The application of in silico drug-likeness predictions in pharmaceutical research

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Volumn 86, Issue , 2015, Pages 2-10

  Tian, Sheng ^a,b   Wang, Junmei ^c   Li, Youyong ^d   Li, Dan ^a   Xu, Lei ^a   Hou, Tingjun ^a,b  

^a ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b MEDICAL COLLEGE OF SOOCHOW UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d SOOCHOW UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

ADMET; Computer aided drug design; Drug likeness; Machine learning; Traditional Chinese medicines; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED INSTRUCTION; LEARNING SYSTEMS; MACHINE LEARNING; MEDICINE; PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS;

ADMET; COMPUTER AIDED DRUG DESIGN; DRUG-LIKENESS; TRADITIONAL CHINESE MEDICINE; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

DRUG PRODUCTS;

CHINESE DRUG; NATURAL PRODUCT; BIOLOGICAL PRODUCT; DRUG;

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CHINESE MEDICINE; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG ABSORPTION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EXCRETION; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG STRUCTURE; GENETIC ALGORITHM; HYDROGEN BOND; MACHINE LEARNING; MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METABOLISM; PHARMACOKINETICS;

BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; MACHINE LEARNING; MEDICINE, CHINESE TRADITIONAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOKINETICS;

EID: 84937630428     PISSN: 0169409X     EISSN: 18728294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.009     Document Type: Review

References (89)

