The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 105-121

  Hopkins, Andrew L ^a   Keserü, György M ^b,f   Leeson, Paul D ^c   Rees, David C ^d   Reynolds, Charles H ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

^c GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^d ASTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United Kingdom)

^e Gfree Bio LLC   (United States)

^f NONE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALISKIREN; ANACETRAPIB; APIXABAN; APLAVIROC; APREPITANT; AXITINIB; BOCEPREVIR; CENICRIVIROC; DALCETRAPIB; EDOXABAN; EVACETRAPIB; FINGOLIMOD; LORCASERIN; MARAVIROC; PAZOPANIB; RIVAROXABAN; ROFLUMILAST; RUXOLITINIB; SAXAGLIPTIN; SORAFENIB; SUNITINIB; TELAPREVIR; TICAGRELOR; TOFACITINIB; TORCETRAPIB; VICRIVIROC; VISMODEGIB; VORINOSTAT; (2,4 DIHYDROXY 5 ISOPROPYLPHENYL)[5 [(4 METHYL 1 PIPERAZINYL)METHYL] 2 ISOINDOLINYL]METHANONE; AMBRISENTAN; BOSUTINIB; CRIZOTINIB; DASATINIB; ELVITEGRAVIR; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; GEFITINIB; HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN 90 INHIBITOR; IMATINIB; LAPATINIB; MIRABEGRON; NILOTINIB; PROTEIN KINASE; PROTEINASE; RADICICOL; RALTEGRAVIR; SILDENAFIL; TADALAFIL; UNINDEXED DRUG; VANDETANIB; VEMURAFENIB;

ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING AND RELATED PHENOMENA; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG STRUCTURE; ENTHALPY; ENTROPY; HUMAN; ISOTHERMAL TITRATION CALORIMETRY; LIGAND BINDING; LIGAND EFFICIENCY; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; COMPLEX FORMATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG POTENCY; DRUG SPECIFICITY; HYDROGEN BOND; IC50; REACTION OPTIMIZATION; REVIEW; THERMODYNAMICS;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROCESSES; PROTEIN BINDING; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; THERMODYNAMICS;

EID: 84893307473     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: 14741784     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd4163     Document Type: Article

References (86)

