Res 41 (2008) 1264-1277
115. Che Y., and Marshall G.R. Privileged scaffolds targeting reverse-turn and helix recognition. Expert Opin Ther Targets 12 (2008) 101-114
116. Kumar K., and Waldmann H. Synthesis of natural product inspired compound collections. Angew Chem Int Ed 48 (2009) 3224-3242. This review gives numerous examples of strategies used to synthesize sets of natural product inspired compounds, and demonstrates the feasibility of infusing screening collections with more complicated molecules inspired by nature.
117. Shaw J.T. Naturally diverse: highlights in versatile synthetic methods enabling target- and diversity-oriented synthesis. Nat Prod Rep 26 (2009) 11-26
118. Peuchmaur M., and Wong Y.S. Expanding the chemical space in practice: diversity-oriented synthesis. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 11 (2008) 587-601
119. Cordier C., Morton D., Murrison S., Nelson A., and O'Leary-Steele C. Natural products as an inspiration in the diversity-oriented synthesis of bioactive compound libraries. Nat Prod Rep 25 (2008) 719-737
120. Galloway W.R.J.D., Bender A., Welch M., and Spring D.R. The discovery of antibacterial agents using diversity-oriented synthesis. Chem Commun 18 (2009) 2446-2462
121. Albert J.S., Blomberg N., Breeze A.L., Brown A.J.H., Burrows J.N., Edwards P.D., Folmer R.H.A., Geschwindner S., Griffen E.J., Kenny P.W., et al. An integrated approach to fragment-based lead generation: philosophy, strategy and case studies from AstraZeneca's drug discovery programmes. Curr Top Med Chem 7 (2007) 1600-1629
122. Alex A.A., and Flocco M.M. Fragment-based drug discovery: what has it achieved so far?. Curr Top Med Chem 7 (2007) 1544-1567
123. Chen I.J., and Hubbard R.E. Lessons for fragment library design: analysis of output from multiple screening campaigns. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23 (2009) 603-620
124. Congreve M., Chessari G., Tisi D., and Woodhead A.J. Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J Med Chem 51 (2008) 3661-3680
125. Eitner K., and Koch U. From fragment screening to potent binders: strategies for fragment-to-lead evolution. Mini Rev Med Chem 9 (2009) 956-961
126. Neumann L., Ritscher A., Müller G., and Hafenbradl D. Fragment-based lead generation: identification of seed fragments by a highly efficient fragment screening technology. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23 (2009) 501-511
127. Warr W.A. Fragment-based drug discovery. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23 (2009) 453-458
128. Wendt M.D., Sun C., Kunzer A., Sauer D., Sarris K., Hoff E., Yu L., Nettesheim D.G., Chen J., Jin S., et al. Discovery of a novel small molecule binding site of human survivin. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 17 (2007) 3122-3129
129. Bodoor K., Boyapati V., Gopu V., Boisdore M., Allam K., Miller J., Treleaven W.D., Weldeghiorghis T., and Aboul-ela F. Design and implementation of an ribonucleic acid (RNA) directed fragment library. J Med Chem 52 (2009) 3753-3761
130. Schüller A., Suhartono M., Fechner U., Tanrikulu Y., Breitung S., Scheffer U., Göbel M.W., and Schneider G. The concept of template-based de novo design from drug-derived molecular fragments and its application to TAR RNA. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22 (2008) 59-68
131. Chessari G., and Woodhead A.J. From fragment to clinical candidate-a historical perspective. Drug Discov Today 14 (2009) 668-675
132. Clark M.A., Acharya R.A., Arico-Muendel C.C., Belyanskaya S.L., Benjamin D.R., Carlson N.R., Centrella P.A., Chiu C.H., Creaser S.P., Cuozzo J.W., et al. Design, synthesis and selection of DNA-encoded small-molecule libraries. Nat Chem Biol 5 (2009) 647-654
133. Liao J.J.L. Molecular recognition of protein kinase binding pockets for design of potent and selective kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem 50 (2007) 409-424
134. Zinzalla G., and Thurston D.E. Targeting protein-protein interactions for therapeutic intervention: a challenge for the future. Future Med Chem 1 (2009) 65-93
135. Murray J.K., and Gellman S.H. Targeting protein-protein interactions: lessons from p53/MDM2. Biopolym Pept Sci Sect 88 (2007) 657-686
136. Verdine G.L., and Walensky L.D. The challenge of drugging undruggable targets in cancer: lessons learned from targeting BCL-2 family members. Clin Cancer Res 13 (2007) 7264-7270
137. Arkin M.R., and Whitty A. The road less traveled: modulating signal transduction enzymes by inhibiting their protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Chem Biol 13 (2009) 284-290
138. Berg T. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 11 (2008) 666-674. This paper presents examples of recent successes in inhibiting protein-protein interactions.
139. Villoutreix B.O., Bastard K., Sperandio O., Fahraeus R., Poyet J.L., Calvo F., Déprez B., and Miteva M.A. In silico-in vitro screening of protein-protein interactions: towards the next generation of therapeutics. Curr Pharm Biotechnol 9 (2008) 103-122
140. Wilson A.J. Inhibition of protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. Chem Soc Rev 38 (2009) 3289-3300. This review highlights strategies pursued to inhibit protein-protein interactions.
141. Fry D.C. Protein-protein interactions as targets for small molecule drug discovery. Biopolym Pept Sci Sect 84 (2006) 535-552
142. Fry D.C. Drug-like inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: a structural examination of effective protein mimicry. Curr Protein Pept Sci 9 (2008) 240-247. In this review of recent successful cases of protein-protein interactions, the author extracts some common traits that may prove valuable in protein-protein inhibitor design.
143. Higueruelo A.P., Schreyer A., Bickerton G.R.J., Pitt W.R., Groom C.R., and Blundell T.L. Atomic interactions and profile of small molecules disrupting protein-protein interfaces: the TIMBAL database. Chem Biol Drug Des 74 (2009) 457-467
144. Neugebauer A., Hartmann R.W., and Klein C.D. Prediction of protein-protein interaction inhibitors by chemoinformatics and machine learning methods. J Med Chem 50 (2007) 4665-4668
145. Keskin O., Gursoy A., Ma B., and Nussinov R. Principles of protein-protein interactions: what are the preferred ways for proteins to interact?. Chem Rev 108 (2008) 1225-1244
146. Ma B., and Nussinov R. Trp/Met/Phe hot spots in protein-protein interactions: potential targets in drug design. Curr Top Med Chem 7 (2007) 999-1005
147. Wells J.A., and McClendon C.L. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450 (2007) 1001-1009. This article succinctly presents data to help dispel some myths about disrupting protein-protein interactions.
148. Edwards A.M., Bountra C., Kerr D.J., and Willson T.M. Open access chemical and clinical probes to support drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol 5 (2009) 436-440