In silico tools used for compound selection during target-based drug discovery and development

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Volumn 10, Issue 8, 2015, Pages 901-923

  Caldwell, Gary W ^a  

^a JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Belgium)

Author keywords

high throughput screening; hit to lead; in silico tools; lead optimization; pharmaceutical crisis; target selection; target based

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

BINDING AFFINITY; BIOINFORMATICS; COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG TARGETING; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; IN VIVO STUDY; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR MECHANICS; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE PROPERTY RELATION; REVIEW; ANIMAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; MOLECULARLY TARGETED THERAPY; PROCEDURES;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; MOLECULAR TARGETED THERAPY;

EID: 84937695369     PISSN: 17460441     EISSN: 1746045X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17460441.2015.1043885     Document Type: Review

References (154)

1. Swinney DC, Anthony J. How were new medicines discovered? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(7):507-19
2. Eder J, Sedrani R, Wiesmann C. The discovery of first-in-class drugs: origins and evolution. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014;13(8):577-87
3. Berry IR, Martin RP. The pharmaceutical regulatory process. In: Robert P, editor. Drugs and the pharmaceutical sciences. 2nd edition. Informa Healthcare; New York, NY: 2008
4. Sustaining Better Health For Patients Worldwide. (2004, October) - International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). Available from: http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/Pharmaceutical-innovation.pdf
5. Munos B. Lessons for 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009;8(12):959-68
6. Crowley LV. Essentials of human disease. Jones & Bartlett Publishers; Burlington, (MA): 2011
7. Nicolaou KC. Advancing the drug discovery and development process. Angewandte Chemie Int Ed 2014;53(35):9128-40
8. Scannell JW, Blanckley A, Boldon H, Warrington B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11(3):191-200
9. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010;9(3):203-14
10. Pammolli F, Magazzini L, Riccaboni M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(6):428-38
11. Dimitri N. An assessment of R&D productivity in the pharmaceutical industry. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2011;32(12):683-5
12. Bunnage ME. Getting pharmaceutical R&D back on target. Nat Chem Biol 2011;7:335-9
13. Khanna I. Drug discovery in pharmaceutical industry: productivity challenges and trends. Drug Discov Today 2012;17(19-20):1088-102
14. Ringel M, Tollman P, Hersch G, Schulze U. Does size matter in R&D productivity? If not, what does? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013;12(10):901-2
15. Cumming JG, Finlay MRV, Giordanetto F, et al. Potential strategies for increasing drug-discovery productivity. Future Med Chem 2014;6(5):515-27
16. Schulze U, Baedeker M, Chen YT, Greber D. R&D productivity: on the comeback trail. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014;13(4):331-2
17. Caldwell GW. Compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery: acceptable pharmacokinetics properties utilizing combined physicochemical, in vitro and in vivo screens. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2000;3:30-41
18. Caldwell GW, Ritchie DM, Masucci JA, et al. The new pre-preclinical paradigm: compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 2001;1(5):353-66
19. Caldwell GW, Yan Z. Screening for reactive intermediates and toxicity assessment in drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2006;9(1):47-60
20. Caldwell GW, Yan Z, Tang W, et al. ADME optimization and toxicity assessment in early- and late-phase drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 2009;9(11):965-80
