Drug-likeness and increased hydrophobicity of commercially available compound libraries for drug screening

Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 12, Issue 14, 2012, Pages 1500-1513

  Zuegg, Johannes ^a   Cooper, Matthew A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Drug discovery; Drug likeness; Physicochemical properties; Screening libraries

Indexed keywords

NATURAL PRODUCT;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DATA BASE; DRUG SOLUBILITY; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HYDROGEN BOND; HYDROPHOBICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PARTITION COEFFICIENT; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY;

DATABASES, PHARMACEUTICAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; HUMANS; HYDROPHOBIC AND HYDROPHILIC INTERACTIONS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84866945774     PISSN: 15680266     EISSN: 18734294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/156802612802652466     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. Mayr, L.M.; Bojanic, D. Novel trends in high-throughput screening. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol., 2009, 9, 580-8.
2. Macarron, R.; Banks, M.N.; Bojanic, D.; Burns, D.J.; Cirovic, D.A.; Garyantes, T.; Green, D.V.; Hertzberg, R.P.; Janzen, W.P.; Paslay, J.W.; Schopfer, U.; Sittampalam, G.S. Impact of highthroughput screening in biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2011, 10, 188-95.
3. Leeson, P.D.; St-Gallay, S.A. The influence of the 'organizational factor' on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2011, 10, 749-65.
4. Leeson, P.D.; Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2007, 6, 881-90.
5. Keseru, G.M.; Makara, G.M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2009, 8, 203-12.
6. 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., 1997, 23, 3-25.
7. 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., 2001, 46, 3-26.
8. Ghose, A.K.; Viswanadhan, V.N.; Wendoloski, J.J. A knowledgebased approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative characterization of known drug databases. J. Comb. Chem., 1999, 1, 55-68.
9. Walters, W.P.; Murcko, M.A. Library Filtering Systems and Prediction of Drug-Like Properties. Meth. Princ. Med. Chem., 2000, 10, 15-30.
10. Oprea, T.I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 2000, 14, 251-64.
11. 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, 2615-23.
12. Varma, M.V.; Obach, R.S.; Rotter, C.; Miller, H.R.; Chang, G.; Steyn, S.J.; El-Kattan, A.; Troutman, M.D. Physicochemical space for optimum oral bioavailability: contribution of human intestinal absorption and first-pass elimination. J. Med. Chem., 2010, 53, 1098-108.
13. Bickerton, G.R.; Paolini, G.V.; Besnard, J.; Muresan, S.; Hopkins, A.L. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem., 2012, 4, 90-8.
14. Schneider, N.; Jackels, C.; Andres, C.; Hutter, M.C. Gradual in silico filtering for druglike substances. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48, 613-28.
15. Paixao, P.; Gouveia, L.F.; Morais, J.A. Prediction of the human oral bioavailability by using in vitro and in silico drug related parameters in a physiologically based absorption model. Int. J. Pharm., 2012, 429, 84-98.
16. Gleeson, M.P.; Hersey, A.; Montanari, D.; Overington, J. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2011, 10, 197-208.
17. Teague, S.J.; Davis, A.M.; Leeson, P.D.; Oprea, T. The Design of Leadlike Combinatorial Libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl., 1999, 38, 3743-3748.
18. Oprea, T.; 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, 1308-1315.
19. 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, 856-64.
20. Ursu, O.; Rayan, A.; Goldblum, A.; Oprea, T.I. Understanding drug-likeness, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 2011, 760-781.
