Ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery: the pros and cons from a practical perspective

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Volumn 12, Issue 11, 2017, Pages 1087-1104

  Cavalluzzi, Maria Maddalena ^a   Mangiatordi, Giuseppe Felice ^a   Nicolotti, Orazio ^a   Lentini, Giovanni ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

docking; Drug design; drug development; fragment based drug discovery; free energy of binding; structure activity relationships

Indexed keywords

ANTIARRHYTHMIC AGENT; ANTICONVULSIVE AGENT; ANTIMYCOBACTERIAL AGENT; APOPTOSIS SIGNAL REGULATING KINASE 1; CATECHOL METHYLTRANSFERASE INHIBITOR; ENZYME INHIBITOR; LIGAND; LOCAL ANESTHETIC AGENT; METABOTROPIC RECEPTOR AGONIST; NEW DRUG; PIPERAZINE DERIVATIVE; PIPERIDINE DERIVATIVE; PROTEIN SERINE THREONINE KINASE INHIBITOR; SYNTHETASE; TOCAINIDE; TRIAZOLE DERIVATIVE; VOLTAGE GATED SODIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DRUG;

DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG CLEARANCE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG QUALITY; DRUG SPECIFICITY; ENTHALPY; ENTROPY; HUMAN; IC50; LIGAND BINDING; LIPOPHILICITY; METABOLIC STABILITY; MOLECULAR DOCKING; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; ANIMAL; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY; PROCEDURES; TIME FACTOR;

ANIMALS; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 85030463285     PISSN: 17460441     EISSN: 1746045X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17460441.2017.1365056     Document Type: Review

References (150)

1. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW., Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.
2. Avorn J., The $2.6 billion pill — methodologic and policy considerations. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1877–1879.
3. DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW., The cost of drug development. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1972.
4. Lendrem DW, Lendrem BC. The development speed paradox: can increasing development speed reduce R&D productivity? Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:209–214.
5. Pammolli F, Magazzini L, Riccaboni M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:428–438.
6. Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, et al. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotech. 2006;24:805–815.
7. Nissink JWM, Degorce S, Page K. Lead quality. In: Holenz J, editor. Lead generation. Weinheim, Germany:Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; 2016. p. 451–486.
8. Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Montanari D, et al. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:197–208.
9. Plowright AT, Johnstone C, Kihlberg J, et al. Hypothesis driven drug design: improving quality and effectiveness of the design-make-test-analyse cycle. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17:56–62.
10. Ekins S, Honeycutt JD, Metz JT. Evolving molecules using multi-objective optimization: applying to ADME/Tox. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15:451–460.
11. Yang S-Y. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15:444–450.
12. Schneider G, Fechner U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:649–663.
13. Wermuth CG, Grisoni S, Villoutreix B, et al. Application strategies for the primary structure-activity relationship exploration. In: Wermuth CG, Aldous D, Raboisson P, et al., editors. The practice of medicinal chemistry. London, Great Britain:Academic Press; 2015. p. 301–318.
14. Leeson PD, St-Gallay SA. The influence of the “organizational factor” on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:749–765.
15. Bryan MC, Dillon B, Hamann LG, et al. Sustainable practices in medicinal chemistry: current state and future directions. J Med Chem. 2013;56:6007–6021.
16. Lajiness MS, Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V. Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J Med Chem. 2004;47:4891–4896.
17. Leeson PD, Davis AM, Steele J. Drug-like properties: guiding principles for design–or chemical prejudice? Drug Discov Today Technol. 2004;1:189–195.
18. Abad-Zapatero C, Metz JT. Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2005;10:464–469.
19. Shultz MD. Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2013;23:5980–5991.
20. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;23:3–25.
21. Kenny PW, Montanari CA. Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2013;27:1–13.
22. Westheimer FH. Mechanisms related to enzyme catalysis. Advances Enzymol. 1962;24:441–482.
23. Page MI. Entropy, binding energy, and enzymic catalysis. Angew Chem Int Edit. 1977;16:449–459.
24. Andrews PR, Craik DJ, Martin JL. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J Med Chem. 1984;27:1648–1657.
25. Rejto PA, Verkhivker GM. Unraveling principles of lead discovery: from unfrustrated energy landscapes to novel molecular anchors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:8945–8950.
26. Kuntz I, Chen K, Sharp KA, et al. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:9997–10002.
27. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem. 2002;45:2615–2623.
28. Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, et al. A “Rule of Three” for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov Today. 2003;8:876–877.
29. Yan A, Gasteiger J. Prediction of aqueous solubility of organic compounds based on a 3D structure representation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:429–434.
30. Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today. 2004;9:430–431.
31. Hickman D, Vasavanonda S, Nequist G, et al. Estimation of serum-free 50-percent inhibitory concentrations for human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors lopinavir and ritonavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:2911–2917.
32. Albert JS, Blomberg N, Breeze AL, et al. An integrated approach to fragment-based lead generation: philosophy, strategy and case studies from Astra Zeneca’s drug discovery programmes. Curr Top Med Chem. 2007;7:1600–1629.
33. Leeson PD, Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:881–890.
34. Saxty G, Woodhead SJ, Berdini V, et al. Identification of inhibitors of protein kinase B using fragment-based lead discovery. J Med Chem. 2007;50:2293–2296.
35. Ladbury JE. Enthalpic efficiency and the role of thermodynamic data in drug development: possibility or a pipeline dream. Eur Pharm Rev. 2007;12:59–62.
36. Gleeson MP. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J Med Chem. 2008;51:817–834.
37. Hughes JD, Blagg J, Price DA, et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2008;18:4872–4875.
38. Reynolds CH, Tounge BA, Bembenek SD. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J Med Chem. 2008;51:2432–2438.
39. Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J Med Chem. 2009;52:6752–6756.
40. Ritchie TJ, Macdonald SJF. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability–are too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design? Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:1011–1020.
41. Orita M, Ohno K, Niimi N. Two “golden ratio” indices in fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:321–328.
42. Lewis ML, 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. 2009;23:97–103.
43. Keserü GM, Makara GM. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:203–212.
44. Nissink JWM. Simple size-independent measure of ligand efficiency. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:1617–1622.