1. Leeson, P. D. and Oprea, T. I. in Drug Design Strategies: Quantitative Approaches Ch. 2 (eds Livingstone, D. J. and Davis, A. M.) (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2012).
2. Gleeson, M. P., Hersey, A., Montanari, D. and Overington, J. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 197-208 (2011).
3. Young, R. J., Green, D. V., Luscombe, C. N. and Hill, A. P. Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discov. Today 16, 822-830 (2011).
4. Waring, M. 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).
5. Johnson, T. W. et al. Using the golden triangle to optimize clearance and oral absorption. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 5560-5564 (2009).
6. Gleeson, M. P. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51, 817-834 (2008).
7. Leeson, P. D. and Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881-890 (2007).
8. Hughes, J. D. et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 4872-4875 (2008).
9. Luker, T. et al. Strategies to improve in vivo toxicology outcomes for basic candidate drug molecules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21, 5673-5679 (2011).
10. Wenlock, M. C., Austin, R. P., Barton, P., Davis, A. M. and Leeson, P. D. A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1250-1256 (2003).
11. Leeson, P. D. and Empfield, J. R. Reducing the risk of drug attrition associated with physicochemical properties. Ann. Rep. Med. Chem. 45, 393-407 (2010).
12. Leeson, P. D. and Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6338-6348 (2004).
13. Proudfoot, J. R. The evolution of synthetic oral drug properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 1087-1090 (2005).
14. Leeson, P. D., St Gallay, S. A. and Wenlock, M. C. Impact of ion class and time on oral drug molecular properties. Med. Chem. Commun. 2, 91-105 (2011).
15. Walters, W. P., Green, J., Weiss, J. R. and Murcko, M. A. What do medicinal chemists actually make? A 50 year retrospective. J. Med. Chem. 54, 6405-6416 (2011).
16. Bickerton, G. R., Paolini, G. V., Besnard, J., Muresan, S. and Hopkins, A. L. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nature Chem. 4, 90-98 (2012).
17. Leeson, P. D. and St Gallay, S. A. The influence of the organizational factor on compound quality in drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 749-765 (2011).
18. Lovering, F., Bikker, J. and Humblet, C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52, 6752-6756 (2009).
19. Blake, J. F. Examination of the computed molecular properties of compounds selected for clinical development. Biotechniques Suppl. 16-20 (2003).
20. Paolini, G. V., Shapland, R. H., van Hoorn, W. P., Mason, J. S. and Hopkins, A. L. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nature Biotech. 24, 805-815 (2006).
21. Keseru, G. M. 5th Drug Design Lead Discovery Conference 2009: lead finding strategies and optimization case studies. Drugs Fut. 35, 143-153 (2010).
22. Hann, M. M. Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. Med. Chem. Comm. 2, 349-355 (2011).
23. Keseru, G. M. and Makara, G. M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 203-212 (2009).
24. Oprea, T. I., Davis, A. M., Teague, S. J. and Leeson, P. D. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1308-1315 (2001).
25. Hann, M. M., Leach, A. R. and 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).
26. Hopkins, A. L., Groom, C. R. and Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430-431 (2004).
27. Kuntz, I. D., Chen, K., Sharp, K. A. and Kollman, P. A. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 9997-10002 (1999).
28. Andrews, P. R., Craik, D. J. and Martin, J. L. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27, 1648-1657 (1984).
29. Shultz, M. D. Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23, 5980-5991 (2013).
30. Freire, E. Do enthalpy and entropy distinguish first in class from best in class? Drug Discov. Today 13, 869-874 (2008).
31. Ferenczy, G. G., Keseru, G. M. in Physico-Chemical and Computational Approaches to Drug Discovery Ch. 2 (eds Luque, J. and Barril, X.) (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2012).
32. Olsson, T. S. G., Williams, M. A., Pitt, W. R. and Ladbury, J. E. The thermodynamics of protein-ligand interaction and solvation: insights for ligand design. J. Mol. Biol. 384, 1002-1017 (2008).
33. Freire, E. A thermodynamic approach to the affinity optimization of drug candidates. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 74, 468-472 (2009).
34. Ferenczy, G. G. and Keseru, G. M. Thermodynamics guided lead discovery and optimization. Drug Discov. Today 15, 919-932 (2010).
35. Ladbury, J. E., Klebe, G. and Freire, E. Adding calorimetric data to decision making in lead discovery: a hot tip. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 23-27 (2010).
36. Ferenczy, G. G. and Keseru, G. M. Enthalpic efficiency of ligand binding. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 50, 1536-1541 (2010).
37. Hann, M. M. and Keseru, G. M. Finding the sweet spot -the role of nature and nurture in medicinal chemistry. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 355-365 (2012).
38. Reynolds, C. H., Bembenek, S. D. and Tounge, B. A. The role of molecular size in ligand efficiency. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 4258-4261 (2007).
39. Reynolds, C. H., Tounge, B. A. and Bembenek, S. D. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J. Med. Chem. 51, 2432-2438 (2008).
40. Loving, K., Alberts, I. and Sherman, W. Computational approaches for fragment-based and de novo design. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10, 14-32 (2012).
41. Liu, T., Lin, Y., Wen, X., Jorissen, R. N. and Gilson, M. K. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucl. Ac. Res. 35, D198-D201 (2007).
42. Reynolds, C. H. and Holloway, M. K. Thermodynamics of ligand binding and efficiency. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2, 433-437 (2011).
43. Shultz, M. D. The thermodynamic basis for the use of lipophilic efficiency (LipE) in enthalpic optimizations, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23, 5992-6000 (2013).
44. Tarcsay, A., Nyiri, K. and Keseru, G. M. Impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. J. Med. Chem. 55, 1252-1260 (2012).
45. Hansch, C., Bjoerkroth, J. P. and Leo, A. Hydrophobicity and central nervous system agents: on the principle of minimal hydrophobicity in drug design. J. Pharm. Sci. 76, 663-687 (1987).
46. Waring, M. Lipophilicity in drug discovery. Exp. Opin. Drug Discov. 5, 235-248 (2010).
47. Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. and 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).
48. Mortenson, P. N. and Murray, C. W. Assessing the lipophilicity of fragments and early hits. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 663-667 (2011).