21. Roche, O.; Schneider, P.; Zuegge, J.; Guba, W.; Kansy, M.; Alanine, A.; Bleicher, K.; Danel, F.; Gutknecht, E.M.; Rogers-Evans, M.; Neidhart, W.; Stalder, H.; Dillon, M.; Sjogren, E.; Fotouhi, N.; Gillespie, P.; Goodnow, R.; Harris, W.; Jones, P.; Taniguchi, M.; Tsujii, S.; von der Saal, W.; Zimmermann, G.; Schneider, G. Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 137-42.
22. McGovern, S.L.; Caselli, E.; Grigorieff, N.; Shoichet, B.K. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 1712-22.
23. Rishton, G.M. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov. Today, 2003, 8, 86-96.
24. 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, 2719-40.
25. Scior, T.; Bender, A.; Tresadern, G.; Medina-Franco, J.L.; Martinez-Mayorga, K.; Langer, T.; Cuanalo-Contreras, K.; Agrafiotis, D.K. Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2012.
26. Barril, X.; Luque, F.J. Molecular simulation methods in drug discovery: a prospective outlook. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 2012, 26, 81-6.
27. Cheng, T.; Li, Q.; Zhou, Z.; Wang, Y.; Bryant, S.H. Structurebased virtual screening for drug discovery: a problem-centric review. AAPS J, 2012, 14, 133-41.
28. Ebalunode, J.O.; Zheng, W. Molecular shape technologies in drug discovery: methods and applications. Curr. Top. Med. Chem., 2010, 10, 669-79.
29. Ripphausen, P.; Nisius, B.; Bajorath, J. State-of-the-art in ligandbased virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today, 2011, 16, 372-6.
30. Irwin, J.J.; Sterling, T.; Mysinger, M.M.; Bolstad, E.S.; Coleman, R.G. ZINC-A free tool to discover chemistry for biology. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2012.
31. Baurin, N.; Baker, R.; Richardson, C.; Chen, I.; Foloppe, N.; Potter, A.; Jordan, A.; Roughley, S.; Parratt, M.; Greaney, P.; Morley, D.; Hubbard, R.E. Drug-like annotation and duplicate analysis of a 23-supplier chemical database totalling 2.7 million compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 643-51.
32. Sirois, S.; Hatzakis, G.; Wei, D.; Du, Q.; Chou, K.C. Assessment of chemical libraries for their druggability. Comput. Biol. Chem., 2005, 29, 55-67.
33. Verheij, H.J. Leadlikeness and structural diversity of synthetic screening libraries. Mol. Divers., 2006, 10, 377-88.
34. Chuprina, A.; Lukin, O.; Demoiseaux, R.; Buzko, A.; Shivanyuk, A. Drug-and lead-likeness, target class, and molecular diversity analysis of 7.9 million commercially available organic compounds provided by 29 suppliers. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2010, 50, 470-9.
35. Knox, C.; Law, V.; Jewison, T.; Liu, P.; Ly, S.; Frolkis, A.; Pon, A.; Banco, K.; Mak, C.; Neveu, V.; Djoumbou, Y.; Eisner, R.; Guo, A.C.; Wishart, D.S. DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for 'omics' research on drugs. Nucleic Acids Res., 2011, 39, D1035-41.
36. Gaulton, A.; Bellis, L.J.; Bento, A.P.; Chambers, J.; Davies, M.; Hersey, A.; Light, Y.; McGlinchey, S.; Michalovich, D.; Al-Lazikani, B.; Overington, J.P. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res., 2012, 40, D1100-7.
37. Egan, W.J.; Merz, K.M., Jr.; Baldwin, J.J. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43, 3867-77.
38. Lee, M.L.; Schneider, G. Scaffold architecture and pharmacophoric properties of natural products and trade drugs: application in the design of natural product-based combinatorial libraries. J. Comb. Chem., 2001, 3, 284-9.
39. Martin, Y.C. A bioavailability score. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 3164-70.
40. Huggins, D.J.; Venkitaraman, A.R.; Spring, D.R. Rational methods for the selection of diverse screening compounds. ACS Chem. Biol., 2011, 6, 208-17.
41. Ritchie, T.J.; Macdonald, S.J.; Young, R.J.; Pickett, S.D. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: further insights by examining carbo-and hetero-aromatic and-aliphatic ring types. Drug Discov. Today, 2011, 16, 164-71.
