Molecular inflation, attrition and the rule of five

Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews

Volumn 101, Issue , 2016, Pages 22-33

  Leeson, Paul D ^a  

^a Paul Leeson Consulting Ltd Malt House   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Compound quality; Exception space; Impact of time; Lead optimisation; Lipophilic ligand efficiency; Patented compounds; Physicochemical properties; Risk benefit

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; DRUG PRODUCTS; EFFICIENCY; HYDROGEN BONDS; MOLECULES; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; PHYSICAL PROPERTIES;

ANACEPTRAPIB (11556427); BEDAQUILINE (5388906); DALCETRAPIB (6918540); EVACETRAPIB (49836058); EXCEPTION SPACE; IMPACT OF TIME; LAPATINIB; OPTIMISATIONS; PATENTED COMPOUNDS; PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTY; PONATINIB (24826799); TELAPREVIR (3010818); TORCETRAPIB (159325);

LIGANDS;

ANACETRAPIB; ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; ANTIFUNGAL AGENT; ANTIVIRUS AGENT; BEDAQUILINE; CARDIAC GLYCOSIDE; DALCETRAPIB; EVACETRAPIB; LAPATINIB; PONATINIB; TELAPREVIR; TORCETRAPIB; VITAMIN; DRUG; LIGAND;

ARTERY THROMBOSIS; AWARENESS; BREAST CANCER; CHRONIC MYELOID LEUKEMIA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE COURSE; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG PENETRATION; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG SOLUBILITY; DRUG STRUCTURE; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; HYDROPHOBICITY; IONIZATION; LIPOPHILICITY; LIVER FAILURE; LIVER TOXICITY; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; QT PROLONGATION; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; SKIN MANIFESTATION; CHEMICAL PHENOMENA; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; ORAL DRUG ADMINISTRATION; SOLUBILITY;

ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; HYDROPHOBIC AND HYDROPHILIC INTERACTIONS; LIGANDS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; SOLUBILITY;

