Evolving molecules using multi-objective optimization: Applying to ADME/Tox

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 15, Issue 11-12, 2010, Pages 451-460

  Ekins, Sean ^a,b,c,d   Honeycutt, J Dana ^e   Metz, James T ^f  

^a Collaborations in Chemistry ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

^c RUTGERS ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d Collaborative Drug Discovery ^*  (United States)

^e ACCELRYS INC   (United States)

^f ABBOTT LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYTOCHROME P450 2D6; NONSTEROID ANTIINFLAMMATORY AGENT;

BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EXCRETION; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG TOXICITY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW;

DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOKINETICS;

EID: 77954814751     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.04.003     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Azzaoui K., et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem 2007, 2:874-880.
2. Ecker G.F. In silico screening of promiscuous targets and antitargets. Chem. Today 2005, 23:39-42.
3. Ekins S. Predicting undesirable drug interactions with promiscuous proteins in silico. Drug Discov. Today 2004, 9:276-285.
4. Strachan R.T., et al. Screening the receptorome: an efficient approach for drug discovery and target validation. Drug Discov. Today 2006, 11:708-716.
5. O'Connor K.A., Roth B.L. Finding new tricks for old drugs: an efficient route for public-sector drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2005, 4:1005-1014.
6. Chong C.R., Sullivan D.J. New uses for old drugs. Nature 2007, 448:645-646.
7. Egan W.J., et al. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43:3867-3877.
8. Sun J.H., et al. Optical design and multiobjective optimization of miniature zoom optics with liquid lens element. Appl. Opt. 2009, 48:1741-1757.
9. Fu B., et al. Piezoelectric transducer design via multiobjective optimization. Ultrasonics 2006, 44(Suppl. 1):e747-e752.
10. Hula A., et al. Multi-criteria decision-making for optimization of product disassembly under multiple situations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2003, 37:5303-5313.
11. Lahanas M., et al. A hybrid evolutionary algorithm for multi-objective anatomy-based dose optimization in high-dose-rate brachytherapy. Phys. Med. Biol. 2003, 48:399-415.
12. Ekins S., et al. Progress in predicting human ADME parameters in silico. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2000, 44:251-272.
13. Ekins S., et al. Towards a new age of virtual ADME/TOX and multidimensional drug discovery. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2002, 16:381-401.
14. Ekins S., et al. Present and future in vitro approaches for drug metabolism. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2000, 44:313-324.
15. van De Waterbeemd H., et al. Property-based design: optimization of drug absorption and pharmacokinetics. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44:1313-1333.
16. Balani S.K., et al. Strategy of utilizing in vitro and in vivo ADME tools for lead optimization and drug candidate selection. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2005, 5:1033-1038.
17. Oprea T.I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties?. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2002, 16:325-334.
18. Oprea T.I., et al. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41:1308-1315.
19. Keseru G.M., Makara G.M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8:203-212.
20. Teague S.J., et al. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 1999, 38:3743-3748.
21. Rishton G.M. Molecular diversity in the context of leadlikeness: compound properties that enable effective biochemical screening. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2008, 12:340-351.
22. Lipinski C.A., et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2001, 46:3-26.
23. Ritchie T.J., et al. Analysis of the calculated physicochemical properties of respiratory drugs: can we design for inhaled drugs yet?. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49:1025-1032.
24. Walters W.P., Murcko M.A. Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2002, 54:255-271.
25. Hann M., et al. Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39:897-902.
26. Pearce B.C., et al. An empirical process for the design of high-throughput screening deck filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46:1060-1068.
27. Huth J.R., et al. ALARM NMR: a rapid and robust experimental method to detect reactive false positives in biochemical screens. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2005, 127:217-224.
28. Huth J.R., et al. Toxicological evaluation of thiol-reactive compounds identified using a la assay to detect reactive molecules by nuclear magnetic resonance. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2007, 20:1752-1759.
29. Metz J.T., et al. Enhancement of chemical rules for predicting compound reactivity towards protein thiol groups. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2007, 21:139-144.