42. Ritchie, T.J.; Macdonald, S.J. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability--are too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design? Drug Discov. Today, 2009, 14, 1011-20.
43. Lovering, F.; Bikker, J.; Humblet, C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem., 2009, 52, 6752-6.
44. Congreve, M.; Carr, R.; Murray, C.; Jhoti, H. A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today, 2003, 8, 876-7.
45. Carr, R.A.; Congreve, M.; Murray, C.W.; Rees, D.C. Fragmentbased lead discovery: leads by design. Drug Discov. Today, 2005, 10, 987-92.
46. Welsch, M.E.; Snyder, S.A.; Stockwell, B.R. Privileged scaffolds for library design and drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2010, 14, 347-61.
47. Hann, M. Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. Med. Chem. Commun., 2011, 2, 349-355.
48. Kuntz, I.D.; Chen, K.; Sharp, K.A.; Kollman, P.A. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1999, 96, 9997-10002.
49. Leach, A.R.; Hann, M.M. Molecular complexity and fragmentbased drug discovery: ten years on. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2011, 15, 489-96.
50. Azzaoui, K.; Hamon, J.; Faller, B.; Whitebread, S.; Jacoby, E.; Bender, A.; Jenkins, J.L.; Urban, L. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. Chem. Med. Chem., 2007, 2, 874-80.
51. Proudfoot, J.R. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2002, 12, 1647-50.
52. 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, 21, 113-9.
53. Leach, A.R.; Hann, M.M.; Burrows, J.N.; Griffen, E.J. Fragment screening: an introduction. Mol. Biosyst., 2006, 2, 430-46.
54. Hajduk, P.J.; Greer, J. A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2007, 6, 211-9.
55. Hopkins, A.L.; Groom, C.R.; Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today, 2004, 9, 430-1.
56. Hajduk, P.J. Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big? J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49, 6972-6.
57. Schultes, S.; de Graaf, C.; Haaksma, E.E.J.; de Esch, I.J.P.; Leurs, R.; Krämer, O. Ligand efficiency as a guide in fragment hit selection and optimization. Drug Discov. Today, 2010, 7, e157-e162.
58. Irwin, J.J.; Shoichet, B.K. ZINC-a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2005, 45, 177-82.
59. Lagorce, D.; Maupetit, J.; Baell, J.; Sperandio, O.; Tuffery, P.; Miteva, M.A.; Galons, H.; Villoutreix, B.O. The FAF-Drugs2 server: a multistep engine to prepare electronic chemical compound collections. Bioinformatics, 2011, 27, 2018-20.
60. Selzer, P.; Roth, H.J.; Ertl, P.; Schuffenhauer, A. Complex molecules: do they add value? Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2005, 9, 310-6.
61. Rogers, D.; Hahn, M. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2010, 50, 742-54.
62. O'Shea, R.; Moser, H.E. Physicochemical properties of antibacterial compounds: implications for drug discovery. J. Med. Chem., 2008, 51, 2871-8.
63. Waldrop, G.L. Smaller is better for antibiotic discovery. ACS Chem. Biol., 2009, 4, 397-9.
64. Gualtieri, M.; Baneres-Roquet, F.; Villain-Guillot, P.; Pugniere, M.; Leonetti, J.P. The antibiotics in the chemical space. Curr. Med. Chem., 2009, 16, 390-3.
65. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project. org2011.
66. Geladi, P.; Kowalski, B.R. Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial. Anal. Chim. Acta, 1986, 185, 1-17.
67. Tetko, I.V.; Tanchuk, V.Y.; Kasheva, T.N.; Villa, A.E. Estimation of aqueous solubility of chemical compounds using E-state indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 1488-93.
68. Ghose, A.K.; Viswanadhan, V.N.; Wendoloski, J.J. Prediction of Hydrophobic (Lipophilic) Properties of Small Organic Molecules Using Fragmental Methods: An Analysis of ALOGP and CLOGP Methods. J. Phys. Chem. A, 1998, 102, 3762-3772.
69. Ertl, P.; Rohde, B.; Selzer, P. Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43, 3714-7.
70. Guha, R. PAINS Substructure Filters as SMARTS. 2010.