EID: 84963813272     PISSN: 0169409X     EISSN: 18728294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.addr.2016.01.018     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. [1] Meanwell, N.A., Improving drug candidates by design: a focus on physicochemical properties as a means of improving compound disposition and safety. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 24 (2011), 1420–1456.
2. [2] Gleeson, M.P., Leeson, P.D., van de Waterbeemd, H., Physicochemical properties and compound quality. Davis, A., Ward, S.E., (eds.) The Handbook of Medicinal Chemistry: Principles and Practice, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2015, 1–31.
3. [3] Young, R.J., Physical properties in drug design. Topics Med. Chem. 9 (2015), 1–68.
4. [4] Gleeson, M.P., Hersey, A., Montanari, D., Overington, J., Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 197–208.
5. [5] Blomme, E.A.G., Will, Y., Toxicology strategies for drug discovery: present and future. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2015, 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00407.
6. [6] Tarcsay, A., Keseru, G.M., Contributions of molecular properties to drug promiscuity. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013), 1789–1795.
7. [7] Hansch, C., Björkroth, J.P., Leo, A., Hydrophobicity and central nervous system agents: on the principle of minimal hydrophobicity in drug design. J. Pharm. Sci. 76 (1987), 663–687.
8. [8] Waring, M.J., Lipophilicity in drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 5 (2010), 235–248.
9. [9] 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 (1997), 3–25.
10. [10] Lipinski, C.A., Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44 (2000), 235–249.
11. [11] Kell, D.B., Dobson, P.D., Bilsland, E., Oliver, S.G., The promiscuous binding of pharmaceutical drugs and their transporter-mediated uptake into cells: what we (need to) know and how we can do so. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 218–239.
12. [12] 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. 46 (2003), 1250–1256.
13. [13] Vieth, M., Siegel, M.G., Higgs, R.E., Watson, I.A., Robertson, D.H., Savin, K.A., Durst, G.L., Hipskind, P.A., Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004), 224–232.
14. [14] Ursu, O., Rayan, A., Goldblum, A., Oprea, T.I., Understanding drug-likeness. WIREs Comp. Mol. Sci. 1 (2011), 760–781.
15. [15] Oprea, T.I., Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14 (2000), 251–264.
16. [16] Teague, S.J., Davis, A.M., Leeson, P.D., Oprea, T., The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38 (1999), 3743–3748.
17. [17] Oprea, T.I., 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. 41 (2001), 1308–1315.
18. [18] 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 (2001), 856–864.
19. [19] Congreve, M., Carr, R., Murray, C., Jhoti, H., A ‘rule of three’ for fragment-based lead discovery?. Drug Discov. Today 8 (2003), 876–877.
20. [20] Murray, C.W., Rees, D.C., Opportunity knocks: organic chemistry for fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD). Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55 (2016), 488–492, 10.1002/anie.201506783.
21. [21] Gleeson, M.P., Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51 (2008), 817–834.
22. [22] Cox, P.B., Gregg, R.J., Vasudevan, A., Abbott physicochemical tiering (APT)—a unified approach to HTS triage. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 20 (2012), 4564–4573.
23. [23] Charifson, P.S., Walters, A.P., Acidic and basic drugs in medicinal chemistry: a perspective. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 9701–9717.
24. [24] Manallack, D.T., Prankerd, R.J., Yuriev, E., Oprea, T.I., Chalmers, D.K., The significance of acid/base properties in drug discovery. Chem. Soc. Rev. 42 (2013), 485–496.
25. [25] Leeson, P.D., Springthorpe, B., The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6 (2007), 881–890.
26. [26] Varma, M.V.S., 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. 53 (2010), 1098–1108.
27. [27] Ritchie, T.J., Macdonald, S.J., Physicochemical descriptors of aromatic character and their use in drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 7206–7215.
