Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 12, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 948-962

  Cumming, John G ^a   Davis, Andrew M ^b   Muresan, Sorel ^b,c   Haeberlein, Markus ^d,e   Chen, Hongming ^b  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

^b ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^c Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry AB   (Sweden)

^d ASTRAZENECA R AND D   (Sweden)

^e Proteostasis Therapeutics   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BETA 2 ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT; DONEPEZIL; DOPAMINE 2 RECEPTOR STIMULATING AGENT; POTASSIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; POTASSIUM CHANNEL HERG; POTASSIUM CHANNEL KCNE1; POTASSIUM CHANNEL KCNQ1; SIBENADET; TRANSIENT RECEPTOR POTENTIAL CHANNEL A1; TRANSIENT RECEPTOR POTENTIAL CHANNEL AFFECTING AGENT;

ACCURACY; AUTOMATION; CHEMICAL MODEL; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR SIMILARITY INDICES ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CULTURAL FACTOR; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG PENETRATION; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SOLUBILITY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG SYNTHESIS; HUMAN; LIPOPHILICITY; LIVER MICROSOME; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANIMALS; DRUG COMPOUNDING; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84889581795     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd4128     Document Type: Review

References (113)

1. 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
2. Morgan, P. et al. Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving Phase II survival. Drug Discov. Today 17, 419-424 (2012
3. van de Waterbeemd, H. & Gifford, E. ADMET in silico modelling: Towards prediction paradise? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192-204 (2003
4. 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
5. Teague, S. J., Davis, A. M., Leeson, P. D. & Oprea, T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed Engl. 38, 3743-3748 (1999
6. Hann, M. M. & Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 255-263 (2004
7. Lipinski, C. A. in Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry (ed. David, C. S.) 155-168 (Elsevier, 2005
8. Walters, W. P. Going further than Lipinski's rule in drug design. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 7, 99-107 (2012
9. Congreve, M., Carr, R., Murray, C. & Jhoti, H. A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today 8, 876-877 (2003
10. Wager, T. T. et al. Defining desirable central nervous system drug space through the alignment of molecular properties, in vitro ADME, and safety attributes. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 1, 420-434 (2010
11. Gleeson, M. P. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51, 817-834 (2008
12. Hughes, J. D. et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 4872-4875 (2008
13. Leeson, P. D. & Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6338-6348 (2004
14. 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 (2001
15. Vistoli, G., Pedretti, A. & Testa, B. Assessing drug-likeness - What are we missing? Drug Discov. Today 13, 285-294 (2008
16. Andrews, P. R., Craik, D. J. & Martin, J. L. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27, 1648-1657 (1984
17. 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
18. Leeson, P. D. & Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881-890 (2007
19. 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
20. Murray, C. W., Verdonk, M. L. & Rees, D. C. Experiences in fragment-based drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 33, 224-232 (2012
21. Leeson, P. D. & St Gallay, S. The influence of the 'organizational factor' on compound quality in drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 749-765 (2011
22. Tarcsay, A., Nyiri, K. & Keseru, G. M. Impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. J. Med. Chem. 55, 1252-1260 (2012
23. Tarcsay, A., Nyiri, K. & Keseru, G. M. Correction to impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. J. Med. Chem. 56, 3120 (2013
24. Gilbert, M. R. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov. Today 2, 382-384 (1997
25. 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. 53, 2719-2740 (2010
26. Davis, A. M., Keeling, D. J., Steele, J., Tomkinson, N. P. & Tinker, A. C. Components of successful lead generation. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5, 421-439 (2005
27. Ursu, O., Rayan, A., Goldblum, A. & Oprea, T. I. Understanding drug-likeness. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 1, 760-781 (2011
28. Bickerton, G. R., Paolini, G. V., Besnard, J., Muresan, S. & Hopkins, A. L. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nature Chem. 4, 90-98 (2012
