When pharmaceutical companies publish large datasets: An abundance of riches or fool's gold?

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 15, Issue 19-20, 2010, Pages 812-815

  Ekins, Sean ^a,b,c,d   Williams, Antony J ^e  

^a Collaborations in Chemistry ^*  (United States)

^b Collaborative Drug Discovery ^*  (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

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

^e ROYAL SOCIETY OF CHEMISTRY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG MANUFACTURE; MALARIA; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SHORT SURVEY;

ANTIMALARIALS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; MALARIA; NEGLECTED DISEASES;

EID: 77957676467     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.08.010     Document Type: Short Survey

References (40)

1. Bingham A., Ekins S. Competitive collaboration in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:1079-1081.
2. Hunter A.J. The innovative medicines initiative: a pre-competitive initiative to enhance the biomedical science base of Europe to expedite the development of new medicines for patients. Drug Discov. Today 2008, 13:371-373.
3. Barnes M.R., et al. Lowering industry firewalls: pre-competitive informatics initiatives in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8:701-708.
4. Bailey D.S., Zanders E.D. Drug discovery in the era of Facebook - new tools for scientific networking. Drug Discov. Today 2008, 13:863-868.
5. Ekins S., Williams A.J. Reaching out to collaborators: crowdsourcing for pharmaceutical research. Pharm. Res. 2010, 27:393-395.
6. Moran M., et al. Neglected disease research and development: how much are we really spending?. PLoS Med. 2009, 6:e30.
7. Morel C.M., et al. Health innovation networks to help developing countries address neglected diseases. Science 2005, 309:401-404.
8. Keiser M.J., et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 2009, 462:175-181.
9. 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.
10. Roth B.L., et al. Screening the receptorome to discover the molecular targets for plant-derived psychoactive compounds: a novel approach for CNS drug discovery. Pharmacol. Ther. 2004, 102:99-110.
11. Maddry J.A., et al. Antituberculosis activity of the molecular libraries screening center network library. Tuberculosis (Edinb.) 2009, 89:354-363.
12. Ananthan S., et al. High-throughput screening for inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis H37Rv. Tuberculosis (Edinb.) 2009, 89:334-353.
13. Payne D.J., et al. Drugs for bad bugs: confronting the challenges of antibacterial discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2007, 6:29-40.
14. Gamo F.-J., et al. Thousands of chemical starting points for antimalarial lead identification. Nature 2010, 465:305-310.
15. Brazma A., et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)-toward standards for microarray data. Nat. Genet. 2001, 29:365-371.
16. Dix D.J., et al. The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol. Sci. 2007, 95:5-12.
17. Ekins S., et al. A collaborative database and computational models for tuberculosis drug discovery. Mol. BioSyst. 2010, 6:840-851.
18. Williams A.J., et al. Free online resources enabling crowdsourced drug discovery. Drug Discovery World, Winter 2009, 10:33-39.
19. Hann M., et al. Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39:897-902.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Metz J.T., et al. Enhancement of chemical rules for predicting compound reactivity towards protein thiol groups. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2007, 21:139-144.
23. Baell J.B., Holloway G.A. New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53:2719-2740.
24. Axerio-Cilies P., et al. Investigation of the incidence of "undesirable" molecular moieties for high-throughput screening compound libraries in marketed drug compounds. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 44:1128-1134.
25. Ekins, S. et al. (2010) Analysis and hit filtering of a very large library of compounds screened against Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mol. BioSyst. In Press, doi:10.1039/c0mb00104j.
26. 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.
27. Lipinski C.A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Method 2000, 44:235-249.
28. Oprea T.I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties?. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16:325-334.
29. 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.
30. Rosen J., et al. Novel chemical space exploration via natural products. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52:1953-1962.
31. 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.
32. Seidler J., et al. Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46:4477-4486.
33. 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.
34. Rishton G.M. Failure and success in modern drug discovery: guiding principles in the establishment of high probability of success drug discovery organizations. Med. Chem. 2005, 1:519-527.
35. Oprea T.I., et al. A crowdsourcing evaluation of the NIH chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009, 5:441-447.
36. Coan K.E., Shoichet B.K. Stoichiometry and physical chemistry of promiscuous aggregate-based inhibitors. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130:9606-9612.
37. Feng B.Y., et al. A high-throughput screen for aggregation-based inhibition in a large compound library. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50:2385-2390.
38. Jadhav A., et al. Quantitative analyses of aggregation, autofluorescence, and reactivity artifacts in a screen for inhibitors of a thiol protease. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53:37-51.
39. Doak A.K., et al. Colloid formation by drugs in simulated intestinal fluid. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53:4259-4265.
40. Schmidt C. GSK/Sirtris compounds dogged by assay artifacts. Nat. Biotechnol. 2010, 28:185-186.