28. [28] Lovering, F., Bikker, J., Humblet, C., Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52 (2009), 6752–6756.
29. [29] Lovering, F., Escape from flatland 2: complexity and promiscuity. Med. Chem. Commun. 4 (2013), 515–519.
30. [30] Kombo, D.C., Tallapragada, K., Jain, R., Chewning, J., Mazurov, A.A., Speake, J.D., Hauser, T.A., Toler, S., 3D molecular descriptors important for clinical success. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (2013), 327–342.
31. [31] Yang, Y., Engkvist, O., Llinàs, A., Chen, H., Beyond size, ionization state, and lipophilicity: influence of molecular topology on absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity for druglike compounds. J. Med. Chem. 55 (2012), 3667–3677.
32. [32] Young, R.J., Green, D.V., Luscombe, C.N., Hill, A.P., Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discov. Today 16 (2011), 822–830.
33. [33] Wager, T.T., Chandrasekaran, R.Y., Hou, X., Troutman, M.D., Verhoest, P.R., Villalobos, A., Will, Y., Defining desirable central nervous system drug space through the alignment of molecular properties, in vitro ADME, and safety attributes. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 1 (2010), 420–434.
34. [34] Petit, J., Meurice, N., Kaiser, C., Maggiora, G., Softening the rule of five—where to draw the line?. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 20 (2012), 5343–5351.
35. [35] Bickerton, G.R., Paolini, G.V., Besnard, J., Muresan, S., Hopkins, A.L., Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem. 4 (2012), 90–98.
36. [36] Leeson, P.D., Davis, A.M., Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004), 6338–6348.
37. [37] Proudfoot, J.R., The evolution of synthetic oral drug properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005), 1087–1090.
38. [38] Leeson, P.D., St-Gallay, S.A., Wenlock, M.C., Impact of ion class and time on oral drug molecular properties. Med. Chem. Commun. 2 (2011), 91–105.
39. [39] Paolini, G.V., Shapland, R.H.B., van Hoorn, W.P., Mason, J.S., Hopkins, A.L., Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006), 805–815.
40. [40] Walters, W.P., Green, J., Weiss, J.R., Murcko, M.A., What do medicinal chemists actually make? A 50-year retrospective. J. Med. Chem. 54 (2011), 6405–6416.
41. [41] Leeson, P.D., St-Gallay, S.A., The ‘organisational factor’ in drug design: an assessment of target-unbiased compound quality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 749–765.
42. [42] Leeson, P.D., Young, R.J., Molecular property design: does everyone get it?. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 6 (2015), 722–725.
43. [43] Waring, M.J., Arrowsmith, J., Leach, A.R., Leeson, P.D., Mandrell, S., Owen, R.M., Pairaudeau, G., Pennie, W.D., Pickett, S.D., Wang, J., Wallace, O., Weir, A., An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 (2015), 475–486.
44. [44] Wang, X., Greene, N., Comparing measures of promiscuity and exploring their relationship to toxicity. Mol. Inf. 31 (2012), 145–159.
45. [45] Bowes, J., Brown, A.J., Hamon, J., Jarolimek, W., Sridhar, A., Waldron, G., Whitebread, S., Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 909–922.
46. [46] Lounkine, E., Keiser, M.J., Whitebread, S., Mikhailov, D., Hamon, J., Jenkins, J.L., Lavan, P., Weber, E., Doak, A.K., Coˆte´, S., Shoichet, B.K., Urban, L., Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature 486 (2012), 361–368.
47. [47] Hughes, J.D., Blagg, J., Price, D.A., Bailey, S., DeCrescenzo, G.A., Devraj, R.V., Ellsworth, E., Fobian, Y.M., Gibbs, M.E., Gilles, R.W., Greene, N., Huang, E., Krieger-Burke, T., Loesel, J., Wager, T., Whiteley, L., Zhang, Y., Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18 (2008), 4872–4875.
48. [48] Sutherland, J.J., Raymond, J.W., Stevens, J.L., Baker, T.K., Watson, D.E., Relating molecular properties and in vitro assay results to in vivo drug disposition and toxicity outcomes. J. Med. Chem. 55 (2012), 6455–6466.
49. [49] Luker, T., Alcaraz, L., Chohan, K.K., Blomberg, N., Brown, D.S., Butlin, R.J., Elebring, T., Griffin, A.M., Guile, S., St-Gallay, S., Swahn, B.-M., Swallow, S., Waring, M.J., Wenlock, M.C., Leeson, P.D., Strategies to improve in vivo toxicology outcomes for basic candidate drug molecules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21 (2011), 5673–5679.