21. Cook D, Brown D, Alexander R, et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a fivedimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014;13(6):419-31
22. Roberts RA, Kavanagh SL, Mellor HR, et al. Reducing attrition in drug development: smart loading preclinical safety assessment. Drug Discov Today 2014;19(3):341-7
23. Owens PK, Raddad E, Miller JW, et al. A decade of innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: the Chorus model. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2015;14(1):17-28
24. Southan C, Varkonyi P, Boppana K, et al. Tracking 20 Years of Compound-to-Target Output from Literature and Patents. PLoS One 2013;8(10):e77142
25. Chung TDY. Collaborative precompetitive preclinical drug discovery with academics and pharma/biotech partners at sanford|burnham: infrastructure, capabilities & operational models. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2014;17(3):272-89
26. Houston JG, Banks MN, Binnie A. Case study: impact of technology investment on lead discovery at Bristol-Myers Squibb, 1998-2006. Drug Discov Today 2008;13(1-2):44-51
27. Janzen WP. Screening technologies for small molecule discovery: the state of the art. Chem Biol 2014;21(9):1162-70
28. Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010. J Nat Prod 2012;75(3):311-35
29. Lee JA, Uhlik MT, Moxham CM, et al. Modern phenotypic drug discovery is a viable, neoclassic pharma strategy. J Med Chem 2012;55(10):4527-38
30. Baumann A. Preclinical development of therapeutic biologics. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2008;3(3):289-97
31. Szekely-Klepser G, Kindt E. The role of biomarkers in drug discovery and development: enabling PK/PD. In: Lyubimov AV, Rodrigues AD, Sinz MA, editors. Encyclopedia of drug metabolism and interactions. John Wiley and Sons; Hoboken, (NJ): 2012. p. 577-98
32. Azmi AS, Wang Z, Philip PA, et al. Proof of Concept: Network and Systems Biology Approaches Aid in the Discovery of Potent Anticancer Drug Combinations. Mol Cancer Ther 2010;9(12):3137-44
33. O'Brien PJ. High-content analysis in toxicology: screening substances for human toxicity potential, elucidating subcellular mechanisms and in vivo use as translational safety. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2014;115(1):4-17
34. Mullane K, Winquist RJ, Williams M. Translational paradigms in pharmacology and drug discovery. Biochem Pharmacol 2014;87(1):189-210
35. Reddy AS, Zhang S. Polypharmacology: drug discovery for the future. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2013;6(1):41-7
36. Patwardhan B, Vaidya ADB, Chorghade M, Joshi SP. Reverse pharmacology and systems approaches for drug discovery and development. Curr Bioactive Compounds 2008;4(4):201-12
37. Bal-Price A, Jennings P. editors. In vitro toxicology systems. Humana Press; Totowa, (NJ): 2014
38. Keohavong P, Grant SG. editors. Molecular toxicology protocols. Humana Press; Totowa, (NJ): 2014
39. Caldwell GW, Yan Z. editors. Optimization in Drug discovery: in vitro methods 2. Humana Press; Totowa, (NJ): 2014
40. Yan Z, Caldwell GW. editors. Optimization in drug discovery: in vitro methods 1. Humana Press; Totowa, (NJ): 2004
41. Ou-Yang S-S, Lu J-Y, Kong X-Q, et al. Computational drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2012;33(9):1131-40
42. Johnston SC, Hauser SL, Desmond-Hellmann S. Enhancing ties between academia and industry to improve health. Nat Med 2011;17(4):434-6
43. Karsdal MA, Henriksen K, Leeming DJ. Biochemical markers and the FDA Critical Path: How biomarkers may contribute to the understanding of pathophysiology and provide unique and necessary tools for drug development. Biomarkers 2009;14(3):181-202
44. Rogatko A, Babb JS, Tighiouart M, et al. New paradigm in dose-finding trials: patient-specific dosing and beyond phase I. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11(15):5342-6
45. Lindborg SR, Persinger CC, Sashegyi A, et al. Statistical refocusing in the design of Phase II trials offers promise of increased R&D productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014;13(8):638-40