29. Hansch, C. in QSAR and Molecular Modelling in Rational Design of Bioactive Molecules: Programs and Abstracts (eds Aki-Sener, E. & Yalcin, I.) 3-22 (Proceedings of the 15th European Symposium on Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) and Molecular Modelling, 2006
30. Huang, J. & Fan, X. Why QSAR fails: An empirical evaluation using conventional computational approach. Mol. Pharm. 8, 600-608 (2011
31. Doweyko, A. M. QSAR: Dead or alive? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 22, 81-89 (2008
32. Stouch, T. R. et al. In silico ADME/Tox: Why models fail. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17, 83-92 (2003
33. Cronin, M. T. D. & Schultz, T. W. Pitfalls in QSAR. J. Mol. Struct. 622, 39-51 (2003
34. Young, D., Martin, T., Venkatapathy, R & Harten, P. Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct? QSAR Combinatorial Sci. 27, 1337-1345 (2008
35. Williams, A. J., Ekins, S. & Tkachenko, V. Towards a gold standard: Regarding quality in public domain chemistry databases and approaches to improving the situation. Drug Discov. Today 17, 685-701 (2012
36. Jorgensen, W. L. QSAR/QSPR and proprietary data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 937 (2006
37. Tetko, I. V., Bruneau, P., Mewes, H., Rohrer, D. C. & Poda, G. I. Can we estimate the accuracy of ADME- Tox predictions? Drug Discov. Today 11, 700-707 (2006
38. Tetko, I. V. et al. Critical assessment of QSAR models of environmental toxicity against Tetrahymena pyriformis: Focusing on applicability domain and overfitting by variable selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 1733-1746 (2008
39. Sahigara, F. et al. Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models. Molecules 17, 4791-4810 (2012
40. Maggiora, G. M. On outliers and activity cliffs - Why QSAR often disappoints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 1535 (2006
41. Schwantes, J. M., Orton, C. R., Fraga, C. G., Douglas, M. & Christensen, R. N. The multi-isotope process (MIP) monitor: A near-real-time, non-destructive, indicator of spent nuclear fuel reprocessing conditions. Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Institute of Nuclear Materials [online], http://www.pnl.gov/publications/abstracts. asp?report=264166 (2009
42. Olah, M., Bologa, C. & Oprea, T. I. An automated PLS search for biologically relevant QSAR descriptors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 18, 437-449 (2004
43. Sushko, I. et al. Online chemical modeling environment (OCHEM): Web platform for data storage, model development and publishing of chemical information. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 25, 533-554 (2011
44. Cartmell, J., Krstajic, D. & Leahy, D. E. Competitive workflow: Novel software architecture for automating drug design. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 10, 347-352 (2007
45. Hughes-Oliver, J. M. et al. ChemModLab: A web-based cheminformatics modeling laboratory. In Silico Biol. 11, 61-81 (2011
46. Obrezanova, O., Gola, J. M., Champness, E. J. & Segall, M. D. Automatic QSAR modeling of ADME properties: Blood-brain barrier penetration and aqueous solubility. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 22, 431-440 (2008
47. Fischer, H. & Kansy, M. Automated generation of multi-dimensional structure activity and structure property relationships. US Patent 7400982 (2008
48. Rodgers, S. L., Davis, A. M., Tomkinson, N. P. & van de Waterbeemd, H. Predictivity of simulated ADME AutoQSAR models over time. Mol. Inform. 30, 256-266 (2011
49. Wood, D. J. et al. Automated QSAR with a hierarchy of global and local models. Mol. Inform. 30, 960-972 (2011
50. Keefer, C. E., Kauffman, G. W. & Gupta, R. R. Interpretable, probability-based confidence metric for continuous quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 368-383 (2013
51. Kramer, C. et al. Sharpening the toolbox of computational chemistry: A new approximation of critical f values for multiple linear regression. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 28-34 (2009
52. Livingstone, D. J. & Salt, D. W. Judging the significance of multiple linear regression models. J. Med. Chem. 48, 661-663 (2005
53. Kubinyi, H. in Handbook of Chemoinformatics: From Data to Knowledge in 4 Volumes (ed. Gasteiger, J.) 1532-1554 (Wiley-VCH Weinheim, 2003
54. Rucker, C., Rucker, G. & Meringer, M. y Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 2345-2357 (2007
55. Guha, R. On the interpretation and interpretability of quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J. Computer-Aided Mol. Design 22, 857-871 (2008
56. Johansson, U., Sonstrod, C., Norinder, U. & Bostrom, H. Trade-off between accuracy and interpretability for predictive in silico modeling. Future Med. Chem. 3, 647-663 (2011
57. Carlsson, L., Helgee, E. A. & Boyer, S. Interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models applied to Ames mutagenicity data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2551-2558 (2009