49. 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).
50. 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).
51. 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).
52. Baker M. Fragment-based lead discovery grows up. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 5-7 (2013).
53. Tsai, J. et al. Discovery of a selective inhibitor of oncogenic B Raf kinase with potent antimelanoma activity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 3041-3046 (2008).
54. Verdonk, M. L. and Rees, D. C. Group efficiency: a guideline for hits to leads chemistry. ChemMedChem 3, 1179-1180 (2008).
55. Drysdale, M. J. and Brough, P. A. Medicinal chemistry of Hsp90 inhibitors. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 8, 859-868 (2008).
56. Murray, C. W. et al. Fragment-based drug discovery applied to Hsp90. Discovery of two lead series with high ligand efficiency. J. Med. Chem. 53, 5942-5955 (2010).
57. Woodhead, A. J. et al. Discovery of (2,4 dihydroxy 5 isopropylphenyl)-[5- (4 methylpiperazin 1 ylmethyl)-1,3 dihydrois oindol 2 yl]methanone (AT13387), a novel inhibitor of the molecular chaperone Hsp90 by fragment based drug design. J. Med. Chem. 53, 5956-5969 (2010).
58. Ferenczy, G. G. and Keseru, G. M. How are fragments optimized? A retrospective analysis of 145 fragment optimizations. J. Med. Chem. 56, 2478-2486 (2013).
59. Jhoti, H., Williams, G., Rees, D. C. and Murray, C. W. The rule of three for fragment-based drug discovery: where are we now? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 644-645 (2013).
60. Vieth, M. and Sutherland, J. J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3451-3453 (2006).
61. Kwong, A. D., Kauffman, R. S., Hurter, P. and Mueller, P. Discovery and development of telaprevir: an NS3 4A protease inhibitor for treating genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus. Nature Biotech. 29, 993-1003 (2011).
62. McTigue, M. et al. Molecular conformations, interactions, and properties associated with drug efficiency and clinical performance among VEGFR TK inhibitors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 18281-18289 (2012).
63. Davis, M. I. et al. Comprehensive analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nature Biotech. 29, 1046-1051 (2011).
64. Soth, M. et al. 3 amido pyrrolopyrazine JAK kinase inhibitors: development of a JAK3 versus JAK1 selective inhibitor and evaluation in cellular and in vivo models. J. Med. Chem. 56, 345-356 (2013).
65. Young, R. J. The successful quest for oral factor Xa inhibitors; learnings for all of medicinal chemistry? Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21, 6228-6235 (2011).
66. Lemoine, R. C. and Wanner, J. Small molecule antagonists of the chemokine receptor CCR5. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10, 1299-1338 (2010).
67. Cumming, J. et al. Balancing hERG affinity and absorption in the discovery of AZD5672, an orally active CCR5 antagonist for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 22, 1655-1659 (2012).
68. Charles, M. A. and Kane, J. P. New molecular insights into CETP structure and function: a review. J. Lipid Res. 53, 1451-1458 (2012).
69. Mantlo, N. B. and Escribano, A. Update on the discovery and development of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors for reducing residual cardiovascular risk. J. Med. Chem. 57, 1-17 (2014).
70. Hunt, J. A. et al. 2 arylbenzoxazoles as CETP inhibitors: substitution and modification of the α alkoxyamide moiety. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 20, 1019-1022 (2010).
71. Sweis, R. F. et al. 2-(4 carbonylphenyl)benzoxazole inhibitors of CETP: attenuation of hERG binding and improved HDLc-raising efficacy. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21, 2597-2600 (2011).
72. Kallashi, F. et al. 2 arylbenzoxazoles as CETP inhibitors: raising HDL C in cynoCETP transgenic mice. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21, 558-561 (2011).
73. Harikrishnan, L. S. et al. 2 arylbenzoxazoles as novel cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors: optimization via array synthesis. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 2640-2644 (2008).
74. Fernanadez, M. C. et al. Design, synthesis and structure-activity- relationship of 1,5 tetrahydronaphthyridines as CETP inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 22, 3056-3062 (2012).
75. Harikrishnan, L. S. et al. Diphenylpyridylethanamine (DPPE) derivatives as cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 55, 6162 -6175 (2012).
76. Griffith, D. A. et al. Discovery of 1-[9-(4 chlorophenyl)-8-(2 chlorophenyl)-9H purin 6 yl]-4 ethylaminopiperidine 4 carboxylic acid amide hydrochloride (CP 945,598), a novel, potent, and selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonist. J. Med. Chem. 52, 234-237 (2009).
77. Plowright, A. T. et al. Discovery of agonists of cannabinoid receptor 1 with restricted central nervous system penetration aimed for treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease. J. Med. Chem. 56, 220-240 (2013).
78. Darout, E. et al. Design and synthesis of diazatricyclodecane agonists of the G protein-coupled receptor 119. J. Med. Chem. 56, 301-319 (2013).
79. Higueruelo, AP., Schreyer, A., Bickerton, G. R. J., Blundell, T. L. and Pitt, W. R. What can we learn from the evolution of protein-ligand interactions to aid the design of new therapeutics? PLoS ONE 7, e51742 (2012).
80. Valko, K., Chiarparin, E., Nunhuck, S. and Montanari, D. In vitro measurement of drug efficiency index to aid early lead optimization. J. Pharm. Sci. 101, 4155-4169 (2012).
81. Freeman-Cook, K. D., Hoffman, R. L. and Johnson, T. W. Lipophilic efficiency: the most important efficiency metric in medicinal chemistry. Future Med. Chem. 5, 113-115 (2013).
82. Abad-Zapatero, C. Ligand efficiency indices for effective drug discovery. Exp. Opin. Drug Discov. 2, 469-488 (2007).
83. Mannhold, R., Poda, G. I., Ostermann, C. and Tetko, I. V. Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: state of the-art and comparison of logP methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J. Pharm. Sci. 98, 861-893 (2009).
84. Nissink, J. W. M. Simple size-independent measure of ligand efficiency. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 1617-1622 (2009).
85. Southan, C., Boppana, K., Jagarlapudi, S. A. and Muresan, S. Analysis of in vitro bioactivity data extracted from drug discovery literature and patents: ranking 1654 human protein targets by assayed compounds and molecular scaffolds. J. Cheminform. 3, 14 (2011).
86. Klibanov, O. M., Williams, S. H. and Iler, C. A. Cenicriviroc, an orally active CCR5 antagonist for the potential treatment of HIV infection. Curr. Opin. Investigat. Drugs 11, 940-950 (2010).