45. Wager TT, Hou X, Verhoest PR, et al. 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;1:435–449.
46. Braggio S, Montanari D, Rossi T, et al. Drug efficiency: a new concept to guide lead optimization programs towards the selection of better clinical candidates. Exp Op Drug Discov. 2010;5:609–618.
47. Ferenczy GG, Keserű GM. Enthalpic efficiency of ligand binding. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50:1536–1541.
48. Abad-Zapatero C, Perišić O, Wass J, et al. Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemico-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15:804–811.
49. Young RJ, Green DVS, Luscombe CN, et al. Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:822–830.
50. Leeson PD, St-Gallay SA, Wenlock MC. Impact of ion class and time on oral drug molecular properties. Med Chem Commun. 2011;2:91–105.
51. Reynolds CH, Holloway MK. Thermodynamics of ligand binding and efficiency. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2011;2:433–437.
52. Mortenson PN, Murray CW. Assessing the lipophilicity of fragments and early hits. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2011;25:663–667.
53. Holdgate GA, Gill AL. Kinetic efficiency: the missing metric for enhancing compound quality? Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:910–913.
54. Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, et al. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat Chem. 2012;4:90–98.
55. Yusof I, Segall MD. Considering the impact drug-like properties have on the chance of success. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:659–666.
56. Stepan AF, Kauffman GW, Keefer CE, et al. Evaluating the differences in cycloalkyl ether metabolism using the design parameter “lipophilic metabolism efficiency” (LipMetE) and a matched molecular pairs analysis. J Med Chem. 2013;56:6985–6990.
57. Yusof I, Shah F, Hashimoto T, et al. Finding the rules for successful drug optimisation. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:680–687.
58. Hopkins AL, Keserü GM, Leeson PD, et al. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:105–121.
59. Pettersson M, Hou X, Kuhn M, et al. Quantitative assessment of the impact of fluorine substitution on P-glycoprotein (P-Gp) mediated efflux, permeability, lipophilicity, and metabolic stability. J Med Chem. 2016;59:5284–5296.
60. Barton P, Riley RJ. A new paradigm for navigating compound property related drug attrition. Drug Discov Today. 2016;21:72–81.
61. Auberson YP, Briard E, Sykes D, et al. Ligand specific efficiency (LSE) index for PET tracer optimization. ChemMedChem. 2016;11:1415–1427.
62. Page MI, Jencks WP. Entropic contributions to rate accelerations in enzymic and intramolecular reactions and the chelate effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1971;68:1678–1683.
63. Jencks WP. On the attribution and additivity of binding energies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1981;78:4046–4050.
64. Murray CW, Verdonk ML. The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2002;16:741–753.
65. Andrews P. Functional groups, drug-receptor interactions and drug design. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1986;7:148–151.
66. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, et al. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001;41:1308–1315.
67. Lamanna C, Bellini M, Padova A, et al. Straightforward recursive partitioning model for discarding insoluble compounds in the drug discovery process. J Med Chem. 2008;51:2891–2897.
68. Liu X, Wright M, Hop CECA. Rational use of plasma protein and tissue binding data in drug design. J Med Chem. 2014;57:8238–8248.
69. Palm K, Stenberg P, Luthman K, et al. Polar molecular surface properties predict the intestinal absorption of drugs in humans. Pharma Res. 1997;14:568–571.
70. Meanwell NA. Improving drug candidates by design: a focus on physicochemical properties as a means of improving compound disposition and safety. Chem Res Toxicol. 2011;24:1420–1456.
71. Kenny PW, Leitão A, Montanari CA. Ligand efficiency metrics considered harmful. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2014;28:699–710.
72. Abad-Zapatero C, Champness EJ, Segall MD. Alternative variables in drug discovery: promises and challenges. Future Med Chem. 2014;6:577–593.
73. Valko K, Chiarparin E, Nunhuck S, et al. In vitro measurement of drug efficiency index to aid early lead optimization. J Phar Sci. 2012;101:4155–4169.
74. Geschwindner S, Ulander J, Johansson P. Ligand binding thermodynamics in drug discovery: still a hot tip? J Med Chem. 2015;58:6321–6335.
75. Shultz MD. The thermodynamic basis for the use of lipophilic efficiency (LipE) in enthalpic optimizations. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2013;23:5992–6000.
76. Bissantz C, Kuhn B, Stahl M. A medicinal chemist’s guide to molecular interactions. J Med Chem. 2010;53:5061–5084.
77. Meanwell NA. Improving drug design: an update on recent applications of efficiency metrics, strategies for replacing problematic elements, and compounds in nontraditional drug space. Chem Res Toxicol. 2016;29:564–616.
78. García-Sosa AT, Maran U, Hetényi C. Molecular property filters describing pharmacokinetics and drug binding. Curr Med Chem. 2012;19:1646–1662.
79. Ritchie TJ, Ertl P, Lewis R. The graphical representation of ADME-related molecule properties for medicinal chemists. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:65–72.
80. Johnson AT. A prospective method to guide small molecule drug design. J Chem Educ. 2015;92:836–842.
81. Gualdani R, Cavalluzzi MM, Lentini G. Recent trends in the discovery of small molecule blockers of sodium channels. Curr Med Chem. 2016;23:2289–2332.
82. Martin EJ, Blaney JM, Siani MA, et al. Measuring diversity: experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Med Chem. 1995;38:1431–1436.
83. Kolpak J, Connolly PJ, Lobanov VS, et al. Enhanced SAR maps: expanding the data rendering capabilities of a popular medicinal chemistry tool. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:2221–2230.