30. Stewart K.D., et al. Drug Guru: a computer software program for drug design using medicinal chemistry rules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2006, 14:7011-7022.
31. Wermuth C.G. Selective optimization of side activities: another way for drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47:1303-1314.
32. Wermuth C.G. Selective optimization of side activities: the SOSA approach. Drug Discov. Today 2006, 11:160-164.
33. Kraus J.M., et al. Rational modification of a candidate cancer drug for use against Chagas disease. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52:1639-1647.
34. Hopkins A.L., et al. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 2004, 9:430-431.
35. Abad-Zapatero C., Metz J.T. Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2005, 10:464-469.
36. Reynolds C.H., et al. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51:2432-2438.
37. Bembenek S.D., et al. Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:278-283.
38. Abou-Gharbia M. Discovery of innovative small molecule therapeutics. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52:2-9.
39. Swaan P.W., Ekins S. Reengineering the pharmaceutical industry by crash-testing molecules. Drug Discov. Today 2005, 10:1191-1200.
40. Shimada J., et al. Integrating computer-based de novo drug design and multidimensional filtering for desirable drugs. Targets 2002, 1:196-205.
41. Delaney J. Modelling iterative compound optimisation using a self-avoiding walk. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:198-207.
42. Stoner C.L., et al. Integrated oral bioavailability projection using in vitro screening data as a selection tool in drug discovery. Int. J. Pharm. 2004, 269:241-249.
43. O'Brien S.E., de Groot M.J. Greater than the sum of its parts: combining models for useful ADMET prediction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48:1287-1291.
44. Chekmarev D.S., et al. Shape signatures: new descriptors for predicting cardiotoxicity in silico. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008, 21:1304-1314.
45. Kortagere S., et al. Hybrid scoring and classification approaches to predict human pregane X receptor activators. Pharm. Res. 2009, 26(4):1001-1011.
46. Kortagere S., et al. New predictive models for blood brain barrier permeability of drug-like molecules. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25:1836-1845.
47. Klon A.E., et al. Improved naive Bayesian modeling of numerical data for absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) property prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46:1945-1956.
48. Obrezanova O., et al. Gaussian processes: a method for automatic QSAR modeling of ADME properties. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:1847-1857.
49. Zhang L., et al. QSAR modeling of the blood-brain barrier permeability for diverse organic compounds. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25:1902-1914.
50. Trunzer M., et al. Metabolic soft spot identification and compound optimization in early discovery phases using MetaSite and LC-MS/MS validation. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52:329-335.
51. Boyer S., et al. Reaction site mapping of xenobiotic biotransformations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:583-590.
52. Boyer S., Zamora I. New methods in predictive metabolism. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2002, 16:403-413.
53. Darvas F., et al. Diversity measures for enhancing ADME admissibility of combinatorial libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40:314-322.
54. Darvas F., et al. MetabolExpert: its use in metabolism research and in combinatorial chemistry. Drug Metabolism: Databases and High-throughput Testing During Drug Design and Development. 1999, International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry and Blackwell Science. P.W. Erhardt (Ed.).
55. Embrechts M.J., Ekins S. Classification of metabolites with kernel-partial least squares (K-PLS). Drug Metab. Dispos. 2007, 35:325-327.
56. Stranz D.D., et al. Combined computational metabolite prediction and automated structure-based analysis of mass spectrometric data. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 2008, 18:1-8.
57. Yamashita F., et al. Novel hierarchical classification and visualization method for multiobjective optimization of drug properties: application to structure-activity relationship analysis of cytochrome P450 metabolism. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:364-369.
58. Chadwick A., et al. Improving the pharmaceutical R and D process: how simulation can support management decision making. Computer Applications in Pharmaceutical Research and Development 2006, 247-273. John Wiley and Sons. S. Ekins (Ed.).
59. Wunberg T., et al. Improving the hit-to-lead process: data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discov. Today 2006, 11:175-180.
60. Gleeson M.P. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51:817-834.
61. Derringer G., Suich R. Simultaneous optimization of several response variables. J. Qual. Technol. 1980, 12:214-219.