50. [50] Muthas, D., Boyer, S., Hasselgren, C., A critical assessment of modeling safety-related drug attrition. Med. Chem. Commun. 4 (2013), 1058–1065.
51. [51] Wager, T.T., Kormos, B.L., Brady, J.T., Will, Y., Aleo, M.D., Stedman, D.B., Kuhn, M., Chandrasekaran, R.Y., Improving the odds of success in drug discovery: choosing the best compounds for in vivo toxicology studies. J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013), 9771–9779.
52. [52] Hopkins, A.L., Keserü, G.M., Leeson, P.D., Rees, D.C., Reynolds, C.H., The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13 (2014), 105–121.
53. [53] Kwong, A.D., Kauffman, R.S., Hurter, P., Mueller, P., Discovery and development of telaprevir: an NS3-4 A protease inhibitor for treating genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C virus. Nat. Biotechnol. 29 (2011), 993–1003.
54. [54] Lackey, K., Cockerell, G.S., Tykerb discovery: a dual EGFR and ERBB2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Li, R., Stafford, J.A., (eds.) Kinase Inhibitor Drugs, 2009, Wiley, 41–56.
55. [55] Prasad, V., Mailankody, S., The accelerated approval of oncologic drugs. Lessons from ponatinib. JAMA 311 (2014), 353–354.
56. [56] Cox, E., Laessig, K., FDA approval of bedaquiline — the benefit–risk balance for drug-resistant tuberculosis. N. Engl. J. Med. 371 (2014), 689–691.
57. [57] Weitschies, W., Oral anticancer drugs: back to square one. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 94 (2013), 441–442.
58. [58] Hann, M.M., Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. Med. Chem. Commun. 2 (2011), 349–355.
59. [59] Hann, M.M., Keserü, G.M., Finding the sweet spot—the role of nature and nurture in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 355–365.
60. [60] Grime, K.H., Barton, P., McGinnity, D.F., Application of in silico, in vitro and preclinical pharmacokinetic data for the effective and efficient prediction of human pharmacokinetics. Mol. Pharm. 10 (2013), 1191–1207.
61. [61] Cumming, J.G., Davis, A.M., Muresan, S., Haeberlein, M., Chen, M.H., Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12 (2013), 948–962.
62. [62] Valko, K., Chiarparin, E., Nunhuck, S., Montanari, D., In vitro measurement of drug efficiency index to aid early lead optimization. J. Pharm. Sci. 101 (2012), 4155–4169.
63. [63] Keserű, G.M., Makara, G.M., The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8 (2009), 203–212.
64. [64] Morgan, P., Van Der Graaf, P.H., Arrowsmith, J., Feltner, D.E., Drummond, K.S., Wegner, C.D., Street, S.D.A., Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving phase II survival. Drug Discov. Today 17 (2012), 419–424.
65. [65] Cook, D., Brown, D., Alexander, R., March, R., Morgan, P., Satterthwaite, G., Pangalos, M.N., Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13 (2014), 419–431.
66. [66] Bunnage, M.E., Chekler, E.L.P., Jones, L.H., Target validation using chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9 (2013), 195–199.
67. [67] Williams, H.D., Trevaskis, N.L., Charman, S.A., Shanker, R.M., Charman, W.N., Pouton, C.W., Porter, C.J.H., Strategies to address low drug solubility in discovery and development. Pharmacol. Rev. 65 (2013), 315–499.
68. [68] Butler, J.M., Dressman, J.B., The developability classification system: application of biopharmaceutics concepts to formulation development. J. Pharm. Sci. 99 (2010), 4940–4954.
69. [69] Sacks, L.V., Shamsuddin, H.H., Yasinskaya, Y.I., Bouri, K., Lanthier, M.L., Sherman, R.E., Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000–2012. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 311 (2014), 378–384.
70. [70] Ringel, M., Tollman, P., Hersch, G., Schulze, U., Does size matter in R&D productivity? If not, what does?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12 (2013), 901–902.
71. [71] Peck, R.W., Lendrem, D.W., Grant, I., Clare Lendrem, B., Isaacs, J.D., Why is it hard to terminate failing projects in pharmaceutical R&D?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 (2015), 663–664.
72. [72] Abad-Zapatero, C., Perišić, O., Wass, J., Bento, A.P., Overington, J., Al-Lazikani, B., Johnson, M.E., Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemico-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 804–811.