58. Faulon, J. L., Visco, D. P. Jr & Pophale, R. S. The signature molecular descriptor. 1. Using extended valence sequences in QSAR and QSPR studies. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 707-720 (2003
59. Spjuth, O., Eklund, M., Ahlberg Helgee, E., Boyer, S. & Carlsson, L. Integrated decision support for assessing chemical liabilities. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 1840-1847 (2011
60. Segall, M., Champness, E., Obrezanova, O. & Leeding, C. Beyond profiling: Using ADMET models to guide decisions. Chem. Biodivers. 6, 2144-2151 (2009
61. Lewis, R. A. A general method for exploiting, QSAR models in lead optimization. J. Med. Chem. 48, 1638-1648 (2005
62. Helgee, E. A., Carlsson, L. & Boyer, S. A. Method for automated molecular optimization applied to Ames mutagenicity data. J. Chem. Inform. Model. 49, 2559-2563 (2009
63. Griffen, E., Leach, A. G., Robb, G. R. & Warner, D. J. Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. J. Med. Chem. 54, 7739-7750 (2011
64. Dossetter, A. G., Griffen, E. J. & Leach, A. G. Matched molecular pair analysis in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 18, 724-731 (2013
65. Griffen, E. The rise of the intelligent machines in drug hunting? Future Med. Chem. 1, 405-408 (2009
66. Warner, D. J., Bridgland-Taylor, M. H., Sefton, C. E. & Wood, D. J. Prospective prediction of antitarget activity by matched molecular pairs analysis. Mol. Inform. 31, 365-368 (2012
67. Hajduk, P. J. & Sauer, D. R. Statistical analysis of the effects of common chemical substituents on ligand potency. J. Med. Chem. 51, 553-564 (2008
68. Mills, J. E. J. et al. SAR mining and its application to the design of TRPA1 antagonists. Med. Chem. Commun. 3, 174-178 (2012
69. Dalke, A., Bache, E., Van De Waterbeemd, H. & Boyer, S. C-Lab: A web tool for physical property and model calculations. Dalke Scientific [online], http://dalkescientific.com/writings/ CLab EuroQSAR2008.pdf (2008
70. Gavaghan, C., Arnby, C., Blomberg, N., Strandlund, G. & Boyer, S. Development, interpretation and temporal evaluation of a global QSAR of hERG electrophysiology screening data. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 21, 189-206 (2007
71. Dobo, K. L. et al. In silico methods combined with expert knowledge rule out mutagenic potential of pharmaceutical impurities: An industry survey. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 62, 449-455 (2012
72. Austin, R. P. et al. QSAR and the rational design of long-acting dual D2 receptor/β2 adrenoceptor agonists. J. Med. Chem. 46, 3210-3220 (2003
73. Brown, A. D. et al. The discovery of indole-derived long acting β2 adrenoceptor agonists for the treatment of asthma and COPD. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 6188-6191 (2007
74. Baur, F. et al. The identification of indacaterol as an ultralong-acting inhaled β2 adrenoceptor agonist. J. Med. Chem. 53, 3675-3684 (2010
75. Bruneau, P. Search for predictive generic model of aqueous solubility using Bayesian neural nets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1605-1616 (2001
76. Loughney, D., Claus, B. L. & Johnson, S. R. To measure is to know: An approach to CADD performance metrics. Drug Discov. Today 16, 548-554 (2011
77. Kenny, P. W. & Montanari, C. A. Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 27, 1-13 (2013
78. Lovering, F., Bikker, J. & Humblet, C. Escape from flatland: Increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52, 6752-6756 (2009
79. Muthas, D., Boyer, S. & Hasselgren, C. A critical assessment of modeling safety-related drug attrition Med. Chem. Commun. 4, 1058-1065 (2013
80. Bennani, Y. L. Drug discovery in the next decade: Innovation needed ASAP. Drug Discov. Today 16, 779-792 (2011
81. Vaidyanathan, S., Jarugula, V., Dieterich, H. A., Howard, D. & Dole, W. P. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of aliskiren. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 47, 515-531 (2008
82. Springthorpe, B. et al. From ATP to AZD6140: The discovery of an orally active reversible P2Y12 receptor antagonist for the prevention of thrombosis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 6013-6018 (2007
83. Lajiness, M. S., Maggiora, G. M. & Shanmugasundaram, V. Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J. Med. Chem. 47, 4891-4896 (2004
84. Kutchukian, P. S. et al. Inside the mind of a medicinal chemist: The role of human bias in compound prioritization during drug discovery. PLoS ONE 7, e48476 (2012
85. Oprea, T. I. et al. A crowdsourcing evaluation of the NIH chemical probes. Nature Chem. Biol. 5, 441-447 (2009
86. Schein, E. H. The Corporate Culture Survival Guide (Wiley, 2009
87. Stepan, A. F. et al. Structural alert/reactive metabolite concept as applied in medicinal chemistry to mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity: A perspective based on the critical examination of trends in the top 200 drugs marketed in the United States. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24, 1345-1410 (2011