62. Rassokhin D.N., Agrafiotis D.K. Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistic and its application in library design. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2000, 18:368-382.
63. Derringer G.C. A balancing act: optimizing a product's properties. Qual. Prog. 1994, 27:51-58.
64. Govaerts B., Le Bailly de Tilleghem C. Distribution of Desirability Index in Multicriteria Optimization using Desirability Functions based on the Cumulative Distribution Function of the Standard Normal 2005, http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ISpub/dp/2005/dp0531.pdf.
65. Govaerts B., Le Bailly de Tilleghem C. Uncertainty Propagation in Multiresponse Optimization using a Desirability Index 2005, http://www.stat.ucl.ac.be/ISpub/dp/2005/dp0532.pdf.
66. Handl J., et al. Multiobjective optimization in bioinformatics and computational biology. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 2007, 4:279-292.
67. Andersson J. A Survey of Multiobjective Optimization in Engineering Design 2000, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Linköping University.
68. Fonseca C.M., Fleming P.J. An overview of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective optimization. Evol. Comput. 1995, 3:1.
69. Ortiz M.C., et al. Vectorial optimization as a methodological alternative to desirability function. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Sys. 2006, 83:157-168.
70. Geoffrion A.M. Proper efficiency and the theory of vector optimization. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1968, 22:618-630.
71. Van Veldhuizen D.A., Lamont G.B. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: analyzing the state-of-the-art. Evol. Comput. 2000, 8:125-147.
72. Agrafiotis D.K. Multiobjective optimization of combinatorial libraries. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2002, 16:335-356.
73. Wright T., et al. Optimizing the size and configuration of combinatorial libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43:381-390.
74. Chen H., et al. ProSAR: a new methodology for combinatorial library design. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49:603-614.
75. Le Bailly de Tilleghem C., et al. A fast exchange algorithm for designing focused libraries in lead optimization. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45:758-767.
76. Fischer J.R., et al. LoFT: similarity-driven multiobjective focused library design. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50:1-21.
77. Gillet V.J. New directions in library design and analysis. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2008, 12:372-378.
78. Gillet V.J., et al. Combinatorial library design using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42:375-385.
79. Chen G., et al. Focused combinatorial library design based on structural diversity, druglikeness and binding affinity score. J. Comb. Chem. 2005, 7:398-406.
80. Kruisselbrink J.W., et al. Combining aggregation with Pareto optimization: a case study in evolutionary molecular design. Proceedings of EMO '09, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2009, Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, Vol. 5467/2009, pp. 453-467.
81. Nicolaou C.A., et al. Molecular optimization using computational multi-objective methods. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2007, 10:316-324.
82. Cruz-Monteagudo M., et al. Desirability-based methods of multiobjective optimization and ranking for global QSAR studies. Filtering safe and potent drug candidates from combinatorial libraries. J. Comb. Chem. 2008, 10:897-913.
83. Cruz-Monteagudo M., et al. Desirability-based multiobjective optimization for global QSAR studies: application to the design of novel NSAIDs with improved analgesic, antiinflammatory, and ulcerogenic profiles. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29:2445-2459.
84. Nicolaou C.A., et al. De novo drug design using multiobjective evolutionary graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2009, 49:295-307.
85. Saiz-Urra L., et al. Global antifungal profile optimization of chlorophenyl derivatives against Botrytis cinerea and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57:4838-4843.
86. Nicolotti O., et al. Multiobjective optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationships: deriving accurate and interpretable QSARs. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45:5069-5080.
87. Cottrell S.J., et al. Incorporating partial matches within multi-objective pharmacophore identification. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2006, 20:735-749.
88. Clark R.D., Abrahamian E. Using a staged multi-objective optimization approach to find selective pharmacophore models. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2008, 23:765-771.
89. Suarez M., et al. Pareto optimization in computational protein design with multiple objectives. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29:2704-2711.
90. Li H., et al. An effective docking strategy for virtual screening based on multi-objective optimization algorithm. BMC Bioinformatics 2009, 10:58.