84. Mandagere AK, Thompson TN, Hwang K-K. Graphical model for estimating oral bioavailability of drugs in humans and other species from their Caco-2 permeability and in vitro liver enzyme metabolic stability rates. J Med Chem. 2002;45:304–311.
85. Johnson TW, Dress KR, Edwards M. Using the golden triangle to optimize clearance and oral absorption. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2009;19:5560–5564.
86. Egan WJ, Merz KM, Baldwin JJ. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J Med Chem. 2000;43:3867–3877.
87. Lobell M, Hendrix M, Hinzen B, et al. In silico ADMET traffic lights as a tool for the prioritization of HTS hits. ChemMedChem. 2006;1:1229–1236.
88. Larsen RD. FACES (features associated with chemical entities): II. Hydrocarbon isomers and their graphs. J Chem Educ. 1986;63:1067–1068.
89. Leeson PD, Davis AM. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J Med Chem. 2004;47:6338–6348.
90. Lounkine E, Wawer M, Wassermann AM, et al. SARANEA: a freely available program to mine structure–activity and structure–selectivity relationship information in compound data sets. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50:68–78.
91. Gualdani R, Cavalluzzi MM, Lentini G, et al. The chemistry and pharmacology of citrus limonoids. Molecules. 2016;21:11.
92. Oprea TI, Chemography: GJ. The art of navigating in chemical space. J Comb Chem. 2001;3:157–166.
93. Bembenek SD, Tounge BA, Reynolds CH. Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:278–283.
94. Kolb P, Kipouros CB, Huang D, et al. Structure-based tailoring of compound libraries for high-throughput screening: discovery of novel EphB4 kinase inhibitors. Proteins. 2008;73:11–18.
95. Zhao H, Dong J, Lafleur K, et al. Discovery of a novel chemotype of tyrosine kinase inhibitors by fragment-based docking and molecular dynamics. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2012;3:834–838.
96. Xu M, Unzue A, Dong J, et al. Discovery of CREBBP bromodomain inhibitors by high-throughput docking and hit optimization guided by molecular dynamics. J Med Chem. 2016;59:1340–1349.
97. Hung AW, Silvestre HL, Wen S, et al. Optimization of inhibitors of Mycobacterium tberculosis pantothenate synthetase based on group efficiency analysis. ChemMedChem. 2016;11:38–42.
98. Hung AW, Silvestre HL, Wen S, et al. Application of fragment growing and fragment linking to the discovery of inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis pantothenate synthetase. Angew Chem Int Ed Eng. 2009;48:8452–8456.
99. Lovering F. Escape from flatland 2: complexity and promiscuity. Med Chem Commun. 2013;4:515–519.
100. Zhao Z, Harrison ST, Schubert JW, et al. Synthesis and optimization of N-heterocyclic pyridinones as catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2016;26:2952–2956.
101. Tunbridge EM, Bannerman DM, Sharp T, et al. Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibition improves set-shifting performance and elevates stimulated dopamine release in the rat prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2004;24:5331–5335.
102. Ritchie TJ, Macdonald SJF, Young RJ, et al. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: further insights by examining carbo- and hetero-aromatic and -aliphatic ring types. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:164–171.
103. Patil ST, Zhang L, Lowe SL, et al. Activation of mGlu2/3 receptors as a new approach to treat schizophrenia: a randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Nat Med. 2007;9:1102–1107.
104. Pero JE, Rossi MA, Kelly MJ, et al. Optimization of novel aza-benzimidazolone mGluR2 PAMs with Respect to LLE and PK properties and mitigation of CYP TDI. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2016;7:312–317.
105. Garbaccio RM, Brnardic EJ, Fraley ME, et al. Discovery of oxazolobenzimidazoles as positive modulators of the mGluR2 receptor. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2010;1:406−410.
106. Rorick-Kehn LM, Johnson BG, Knitowski KM, et al. In vivo pharmacological characterization of the structurally novel, potent, selective mGlu2/3 receptor agonist LY404039 in animal models of psychiatric disorders. Psychopharmacology. 2007;193:121−136.
107. Izumiya Y, Kim S, Izumi Y, et al. Apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 plays a pivotal role in angiotensin II–induced cardiac hypertrophy and remodeling. Circ Res. 2003;93:874−883.
108. Lanier M, Pickens J, Bigi SV, et al. Structure-based design of ASK1 inhibitors as potential agents for heart failure. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2017;8:316–320.
109. Muraglia M, Franchini C, Corbo F, et al. Synthesis of beta-proline like derivatives and their evaluation as sodium channel blockers. J Heterocyclic Chem. 2007;44:1099–1103.
110. De Luca A, De Bellis M, Corbo F, et al. Searching for novel anti-myotonic agents: pharmacophore requirement for use-dependent block of skeletal muscle sodium channels by N-benzylated cyclic derivatives of tocainide. Neuromuscolar Disord. 2012;22:56–65.
111. Muraglia M, De Bellis M, Catalano A, et al. N-Aryl-2,6-dimethylbenzamides, a new generation of tocainide analogues as blockers of skeletal muscle voltage-gated sodium channels. J Med Chem. 2014;57:2589−2600.
112. De Bellis M, Carbonara R, Roussel J, et al. Increased sodium channel use-dependent inhibition by a new potent analogue of tocainide greatly enhances in vivo antimyotonic activity. Neuropharmacology. 2017;113(Part A):206–216.
113. Nicolotti O, Giangreco I, Miscioscia TF, et al. Improving quantitative structure-activity relationships through multiobjective optimization. J Chem Inf Mod. 2009;49:2290–2302.
114. Nicolotti O, Miscioscia TF, Carotti A, et al. An integrated approach to ligand- and structure-based drug design: development and application to a series of serine protease inhibitors. J Chem Inf Mod. 2008;48:1211–1226.
115. Trisciuzzi D, Alberga D, Mansouri K, et al. Docking-based classification models for exploratory toxicology studies on high-quality estrogenic experimental data. Fut Med Chem. 2015;7:1921–1936.