73. [73] Hopkins, A.L., Groom, C.R., Alex, A., Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9 (2004), 430–431.
74. [74] Barton, P., Riley, R.J., A new paradigm for navigating compound property related drug attrition. Drug Discov. Today 21 (2016), 72–81, 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.09.010.
75. [75] Nissink, J.W.M., Simple size-independent measure of ligand efficiency. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49 (2009), 1617–1622.
76. [76] Shultz, M.D., Improving the plausibility of success with inefficient metrics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 5 (2014), 2–5.
77. [77] Kenny, P.W., Leitão, A., Montanari, C.A., Ligand efficiency metrics considered harmful. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 28 (2014), 699–710.
78. [78] Murray, C.W., Erlanson, D.A., Hopkins, A.L., Keserü, G.M., Leeson, P.D., Rees, D.C., Reynolds, C.H., Richmond, N.J., Validity of efficiency metrics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 5 (2014), 616–618.
79. [79] Reynolds, C.H., Ligand efficiency metrics: why all the fuss?. Futur. Med. Chem. 7 (2015), 1363–1365.
80. [80] Scott, D., Bembenek, B.A., Tounge, C., Reynolds, C.H., Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 14 (2009), 278–283.
81. [81] Shultz, M.D., The thermodynamic basis for the use of lipophilic efficiency (LipE) in enthalpic optimizations. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23 (2013), 5992–6000.
82. [82] Freeman-Cook, K.D., Hoffman, R.L., Johnson, T.W., Lipophilic efficiency: the most important efficiency metric in medicinal chemistry. Futur. Med. Chem. 5 (2013), 113–115.
83. [83] Tarcsay, A., Nyíri, K., Keseru, G.M., Impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. J. Med. Chem. 55 (2012), 1252–1260.
84. [84] Higueruelo, A.P., Schreyer, A., Bickerton, G.R., Blundell, T.L., Pitt, W.R., What can we learn from the evolution of protein–ligand interactions to aid the design of new therapeutics?. PLoS One, 7(12), 2012, e51742, 10.1371/journal.pone.0051742.
85. [85] Mantlo, N.B., Escribano, A., Update on the discovery and development of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors for reducing residual cardiovascular risk. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 1–17.
86. [86] Gotto, A.M., Cannon, C.P., Li, X.S., Vaidya, S., Kher, U., Brinton, E.A., Davidson, M., Moon, J.E., Shah, S., Dansky, H.M., Mitchel, Y., Barter, P., Evaluation of lipids, drug concentration, and safety parameters following cessation of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease. Am. J. Cardiol. 113 (2014), 76–83.
87. [87] Fernandez, M.C., Escribano, A., Mateo, A., Parthasarathy, S., Martin de la Nava, E.M., Wang, X., Cockerham, S.L., Beyer, T.P., Schmidt, R.J., Cao, G., Zhang, Y., Jones, T.M., Borel, A., Sweetana, S.A., Cannady, E.A., Stephenson, G., Frank, S., Mantlo, N.B., Design, synthesis and structure–activity-relationship of 1,5-tetrahydronaphthyridines as CETP inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 22 (2012), 3056–3062.
88. [88] Trieselmann, T., Wagner, H., Fuchs, K., Hamprecht, D., Berta, D., Cremonesi, P., Streicher, R., Luippold, G., Volz, A., Markert, M., Nar, H., Potent cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors of reduced lipophilicity: 1,1′-spiro-substituted hexahydrofuroquinoline derivatives. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 8766–8776.
89. [89] Griffith, D.A., Hadcock, J.R., Black, S.C., Iredale, P.A., Carpino, P.A., DaSilva-Jardine, P., Day, R., DiBrino, J., Dow, R.L., Landis, M.S., Discovery of 1-[9-(4-chlorophenyl)-8-(2-chlorophenyl)-9 H-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 (2009), 234–237.
90. [90] Lemurell, M., Ulander, J., Winiwarter, S., Dahlén, A., Davidsson, Ö., Emtenäs, H., Broddefalk, J., Swanson, M., Hovdal, D., Plowright, A.T., Pettersen, A., Rydén-Landergren, M., Barlind, J., Llinas, A., HerslÖf, M., Drmota, T., Sigfridsson, K., Moses, S., Whatling, C., Discovery of AZD6642, an inhibitor of 5-lipoxygenase activating protein (FLAP) for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. J. Med. Chem. 58 (2015), 897–911.