91. Grosdidier A., et al. EADock: docking of small molecules into protein active sites with a multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Proteins 2007, 67:1010-1025.
92. Dey F., Caflisch A. Fragment-based de novo ligand design by multiobjective evolutionary optimization. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:679-690.
93. Brown N., et al. A novel workflow for the inverse QSPR problem using multiobjective optimization. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2006, 20:333-341.
94. Birchall K., et al. Evolving interpretable structure-activity relationship models. 2. Using multiobjective optimization to derive multiple models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:1558-1570.
95. Maulik U., et al. Combining Pareto-optimal clusters using supervised learning for identifying co-expressed genes. BMC Bioinformatics 2009, 10:27.
96. Zwir I., et al. Automated biological sequence description by genetic multiobjective generalized clustering. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2002, 980:65-82.
97. O'Hagan S., et al. Closed-loop, multiobjective optimization of two-dimensional gas chromatography/mass spectrometry for serum metabolomics. Anal. Chem. 2007, 79:464-476.
98. Vrugt J.A., Robinson B.A. Improved evolutionary optimization from genetically adaptive multimethod search. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2007, 104:708-711.
99. Rogers D., et al. Using extended-connectivity fingerprints with Laplacian-modified Bayesian analysis in high-throughput screening follow-up. J. Biomol. Screen. 2005, 10:682-686.
100. Deb K., et al. A Fast Elitist Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm for Multi-Objective Optimization: NSGA-II 2000, Indian Institute of Technology.
101. Kuhn, M. (2008) Desirability function optimization and ranking. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/desirability/vignettes/desirability.pdf.
102. Soltanshahi F., et al. Balancing focused combinatorial libraries based on multiple GPCR ligands. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2006, 20:529-538.
103. Richmond N.J., et al. GALAHAD. 1. Pharmacophore identification by hypermolecular alignment of ligands in 3D. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2006, 20:567-587.
104. Douguet D., et al. A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of small organic molecules: drug design using an evolutionary algorithm. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2000, 14:449-466.
105. Pegg S.C-H., et al. A genetic algorithm for structure-based de novo design. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2001, 15:911-933.
106. Lameijer E.W., et al. The molecule evoluator. An interactive evolutionary algorithm for the design of drug-like molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46:545-552.
107. Lameijer E.W., et al. Evolutionary algorithms in drug design. Nat. Comput. 2005, 4:177-243.
108. Schneider G., et al. Voyages to the (un)known: adaptive design of bioactive compounds. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27:18-26.
109. Evans B.E., et al. Methods for drug discovery: development of potent, selective, orally effective cholecystokinin antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 1988, 31:2235-2246.
110. Cheng A., Merz K.M. Prediction of aqueous solubility of a diverse set of compounds using quantitative structure-property relationships. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46:3572-3580.
111. Susnow R.G., Dixon S.L. Use of robust classification techniques for the prediction of human cytochrome P450 2D6 inhibition. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43:1308-1315.
112. Dixon S.L., Villar H.O. Bioactive diversity and screening library selection via affinity fingerprinting. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38:1192-1203.
113. Cheng A., Dixon S.L. In silico models for the prediction of dose-dependent human hepatotoxicity. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2003, 17:811-823.
114. Muchmore S.W., et al. Application of belief theory to similarity data fusion for use in analog searching and lead hopping. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:941-948.
115. Boda K., et al. Structure and reaction based evaluation of synthetic accessibility. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 2007, 21:311-325.
116. Allu T.K., Oprea T.I. Rapid evaluation of synthetic and molecular complexity for in silico chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45:1237-1243.
117. Bajorath J., et al. Navigating structure-activity landscapes. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:698-705.
118. Dobson P.D., et al. 'Metabolite-likeness' as a criterion in the design and selection of pharmaceutical drug libraries. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:31-40.
119. Dimasi J.A. New drug development in the United States from 1963 to 1999. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2001, 69:286-296.
120. DiMasi J.A., et al. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 2003, 22:151-185.