46. Butler MS, Robertson AAB, Cooper MA. Natural product and natural product derived drugs in clinical trials. Nat Prod Rep 2014;31(11):1612-61
47. US Food and Drug Administration. Innovation or stagnation: challenge and opportunity on the critical path to new medical products. 2004. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm077262.htm
48. Bamberger M, Moore N, Lechat P. How to improve the clinical development paradigm and its division into phases I, II and III. Therapie 2011;66(4):327-34
49. Grootjans-van Kampen I, Engelfriet PM, van Baal PHM. Disease prevention: saving lives or reducing health care costs? PLoS ONE 2014;9(8):e104469
50. Parker-Lue S, Santoro M, Koski G. The ethics and economics of pharmaceutical pricing. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2015;55:191-206
51. Koenig J. Does process excellence handcuff drug development? Drug Discov Today 2011;16(9-10):377-81
52. Schumock GT, Li EC, Suda KJ, et al. National trends in prescription drug expenditures and projections for 2014. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2014;71(6):482-99
53. Kaplan RM, Babad YM. Balancing influence between actors in healthcare decision making. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11(85):1-14
54. Rutger D, Edith M, Maneesha M, et al. Pharmaceutical portfolio management: global disease burden and corporate performance metrics. Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2014;17(6):732-8
55. LaMattina JL. The impact of mergers on pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(8):559-60
56. Arrowsmith J. A decade of change. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11(1):17-18
57. Watson RR. editor. In vitro methods of toxicology. CRC Press; Boca Raton, (FL): 1992
58. O'Hare S, Atterwill CK. editors. In vitro toxicity testing protocols. Humana Press; Totowa, (NJ): 1995
59. Borchart RT, Smith PL, Wilson G. editors. Models for assessing drug absorption and metabolism. Plenum Press; New York (NY): 1996
60. Yalkowsky SH. editor. Solubility and solubilization in aqueous media. Oxford University Press; New York (NY): 1999
61. Woolf TF. editor. Handbook of drug metabolism. Marcel Dekker; New York (NY): 1999
62. Gad SC. editor. Preclinical development handbook; ADME and Biopharmaceutical Properties. John Wiley and Sons; Hoboken, (NJ): 2008
63. van de Waterbeemd H, Testa B. editors. Drug bioavailability; estimation of solubility, permeability, absorption and bioavailability. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; Weinheim (Germany): 2009
64. Dressman JB, Reppas C. editors. Oral drug absorption: prediction and assessment. Informa Healthcare; New York, (NY): 2010
65. Tihanyi K, Vastag M. editors. Solubility, delivery and ADME problems of drugs and drug candidates. United Arab Emirates Bentham Science Publishers; Sharjah: 2011
66. Zhang D, Surapaneni S. editors. ADME-enabling technologies in drug design and development. John Wiley and Sons; Hoboken, (NJ): 2012
67. Avdeef A. editor. Absorption and drug development: solubility, permeability, and charge state. John Wiley and Sons; Hoboken, (NJ): 2012
68. Leeson PD, St-Gallay SA. The influence of the 'organizational factor' on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(10):749-65
69. Hartung T. Look back in anger - what clinical studies tell us about preclinical work. ALTEX 2013;30(3):275-91
70. Hughes JP, Rees S, Kalindjian SB, Philpott KL. Principles of early drug discovery. Br J Pharmacol 2011;162(6):1239-49
71. Caldwell GW, Yan Z, Masucci JA, et al. Applied pharmacokinetics in drug development. Pharmaceut Devel Regul 2003;1(2):117-32
72. Guido RVC, Oliva G, Andricopulo AD. Modern drug discovery technologies: opportunities and challenges in lead discovery. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2011;14(10):830-9
73. Titov DV, Liu JO. Identification and validation of protein targets of bioactive small molecules. Bioorgan Med Chem 2012;20(6):1902-9
74. Sharma N, Harikumar SL. Use of genomics and proteomics in pharmaceutical drug discovery and development: a review. Int J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 2013;5(3):24-8