91. [91] Perola, E., An analysis of the binding efficiencies of drugs and their leads in successful drug discovery programs. J. Med. Chem. 53 (2010), 2986–2997.
92. [92] Arkin, M.R., Tang, Y., Wells, J.A., Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: progressing toward the reality. Chem. Biol. 21 (2014), 1102–1114.
93. [93] Schönherr, H., Cernak, T., Profound methyl effects in drug discovery and a call for new C―H methylation reactions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 52 (2013), 12256–12267.
94. [94] Doak, B.C., Over, B., Giordanetto, F., Kihlberg, J., Oral druggable space beyond the rule of 5: insights from drugs and clinical candidates. Chem. Biol. 21 (2014), 1115–1142.
95. [95] Kozakov, D., Hall, D.R., Napoleon, R.L., Yueh, C., Whitty, A., Vajda, S., New frontiers in druggability. J. Med. Chem. 58 (2015), 9063–9088.
96. [96] Doak, B.C., Zheng, J., Dobritzsch, D., Kihlberg, J., How beyond rule of 5 drugs and clinical candidates bind to their targets. J. Med. Chem., 2015, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01286.
97. [97] Alex, A., Millan, D.S., Perez, M., Wakenhut, F., Whitlock, G.A., Intramolecular hydrogen bonding to improve membrane permeability and absorption in beyond rule of five chemical space. Med. Chem. Commun. 2 (2011), 669–674.
98. [98] Giordanetto, F., Kihlberg, J., Macrocyclic drugs and clinical candidates: what can medicinal chemists learn from their properties?. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 278–295.
99. [99] Villar, E.A., Beglov, D., Chennamadhavuni, S., Porco, J.A., Kozakov, D., Vajda, S., Whitty, A., How proteins bind macrocycles. Nat. Chem. Biol. 10 (2014), 723–731.
100. [100] Camp, D., Garavelas, A., Campitelli, M., Analysis of physicochemical properties for drugs of natural origin. J. Nat. Prod. 78 (2015), 1370–1382.
101. [101] Stratton, C.F., Newman, D.J., Tan, D.S., Cheminformatic comparison of approved drugs from natural product versus synthetic origins. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 25 (2015), 4802–4807.
102. [102] Benet, L.Z., The role of BCS (biopharmaceutics classification system) and BDDCS (biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system) in drug development. J. Pharm. Sci. 102 (2013), 34–42.
103. [103] Benet, L.Z., Broccatelli, F., Oprea, T.I., BDDCS applied to over 900 drugs. AAPS J. 13 (2011), 519–547.
104. [104] Ritchie, T.J., Macdonald, S.J.F., Peace, S., Pickett, S.D., Luscombe, C.N., Increasing small molecule drug developability in sub-optimal chemical space. Med. Chem. Commun. 4 (2013), 673–680.
105. [105] Roughley, S.D., Jordan, A.M., The medicinal chemist's toolbox: an analysis of reactions used in the pursuit of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 54 (2011), 3451–3479.
106. [106] Rizzo, S., Waldmann, H., Development of a natural-product-derived chemical toolbox for modulation of protein function. Chem. Rev. 114 (2014), 4621–4639.
107. [107] Clemons, P.A., Bodycombe, N.E., Carrinski, H.A., Wilson, J.A., Shamji, A.F., Wagner, B.K., Koehler, A.N., Schreiber, S.L., Small molecules of different origins have distinct distributions of structural complexity that correlate with protein-binding profiles. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107 (2010), 18787–18792.
108. [108] Encinas, L., O'Keefe, H., Neu, M., Remuiñán, M.J., Patel, A.M., Guardia, A., et al. Encoded library technology as a source of hits for the discovery and lead optimization of a potent and selective class of bactericidal direct inhibitors of mycobacterium tuberculosis InhA. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 1276–1288.
109. [109] Clemons, P.A., Wilson, J.A., Dančík, V., Muller, S., Carrinski, H.A., Wagner, B.K., Koehler, A.N., Schreiber, S.L., Quantifying structure and performance diversity for sets of small molecules comprising small-molecule screening collections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 (2011), 6817–6822.
110. [110] Choy, Y.B., Prausnitz, M.R., The rule of five for non-oral routes of drug delivery: ophthalmic, inhalation and transdermal. Pharm. Res. 28 (2011), 943–948.
111. [111] Scannell, J.W., Blanckley, A., Boldon, H., Warrington, B., Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 191–200.