116. Mansouri K, Abdelaziz A, Rybacka A, et al. CERAPP: collaborative estrogen receptor activity prediction project. Env Health Persp. 2016;124:1023–1033.
117. Nicolotti O, Benfenati E, Carotti A, et al. REACH and in silico methods: an attractive opportunity for medicinal chemists. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:1757–1768.
118. Ewing TJA, Kuntz ID. Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. J Comput Chem. 1997;18:1175–1189.
119. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006;49:6789–6801.
120. García-Sosa AT, Hetényi C, Maran U. Drug efficiency indices for improvement of molecular docking scoring functions. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:174–184.
121. García-Sosa AT, Sild S, Takkis K, et al. Combined approach using ligand efficiency, cross-docking, and antitarget hits for wild-type and drug-resistant Y181C HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51:2595–2611.
122. Chollet A, Mori G, Menendez C, et al. Design, synthesis and evaluation of new GEQ derivatives as inhibitors of InhA enzyme and Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth. Eur J Med Chem. 2015;101:218–235.
123. Viira B, Selyutina A, García-Sosa A, et al. Design, discovery, modelling, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel and small, low toxicity s-triazine derivatives as HIV-1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem. 2016;24:2519–2529.
124. Abad-Zapatero CA. Sorcerer’s apprentice and the rule of five: from rule-of-thumb to commandment and beyond. Drug Discov Today. 2007;12:995–997.
125. Wipke WT, Rogers D. Artificial intelligence in organic synthesis. SST: starting material selection strategies. An application of superstructure search. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1984;24:71–81.
126. Lipinski CA. Molecular informatics: confronting complexity. Bozen, Italy: Beilstein-Institut; 2002.
127. Lipinski CA. Overview of hit to lead: the medicinal chemist’s role from HTS retest to lead optimisation hand off. Top Med Chem. 2009;5:1–24.
128. Al-Nadaf A, Sheikha GA, Taha MO. Elaborate ligand-based pharmacophore exploration and QSAR analysis guide the synthesis of novel pyridinium-based potent β-secretase inhibitory leads. Bioorg Med Chem. 2010;18:3088–3115.
129. Cortes-Ciriano I. Benchmarking the predictive power of ligand efficiency indices in QSAR. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56:1576–1587.
130. Zalloum H, Tayyem R, Irmaileh BA, et al. Discovery of new human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) inhibitors for potential use as anticancer agents via ligand-based pharmacophore modeling. J Mol Graph Model. 2015;61:61–84.
131. Sugaya N. Training based on ligand efficiency improves prediction of bioactivities of ligands and drug target proteins in a machine learning approach. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53:2525–2537.
132. Sugaya N. Ligand efficiency-based support vector regression models for predicting bioactivities of ligands to drug target proteins. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54:2751–2763.
133. Mannhold R, Poda GI, Ostermann C, et al. Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: state-of-the-art and comparison of logP methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J Pharmac Sci. 2009;98:861–893.
134. Fink T, Bruggesser H, Reymond J-L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2005;44:1504–1508.
135. 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 Model. 2007;47:342–353.
136. Shultz MD. Improving the plausibility of success with inefficient metrics. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2014;5:2–5.
137. Schultes S, De Graaf C, Haaksma EEJ, et al. Ligand efficiency as a guide in fragment hit selection and optimization. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2010;7:e157–e162.
138. Hajduk PJ. Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big? J Med Chem. 2006;49:6972–6976.
139. Leung CS, Leung SSF, Tirado-Rives J, et al. Methyl effects on protein–ligand binding. J Med Chem. 2012;55:4489–4500.
140. Higgs C, Beuming T, Sherman W. Hydration site thermodynamics explain SARs for triazolylpurines analogues binding to the A2A receptor. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2010;1:160–164.
141. Degennaro L, Zenzola M, Laurino A, et al. 2-Arylazetidines as ligands for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Chem Heterocycl Comp. 2017;53:329–334.
142. Kell DB. Finding novel pharmaceuticals in the systems biology era using multiple effective drug targets, phenotypic screening and knowledge of transporters: where drug discovery went wrong and how to fix it. Febs J. 2013;280:5957–5980.
143. Chung RT, Baumert TF. Curing chronic hepatitis C - the arc of a medical triumph. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1576−1578.
144. Guo W, Wisniewski JA, Ji H. Hot spot-based design of small-molecule inhibitors for protein–protein interactions. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014;24:2546–2554.
145. Nicolotti O, Gillet VJ, Fleming PJ, et al. Multiobjective optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationships: deriving accurate and interpretable QSARs. J Med Chem. 2002;45:5069–5080.
146. Nicolotti O, Giangreco I, Introcaso A, et al. Strategies of multi-objective optimization in drug discovery and development. Exp Opin Drug Discov. 2011;6:871–884.
147. Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4:682–690.
148. Atanasov AG, Waltenberger B, Pferschy-Wenzig E-M, et al. Discovery and resupply of pharmacologically active plant-derived natural products: a review. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:1582–1614.
149. Tropsha A. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inf. 2010;29:476–488.
150. Sheridan RP. Debunking the idea that ligand efficiency indices are superior to pIC50 as QSAR activities. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56:2253–2262.