75. Squarize CH, Castilho RM, Leopoldino AM. Drug target validation. Curr Methods Med Chem Biol Phy 2008;2:167-85
76. Ekimler S, Sahin K. Computational methods for microRNA target prediction. Genes 2014;5(3):671-83
77. Taboureau O, Baell JB, Fernandez-Recio J, Villoutreix BO. Established and emerging trends in computational drug discovery in the structural genomics era. Chem Biol 2012;19(1):29-41
78. Liu H-F, Shen Q, Zhang J, Fu W. Evaluation of various inverse docking schemes in multiple targets identification. J Mol Graph Model 2010;29(3):326-30
79. Eric S, Ke S, Barata T, et al. Target fishing and docking studies of the novel derivatives of aryl-aminopyridines with potential anticancer activity. Bioorgan Med Chem 2012;20(17):5220-8
80. Koutsoukas A, Simms B, Kirchmair J, et al. From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: current databases, methods and applications. J Proteomics 2011;74(12):2554-257
81. Janzen WP. Screening technologies for small molecule discovery: the state of the art. Chem Biol 2014;21(9):1162-70
82. Macarron R, Banks MN, Bojanic D, et al. Impact of high-throughput screening in biomedical research. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(3):188-95
83. Cuozzo JW, Soutter H H. Overview of recent progress in protein-expression technologies for small-molecule screening. J Biomol Screen 2014;19(7):1000-13
84. Huggins DJ, Venkitaraman AR, Spring DR. Rational methods for the selection of diverse screening compounds. ACS Chem Biol 2011;6(3):208-17
85. Ramsay DL, Kwasnoski JD, Caldwell GW. Small molecule compound logistics outsourcing - going beyond the "thought experiment". Curr Top Med Chem 2012;12(11):1298-308
86. Besnard J, Jones PS, Hopkins AL, Pannifer AD. The Joint European Compound Library: boosting precompetitive research. Drug Discov Today 2014; Ahead of Press
87. Fink T, Reymond J-L. Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C, N, O, F: assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ring systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery. J Chem Inf Mod 2007;47(2):342-53
88. Gubler H, Schopfer U, Jacoby E. Theoretical and experimental relationships between percent inhibition and IC50 data observed in highthroughput screening. J Biomol Screen 2013;18(1):1-13
89. Shun T Y, Lazo JS, Sharlow ER, Johnston PA. Identifying actives from HTS data sets: practical approaches for the selection of an appropriate HTS data-processing method and quality control review. J Biomol Screen 2011;16:1-14
90. Sink R, Gobec S, Pecar S, Zega A. False positives in the early stages of drug discovery. Curr Med Chem 2010;17(34):4231-55
91. Ortega SS, Cara LCL, Salvador MK. In silico pharmacology for a multidisciplinary drug discovery process. Drug Metabol Drug Interact 2012;27(4):199-207
92. Leung K-, Liu L-J, Lin S, et al. Discovery of a small-molecule inhibitor of STAT3 by ligand-based pharmacophore screening. Methods 2015;71:38-43
93. Hoi PM, Li S, Vong CT, et al. Recent advances in structure-based drug design and virtual screening of VEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Methods 2015;71:85-91
94. Phatak SS, Stephan CC, Cavasotto CN. High-throughput and in silico screening in drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2009;4(9):947-59
95. Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Peltason L, Bajorath J. Quo vadis, virtual screening? a comprehensive survey of prospective applications. J Med Chem 2010;53(24):8461-7
96. Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Bajorath J. State-of-the-art in ligand based virtual screening. Drug Discov Today 2011;16:372-376
97. Stumpfe D, Ripphausen P, Bajorath J. Virtual compound screening in drug discovery. Future Med Chem 2012;4:593-602
98. Gu W-G, Liu B-N, Yuan J-F. Virtual-screening targeting Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 integrase-lens epithelium-derived growth factor/p75 interaction for drug development. J Drug Target 2015;23(2):134-9
99. Sun L, Qian H, Huang W. Virtual screening for cholesterol absorption inhibitors. Med Chem 2015;11(1):2-12