1. Hou T.J., Xu X.J. Recent development and application of virtual screening in drug discovery: an overview. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2004, 10:1011-1033.
2. Kesselheim A.S., Darrow J.J. Drug development and FDA approval, 1938-2013. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370:e39-e39.
3. Kola I., Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004, 3:711-715.
4. Dobson C.M. Chemical space and biology. Nature 2004, 432:824-828.
5. Ekins S., Boulanger B., Swaan P.W., Hupcey M.A.Z. Towards a new age of virtual ADME/TOX and multidimensional drug discovery. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16:381-401.
6. Hou T., Wang J., Zhang W., Wang W., Xu X. Recent advances in computational prediction of drug absorption and permeability in drug discovery. Curr. Med. Chem. 2006, 13:2653-2667.
7. Kerns E.H., Di L. Pharmaceutical profiling in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2003, 8:316-323.
8. Lin J., Sahakian D.C., de Morais S.M.F., Xu J.H., Polzer R.J., Winter S.M. The role of absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity in drug discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2003, 3:1125-1154.
9. Vistoli G., Pedretti A., Testa B. Assessing drug-likeness - what are we missing?. Drug Discov. Today 2008, 13:285-294.
10. Hann M.M., Oprea T.I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8:255-263.
11. Ursu O., Rayan A., Goldblum A., Oprea T.I. Understanding drug-likeness. WIREs Comput. Mol. Sci. 2011, 1:760-781.
12. 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.
13. Brustle M., Beck B., Schindler T., King W., Mitchell T., Clark T. Descriptors, physical properties, and drug-likeness. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45:3345-3355.
14. Clark D.E., Pickett S.D. Computational methods for the prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Drug Discov. Today 2000, 5:49-58.
15. Egan W.J., Walters W.P., Murcko M.A. Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2002, 5:540-549.
16. Jorgensen W.L. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 2004, 303:1813-1818.
17. Kubinyi H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2:665-668.
18. Lajiness M.S., Vieth M., Erickson J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2004, 7:470-477.
19. Leeson P.D., Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2007, 6:881-890.
20. Lipinski C., Hopkins A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 2004, 432:855-861.
21. Mitchell T., Showell G.A. Design strategies for building drug-like chemical libraries. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2001, 4:314-318.
22. Sadowski J. Optimization of the drug-likeness of chemical libraries. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 2000, 20:17-28.
23. Ghose A.K., Viswanadhan V.N., Wendoloski J.J. A knowledge-based 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.
24. Oprea T.I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14:251-264.
25. Muegge I., Heald S.L., Brittelli D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44:1841-1846.
26. Feher M., Schmidt J.M. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products, and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43:218-227.
27. Walters W.P., Namchuk M. Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2:259-266.
28. Zheng S.X., Luo X.M., Chen G., Zhu W.L., Shen J.H., Chen K.X., Jiang H.L. A new rapid and effective chemistry space filter in recognizing a druglike database. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45:856-862.
29. Bhal S.K., Kassam K., Peirson I.G., Pearl G.M. The rule of five revisited: applying log D in place of log p in drug-likeness filters. Mol. Pharm. 2007, 4:556-560.
30. Bemis G.W., Murcko M.A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39:2887-2893.
31. Bemis G.W., Murcko M.A. Properties of known drugs. 2. Side chains. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42:5095-5099.
32. Wang J.M., Hou T.J. Drug and drug candidate building block analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50:55-67.
33. 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, 3:284-289.
34. Siegel M.G., Vieth M. Drugs in other drugs: a new look at drugs as fragments. Drug Discov. Today 2007, 12:71-79.
35. Sutherland J.J., Higgs R.E., Watson I., Vieth M. Chemical fragments as foundations for understanding target space and activity prediction. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51:2689-2700.
36. Vieth M., Sutherland J.J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49:3451-3453.
37. Ajay, Walters W.P., Murcko M.A. Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules?. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41:3314-3324.
38. Sadowski J., Kubinyi H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41:3325-3329.
39. Cortes C., Vapnik V. Support-vector networks. Mach. Learn. 1995, 20:273-297.
40. Byvatov E., Fechner U., Sadowski J., Schneider G. Comparison of support vector machine and artificial neural network systems for drug/nondrug classification. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43:1882-1889.
41. Zernov V.V., Balakin K.V., Ivaschenko A.A., Savchuk N.P., Pletnev I.V. Drug discovery using support vector machines. The case studies of drug-likeness, agrochemical-likeness, and enzyme inhibition predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2003, 43:2048-2056.
42. Muller K.R., Ratsch G., Sonnenburg S., Mika S., Grimm M., Heinrich N. Classifying 'drug-likeness' with kernel-based learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45:249-253.
43. Li Q.L., Bender A., Pei J.F., Lai L.H. A large descriptor set and a probabilistic kernel-based classifier significantly improve druglikeness classification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:1776-1786.
44. Young S.S., Hawkins D.M. Using recursive partitioning to analyze a large SAR data set. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 1998, 8:183-193.
45. Wagener M., van Geerestein V.J. Potential drugs and nondrugs: prediction and identification of important structural features. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40:280-292.
46. Walters W.P., Murcko M.A. Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 2002, 54:255-271.
47. Law V., Knox C., Djoumbou Y., Jewison T., Guo A.C., Liu Y., Maciejewski A., Arndt D., Wilson M., Neveu V., Tang A., Gabriel G., Ly C., Adamjee S., Dame Z.T., Han B., Zhou Y., Wishart D.S. DrugBank 4.0: shedding new light on drug metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42:D1091-D1097.
48. Walters W.P., Stahl M.T., Murcko M.A. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today 1998, 3:160-178.
49. Bickerton G.R., Paolini G.V., Besnard J., Muresan S., Hopkins A.L. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem. 2012, 4:90-98.