88. Martin, Y. C. What works and what does not: Lessons from experience in a pharmaceutical company. QSAR Comb. Sci. 25, 1192-1200 (2006
89. Young, S. S., Yuan, F. & Zhu, M. Chemical descriptors are more important than learning algorithms for modelling. Mol. Inform. 31, 707-710 (2012
90. Leach, A. G. et al. Enantiomeric pairs reveal that key medicinal chemistry parameters vary more than simple physical property based models can explain. Med. Chem. Commun. 3, 528-540 (2012
91. Hillebrecht, A. & Klebe, G. Use of 3D QSAR models for database screening: A feasibility study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 384-396 (2008
92. Carbonell, P., Carlsson, L. & Faulon, J. Stereo signature molecular descriptor. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 887-897 (2013
93. Segall, M. D. Multi-parameter optimization: Identifying high quality compounds with a balance of properties. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18, 1292-1310 (2012
94. Schneider, G. & Fechner, U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 649-663 (2005
95. Kutchukian, P. S. & Shakhnovich, E. I. De novo design: Balancing novelty and confined chemical space. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5, 789-812 (2010
96. Segall, M. et al. Applying medicinal chemistry transformations and multiparameter optimization to guide the search for high-quality leads and candidates. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 2967-2976 (2011
97. Besnard, J. et al. Automated design of ligands to polypharmacological profiles. Nature 492, 215-220 (2012
98. Segall, M. Why is it still drug discovery? BioFocus [online], http://www.biofocus.com/-downloads/ publications/2008/why-is-it-still-drug- discovery.pdf (2008
99. Hann, M. M. Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. Med. Chem. Commun. 2, 349-355 (2011
100. Ashby, J. Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. Environ. Mutagen. 7, 919-921 (1985
101. Bergstrom, C. A., Norinder, U., Luthman, K. & Artursson, P. Experimental and computational screening models for prediction of aqueous drug solubility. Pharm. Res. 19, 182-188 (2002
102. Steinbeck, C. et al. The Chemistry Development Kit (CDK): An open-source java library for chemo- and bioinformatics. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 493-500 (2003
103. Tetko, I. V. et al. Virtual computational chemistry laboratory - design and description. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 19, 453-463 (2005
104. Berthold, M. R. et al. in Data Analysis, Machine Learning and Applications 319-326 (Springer, 2008
105. Leach, A. G. et al. Matched molecular pairs as a guide in the optimization of pharmaceutical properties; a study of aqueous solubility, plasma protein binding and oral exposure. J. Med. Chem. 49, 6672-6682 (2006
106. Gleeson, P., Bravi, G., Modi, S. & Lowe, D. ADMET rules of thumb II: A comparison of the effects of common substituents on a range of ADMET parameters. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 17, 5906-5919 (2009
107. Lewis, M. L. & Cucurull-Sanchez, L. Structural pairwise comparisons of HLM stability of phenyl derivatives: Introduction of the Pfizer metabolism index (PMI) and metabolism-lipophilicity efficiency (MLE). J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 23, 97-103 (2009
108. Dossetter, A. G. A statistical analysis of in vitro human microsomal metabolic stability of small phenyl group substituents, leading to improved design sets for parallel SAR exploration of a chemical series. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 18, 4405-4414 (2010
109. Dossetter, A. G., Douglas, A. & O'Donnell, C. A matched molecular pair analysis of in vitro human microsomal metabolic stability measurements for heterocyclic replacements of di substituted benzene containing compounds - Identification of those isosteres more likely to have beneficial effects. Med. Chem. Commun. 3, 1164-1169 (2012
110. Dossetter, A. G. A matched molecular pair analysis of in vitro human microsomal metabolic stability measurements for methylene substitution or replacements - Identification of those transforms more likely to have beneficial effects. Med. Chem. Commun. 3, 1518-1525 (2012
111. Papadatos, G. et al. Lead optimization using matched molecular pairs: Inclusion of contextual information for enhanced prediction of hERG inhibition, solubility, and lipophilicity. J. Chem. Inform. Model. 50, 1872-1886 (2010
112. Keefer, C. E., Chang, G. & Kauffman, G. W. Extraction of tacit knowledge from large ADME data sets via pairwise analysis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 19, 3739-3749 (2011
113. Warner, D. J., Griffen, E. J. & St Gallay, S. WizePairZ: A novel algorithm to identify, encode, and exploit matched molecular pairs with unspecified cores in medicinal chemistry. J. Chem. Inform. Model. 50, 1350-1357 (2010