100. Leung C-H, Ma D-L. Recent advances in virtual screening for drug discovery. Methods 2015;71:1-3
101. Parentt MD, Rastelli G. Advances and applications of binding affinity predictions methods in drug discovery. Biotechnol Adv 2012;30:244-50
102. Zhu T, Cao S, Su P-C, et al. Hit identification and optimization in virtual screening: practical recommendations based on a critical literature analysis. J Med Chem 2013;56(17):6560-72
103. Shult MD. Improving the plausibility of success with inefficient metrics. Med Chem Lett 2013;5:2-5
104. Cho YS, Kwon HJ. Identification and validation of bioactive small molecule target through phenotypic screening. Bioorgan Med Chem 2012;20(6):1922-8
105. Lee JA, Uhlik MT, Moxham CM, et al. Modern phenotypic drug discovery is a viable, neoclassic pharma strategy. J Med Chem 2012;55(10):4527-38
106. Moffat JG, Rudolph J, Bailey D. Phenotypic screening in cancer drug discovery - past, present and future. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014;13(8):588-602
107. Polyakov VR, Moorcroft ND, Drawid A. Enrichment analysis for discovering biological associations in phenotypic screens. J Chem Inf Model 2014;54(2):377-86
108. Keseru GM, Makara GM. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009;8(3):203-12
109. Balbach S, Korn C. Pharmaceutical evaluation of early development candidates "the 100 mg-approach". Int J Pharm 2004;275(1-2):1-12
110. Hann MM, Keseru GM. Finding the sweet spot: the role of nature and nurture in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2012;11:355-65
111. Lipkin MJ, Stevens AP, Livingstone DJ, Harris CJ. How large does a compound screening collection need to be? Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2008;11(6):482-93
112. Caldwell GW, Yan Z, Lang W, Masucci J. The IC50 concept revisited. Curr Top Med Chem 2012;12(11):1282-90
113. Shultz MD. Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: Strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters. Bioorgan Med Chem Lett 2013;23(21):5980-91
114. Perola E. An analysis of the binding efficiencies of drugs and their leads in successful drug discovery programs. J Med Chem 2010;53(7):2986-97
115. Walters WP, Green J, Weiss JR, Murcko MA. What do chemists actually make? A 50-year retrospective. J Med Chem 2011;54(19):6405-16
116. Lajiness MS, Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V. Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J Med Chem 2004;47(20):4891-6
117. Kutchukian PS, Vasilyeva NY, Xu J, et al. Inside the mind of a medicinal chemist: the role of human bias in compound prioritization during drug discovery. PLoS One 2012;7(11):e48476
118. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996;39(15):2887-93
119. Hopkins AL, Keseru GM, Leeson D, et al. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2014;13(2):105-21
120. Johnson AT. A prospective method to guide small molecule drug design. J Chem Educ 2014;doi: 10.1021/ed5002653
121. Tarcsay A, Nyiri K, Keseru GM. Impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. J Med Chem 2012;55(3):1252-60
122. Arnott JA, Kumar R, Planey SL. Lipophilicity indices for drug development. J Appl Biopharm Pharmacokinet 2013;1(1):31-6
123. Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, et al. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat Chem 2012;4(2):90-8
124. Dobchev DA, Pillai GG, Karelson M. In silico machine learning methods in drug development. Curr Top Med Chem 2014;14(16):1913-22
125. Cramer RD. The inevitable QSAR renaissance. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2012;26(1):35-8
126. Cumming JG, Davis AM, Muresan S, et al. Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2013;12(12):948-62
127. Davis AM, Wood DJ. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models that stand the test of time. Mol Pharm 2013;10(4):1183-90
128. Dearden JC. Expert systems for toxicity prediction. In: Cronin MTD, Madden JC, editors. In silico toxicology. RSC Publishing; Cambridge (UK): 2010. p. 478-507