50. Shen M., Tian S., Li Y., Li Q., Xu X., Wang J., Hou T. Drug-likeness analysis of traditional Chinese medicines: 1. Property distributions of drug-like compounds, non-drug-like compounds and natural compounds from traditional Chinese medicines. J. Cheminformatics 2012, 4:31.
51. 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. 2003, 46:1250-1256.
52. Macarron R., Luengo J.I. Yin and Yang in medicinal chemistry: what does drug-likeness mean?. Future Med. Chem. 2011, 3:505-507.
53. Walters W.P. Going further than Lipinski's rule in drug design. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2012, 7:99-107.
54. Ajay, Bemis G.W., Murcko M.A. Designing libraries with CNS activity. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42:4942-4951.
55. Ghose A.K., Herbertz T., Hudkins R.L., Dorsey B.D., Mallamo J.P. Knowledge-based, central nervous system (CNS) lead selection and lead optimization for CNS drug discovery. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 2012, 3:50-68.
56. Proudfoot J.R. The evolution of synthetic oral drug properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15:1087-1090.
57. Zuegg J., Cooper M.A. Drug-likeness and increased hydrophobicity of commercially available compound libraries for drug screening. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2012, 12:1500-1513.
58. Hou T., Wang J., Zhang W., Xu X. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 7. Prediction of oral absorption by correlation and classification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:208-218.
59. Hou T.J., Wang J.M., Zhang W., Xu X.J. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 6. Can oral bioavailability in humans be effectively predicted by simple molecular property-based rules?. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:460-463.
60. Ritchie T.J., Macdonald S.J.F. How drug-like are 'ugly' drugs: do drug-likeness metrics predict ADME behaviour in humans?. Drug Discov. Today 2014, 19:489-495.
61. Wang J., Ramnarayan K. Toward designing drug-like libraries: a novel computational approach for prediction of drug feasibility of compounds. J. Comb. Chem. 1999, 1:524-533.
62. Muegge I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med. Res. Rev. 2003, 23:302-321.
63. Lewell X.Q., Smith R. Drug-motif-based diverse monomer selection: method and application in combinatorial chemistry. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 1997, 15:43.
64. Lewell X.Q., Judd D.B., Watson S.P., Hann M.M. RECAP - retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: A powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38:511-522.
65. Tian S., Li Y., Wang J., Xu X., Xu L., Wang X., Chen L., Hou T. Drug-likeness analysis of traditional Chinese medicines: 2. Characterization of scaffold architectures for drug-like compounds, non-drug-like compounds, and natural compounds from traditional Chinese medicines. J. Cheminformatics 2013, 5:5.
66. Over B., Wetzel S., Gruetter C., Nakai Y., Renner S., Rauh D., Waldmann H. Natural-product-derived fragments for fragment-based ligand discovery. Nat. Chem. 2013, 5:21-28.
67. Takaoka Y., Endo Y., Yamanobe S., Kakinuma H., Okubo T., Shimazaki Y., Ota T., Sumiya S., Yoshikawa K. Development of a method for evaluating drug-likeness and ease of synthesis using a data set in which compounds are assigned scores based on chemists' intuition. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43:1269-1275.
68. Frimurer T.M., Bywater R., Naerum L., Lauritsen L.N., Brunak S. Improving the odds in discriminating "drug-like" from "non drug-like" compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40:1315-1324.
69. Gillet V.J., Willett P., Bradshaw J. Identification of biological activity profiles using substructural analysis and genetic algorithms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38:165-179.
70. Gillet V.J., Willett P., Bradshaw J., Green D.V.S. Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimize diversity and physical properties. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39:169-177.
71. Gillet V.J., Khatib W., Willett P., Fleming P.J., Green D.V.S. Combinatorial library design using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42:375-385.
72. Schneider N., Jaeckels C., Andres C., Hutter M.C. Gradual in silico filtering for druglike substances. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:613-628.
73. Yusof I., Segall M.D. Considering the impact drug-like properties have on the chance of success. Drug Discov. Today 2013, 18:659-666.
74. Kirkpatrick P. Medicinal chemistry: shades of chemical beauty. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2012, 11:107-107.
75. Tian S., Wang J., Li Y., Xu X., Hou T. Drug-likeness analysis of traditional Chinese medicines: prediction of drug-likeness using machine learning approaches. Mol. Pharm. 2012, 9:2875-2886.
76. Lawrence R.N. Rediscovering natural product biodiversity. Drug Discov. Today 1999, 4:449-451.
77. Newman D.J., Cragg G.M. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. J. Nat. Prod. 2012, 75:311-335.
78. Newman D.J., Cragg G.M., Snader K.M. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the period 1981-2002. J. Nat. Prod. 2003, 66:1022-1037.
79. Grabowski K., Baringhaus K.H., Schneider G. Scaffold diversity of natural products: inspiration for combinatorial library design. J. Nat. Prod. 2008, 25:892-904.
80. Henkel T., Brunne R.M., Muller H., Reichel F. Statistical investigation into the structural complementarity of natural products and synthetic compounds. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38:643-647.
81. Corson T.W., Crews C.M. Molecular understanding and modern application of traditional medicines: triumphs and trials. Cell 2007, 130:769-774.
82. Normile D. Asian medicine: the new face of traditional Chinese medicine. Science 2003, 299:188-190.
83. Wang S., Li Y., Devinsky O., Schachter S.C., Pacia S. Traditional Chinese medicine 2005, Demos Medical Pub, New York, NY, USA.
84. Qiao X.B., Hou T.J., Zhang W., Guo S.L., Xu S.J. A 3D structure database of components from Chinese traditional medicinal herbs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42:481-489.
85. Good A.C., Hermsmeier M.A. Measuring CAMD technique performance. 2. How "druglike" are drugs? Implications of random test set selection exemplified using druglikeness classification models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:110-114.
86. Keserue G.M., Makara G.M. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2009, 8:203-212.
87. Lipinski C.A. Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 2004, 1:337-341.
88. Bleicher K.H., Bohm H.J., Muller K., Alanine A.I. Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2:369-378.
89. Wunberg T., Hendrix M., Hillisch A., Lobell M., Meier H., Schmeck C., Wild H., Hinzen B. Improving the hit-to-lead process: data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discov. Today 2006, 11:175-180.