Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 197-208

  Gleeson, M Paul ^a   Hersey, Anne ^b   Montanari, Dino ^c,d   Overington, John ^b  

^a KASETSART UNIVERSITY   (Thailand)

^b WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^c GSK   (Italy)

^d Aptuit Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG; LAPATINIB;

ARTICLE; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EXCRETION; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SELECTIVITY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; ENZYME INHIBITION; IN VITRO STUDY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ANIMALS; BIOTRANSFORMATION; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG THERAPY; DRUG TOXICITY; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOKINETICS; RECEPTORS, DRUG; SUBSTRATE SPECIFICITY; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION;

EID: 79952171625     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd3367     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Overington, J. P., Al-Lazikani, B. & Hopkins, A. L. How many drug targets are there? Nature Rev. Drug. Discov. 5, 993-996 (2006). (Pubitemid 44835126)
2. Li, D. & Kerns, E. H. Application of pharmaceutical profiling assays for optimization of druglike properties. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 8, 495-504 (2005). (Pubitemid 40917411)
3. Peck, R. W. Driving earlier clinical attrition: if you want to find the needle, burn down the haystack. Considerations for biomarker development. Drug Discov. Today 12, 289-294 (2006). (Pubitemid 46486663)
4. Paul, S. M. et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 203-214 (2010).
5. Kalgutkar, A. S. et al. A comprehensive listing of bioactivation pathways of organic functional groups. Curr. Drug Metabol. 6, 161-225 (2005). (Pubitemid 40753853)
6. Keseru, G. M. & Makara, G. M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 203-212 (2009).
7. Lackey, K. Lessons from the drug discovery of lapatinib, a dual ErbB1/2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Curr. Topics Med. Chem. 6, 435-460 (2006).
8. 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 Deliv. Rev. 23, 3-25 (1997). (Pubitemid 27046991)
9. Teague, S. J., Davis, A. M., Leeson, P. D &, Oprea. T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38, 3743-3748 (1999). (Pubitemid 30022004)
10. 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. 41, 856-864 (1999).
11. Leeson, P. D., Davis, A. M. & Steele, J. Drug-like properties: guiding principles for design - or chemical prejudice? Drug Discov. Today 1, 189-195 (2004). (Pubitemid 40197566)
12. Lajiness, M. S., Vieth, M. & Erickson, J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behaviour. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Devel. 7, 470-477 (2004). (Pubitemid 44383553)
13. Hann, M. M. & Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 255-263 (2004). (Pubitemid 38759400)
14. Leeson, P. D. & Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6338-6348 (2004). (Pubitemid 39587257)
15. Li, D. & Kerns, E. H. Biological assay challenges from compound solubility: strategies for bioassay optimization. Drug Discov. Today 11, 446-451 (2006).
16. Wunberg, T. et al. Improving the hit-to-lead process: data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discov. Today 11, 175-180 (2006). (Pubitemid 43375969)
17. De Witte, R. S. Avoiding physicochemical artefacts in early ADME-Tox experiments. Drug Discov. Today 11, 855-859 (2006). (Pubitemid 44280028)
18. Leeson, P. & Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881-890 (2007). (Pubitemid 350042396)
19. Proudfoot, J. The evolution of synthetic oral drug properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 1087-1090 (2005). (Pubitemid 40467436)
20. Johnson, T. J., Dress, K. R. & Edwards, M. Using the Golden Triangle to optimize clearance and oral absorption. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 5560-5564 (2009).
21. Waring, M. J. Defining optimum lipophilicity and molecular weight ranges for drug candidates - molecular weight dependent lower logD limits based on permeability. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 2844-2851 (2009).
22. Hopkins, A. L., Groom C. R. & Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430-431 (2004). (Pubitemid 38510559)
23. Gleeson, M. P. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51, 817-834 (2008). (Pubitemid 351304691)
24. Sneader, W. Drug Prototypes and their Exploitation. (Wiley, Chichester, 1996).
25. 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. 41, 1308-1315 (2001).
26. Hadjuk, P. J. Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big? J. Med. Chem. 49, 6972-6976 (2006)
27. 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. 46, 1250-1256 (2003). (Pubitemid 36428230)
28. Tyrchana, C., Blomberga, N., Engkvista, O., Kogeja, T. & Muresan, S. Physicochemical property profiles of marketed drugs, clinical candidates and bioactive compounds. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 6943-6947 (2009).