129. Arnott JA, Planey SL. The influence of lipophilicity in drug discovery and design. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2012;7(10):863-75
130. Ortwine DF, Aliagas I. Physicochemical and DMPK in silico models: facilitating their use by medicinal chemists. Mol Pharm 2013;10(4):1153-61
131. Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? where are you going. J Med Chem 2014;57(12):4977-5010
132. Wang L, Wu Y, Deng Y, et al. Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. J Am Chem Soc 2015;137(7):2695-703
133. Mishra M, Mishra VK, Senger P, et al. Exploring QSAR studies on 4-substituted quinazoline derivatives as antimalarial compounds for the development of predictive models. Med Chem Res 2014;23(3):1397-405
134. Dearden JC. In silico prediction of aqueous solubility. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2006;1(1):31-52
135. Hewitt M, Cronin MTD, Enoch S.J, et al. In silico prediction of aqueous solubility: the solubility challenge. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49(11):2572-87
136. Chevillard F, Lagorce D, Reynes C, et al. In silico prediction of aqueous solubility: a multimodel protocol based on chemical similarity. Mol Pharm 2012;9(11):3127-35
137. Wenlock MC, Carlsson LA. How experimental errors influence drug metabolism and pharmacokinetic QSAR/QSPR models. J Chem Inf Model 2015;55(1):125-34
138. Beck B, Geppert T. Industrial applications of in silico ADMET. J Mol Model 2014;20(7):1-15
139. Honorio KM, Moda TL, Andricopulo AD. Pharmacokinetic properties and in silico ADME modeling in drug discovery. Med Chem 2013;9(2):163-76
140. Cheng F, Li W, Liu G, Tang Y. In silico ADMET prediction: recent advances, current challenges and future trends. Curr Top Med Chem 2013;13(11):1273-89
141. Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Hannongbua S. In-silico ADME models: a general assessment of their utility in drug discovery applications. Curr Top Med Chem 2011;11(4):358-81
142. Yan Z, Caldwell GW. The current status of time dependent CYP inhibition assay and in silico drug drug interaction predictions. Curr Top Med Chem 2012;12(11):1291-7
143. Gleeson MP, Montanari D. Strategies for the generation, validation and application of in silico ADMET models in lead generation and optimization. Expert Opin Drug Metabol Toxicol 2012;8(11):1435-46
144. Jones HM, Mayawala K, Poulin P. Dose selection based on physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) approaches. AAPS J 2013;15(2):377-87
145. Shelia AP. editor. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulations principles, methods, and applications in the pharmaceutical industry. Nature Publishing Group; London, UK: 2013
146. Lipscomb JC, Haddad S, Poet T, Krishnan K. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models in toxicity testing and risk assessment. Adv Exp Med Biol 2012;745:76-95
147. Jones HM, Dickins M, Youdim K, et al. Application of PBPK modelling in drug discovery and development at Pfizer. Xenobiotica 2012;42(1):94-106
148. Wunberg T, Hendrix M, Hillisch A, et al. Improving the hit-to-lead process: data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discov Today 2006;11(3-4):175-80
149. Keseru GM, Makara GM. Hit discovery and hit-to-lead approaches. Drug Discov Today 2006;11(15-16):741-8
150. Manly CJ, Chandrasekhar J, Ochterski JW, et al. Strategies and tactics for optimizing the Hit-to-Lead process and beyond-a computational chemistry perspective. Drug Discov Today 2008;13(3-4):99-109
151. Duffy BC, Zhu L, Decornez H, Kitchen DB. Early phase drug discovery: Cheminformatics and computational techniques in identifying lead series. Bioorgan Med Chem 2012;20(18):5324-42
152. Segall M. Multi-parameter optimization in drug discovery. Innov Pharm Technol 2011;39:42-6
153. Wagner TT, Hou X, Verhoest PR, Villalobos A. Moving beyond rules: the development of a central nervous system multiparameter optimization (CNS MPO) approach to enable alignment of druglike properties. ACS Chem Neurosci 2010;1(6):435-49
154. Ritchie TJ, McLay IM. Should medicinal chemists do molecular modelling? Drug Discov Today 2012;17(11-12):534-7