29. Oprea, T. I. et al. Lead-like, drug-like or "pub-like": how different are they? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 21, 113-119 (2007). (Pubitemid 46416670)
30. Andrews, P. R., Craik, D. J. & Martin J. L. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27, 1648-1657 (1984). (Pubitemid 15177908)
31. Kuntz, I. D., Chen, K., Sharp, K. A. & Kollman P. A. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9997-10002 (1999). (Pubitemid 29422500)
32. Abad-Zapatero, C. & Metz, J. T. Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10, 464-469 (2005).
33. Perola, E. An analysis of the binding efficiencies of drugs and their leads in successful drug discovery programs. J. Med. Chem. 53, 2986-2997 (2010).
34. Hadjuk, P. J., Huth, J. R. & Tse, C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov. Today 10, 1675-1682 (2005). (Pubitemid 41817616)
35. Vieth, M. & Sutherland J. J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3451-3453 (2009). (Pubitemid 43902452)
36. Goh, K. et al. The human disease network. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8685-6690 (2007).
37. Zimmermann. G. R., Lehár, J. & Keith, C. T. Multi-target therapeutics: when the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Drug Discov. Today 12, 34-42 (2007). (Pubitemid 46014485)
38. Hopkins A. L., Mason, J. S. & Overington, J. P. Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 127-136 (2006). (Pubitemid 43221881)
39. Morphy, R. & Rankovic, Z. Fragments, network biology and designing multiple ligands. Drug Discov. Today 12, 156-160 (2007). (Pubitemid 46176667)
40. Azzaoui, K. et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. Chem. Med. Chem. 2, 874-880.
41. Peters, J. U., Schnider, P., Mattei, P. & Kansy, M. Pharmacological promiscuity: dependence on compound properties and target specificity in a set of recent Roche compounds. Chem. Med. Chem. 4, 680-186 (2009).
42. Davis, A. M., Keeling, D. J., Steele, J., Tomkinson, N. P. & Tinker, A. C. Components of successful lead generation. Curr. Topics Med. Chem. 5, 421-439 (2005). (Pubitemid 40753878)
43. Morphy, R. The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds. J. Med. Chem. 49, 2969-2978 (2006).
44. McGinnity, D. F., Collington, J., Austin, R. P. & Riley, R. J. Evaluation of human pharmacokinetics, therapeutic dose and exposure predictions using marketed oral drugs. Curr. Drug Metab. 8, 463-479 (2007). (Pubitemid 47603410)
45. Jeffrey, P. & Summerfield, S. Assessment of the blood-brain barrier in CNS drug discovery. Neurobiol. Dis. 37, 33-37 (2010).
46. Summerfield, S. G. et al. Improving the in vitro prediction of in vivo central nervous system penetration: integrating permeability, P-glycoprotein efflux, and free fractions in blood and brain. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 316, 1282-1290 (2006). (Pubitemid 43345304)
47. Watson, J. et al. Receptor occupancy and brain free fraction. Drug. Metab. Dispos. 37, 753-760 (2009).
48. Hopkins, A. L. Network pharmacology. Nature Biotech. 11, 1110-1111 (2007). (Pubitemid 47538107)
49. Yildirim, M. A., Goh, K. I., Cusick, M. E., Barabasi, A. L. & Vidal, M. Drug-target network. Nature Biotech. 25, 1119-1126 (2007). (Pubitemid 47538114)
50. Hopkins, A. L. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nature Chem. Biol. 4, 682-690 (2008).
51. Janga, S. C. & Tzakos, A. Structure and organization of drug-target networks: insights from genomic approaches for drug discovery. Mol. Biosyst. 5, 1536-1548 (2009).
52. Congreve, M. A 'Rule of Three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today 8, 876-877 (2003).
53. Copeland, R. A., Pompliano, D. L. & Meek, T. D. Drug-target residence time and its implications for lead optimization. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 730-739 (2006). (Pubitemid 44323700)
54. Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711-715 (2004). (Pubitemid 39173511)
55. Ekins, S. & Williams, A. J. Reaching out to collaborators: crowdsourcing for pharmaceutical research. Pharm. Res. 27, 393-395 (2010).
56. Young, D., Martin, T., Venkatapathy, R. & Harten, P. Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct? QSAR Comb. Sci. 27, 1337-1345 (2008).
57. Fourches, D., Muratov, E. & Tropsha, A. Trust, but verify: on the importance of chemical structure cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 1189-1204 (2010).
58. Daugan, A. et al. The discovery of tadalafil: a novel and highly selective PDE5 inhibitor. 1:5,6,11,11a-tetrahydro-1H-imidazo[1'5':1,6] pyrido[3,4-b]indole-1,3(2H)-dione analogues. J. Med. Chem. 46, 4525-4532 (2003). (Pubitemid 37238753)
59. Moriguchi, I., Hirono, S., Liu, Q., Nakagome, I. & Matsushita, Y. Simple method of calculating octanol/ water partition coefficient. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 40, 127-130 (1992).