Present drug-likeness filters in medicinal chemistry during the hit and lead optimization process: how far can they be simplified?

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 605-615

  Mignani, Serge ^a,b,c   Rodrigues, João ^b,d   Tomas, Helena ^b   Jalal, Rachid ^e   Singh, Parvinder Pal ^c   Majoral, Jean Pierre ^f,g   Vishwakarma, Ram A ^c  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MADEIRA   (Portugal)

^c CSIR INDIAN INSTITUTE OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE   (India)

^d NORTHWESTERN POLYTECHNICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^e CADI AYYAD UNIVERSITY   (Morocco)

^f LCC LABORATOIRE DE CHIMIE DE COORDINATION   (France)

^g UNIVERSITÉ PAUL SABATIER   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; NEW DRUG; DRUG;

BINDING KINETICS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG RESEARCH; LIPOPHILICITY; MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; ANIMAL; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; RESEARCH;

ANIMALS; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RESEARCH;

EID: 85041626299     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.01.010     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. Smietana, K., et al. Improving R&D productivity. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 (2015), 455–456.
2. Khanna, I., Drug discovery in pharmaceutical industry: productivity challenges and trends. Drug Discov. Today 7 (2012), 1088–1102.
3. Kinch, M.S., et al. An overview of FDA-approved new molecular entities: 1827–2013. Drug Discov. Today 19 (2014), 1033–1039.
4. Rebekah, H., et al. 2016 in review: FDA approvals of new molecular entities. Drug Discov. Today 22 (2017), 1593–1597.
5. Walter, W.P., et al. What do medicinal chemists actually make? A 50-year retrospective. J. Med. Chem. 54 (2011), 6405–6416.
6. Lipinski, C.A., et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23 (1997), 23–25.
7. Doak, B.C., et al. How beyond rule of 5 drugs and clinical candidates bind to their targets. J. Med. Chem. 24 (2016), 2312–2327.
8. Pan, A.C., et al. Molecular determinants of drug-receptor binding kinetics. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 667–673.
9. Abad-Zapatero, C., Metz, J.T., Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10 (2005), 464–469.
10. Cumming, J.G., et al. Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality. Nat Rev. Drug Discov. 12 (2013), 948–962.
11. Yusof, I., Segall, M.D., Considering the impact drug-like properties have on the chance of success. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 659–666.
12. Bayliss, M.K., et al. Quality guidelines for oral drug candidates: dose, solubility and lipophilicity. Drug Discov. Today 21 (2016), 1719–1727.
13. Segall, M.D., Multi-parameter optimization: identifying high quality compounds with a balance of properties. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18 (2012), 1292–1310.
14. Segall, M.D., et al. Avoiding missed opportunities by analysing the sensitivity of our decisions. J. Med. Chem. 59 (2016), 4267–4277.
15. 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.
16. Meanwell, N.A., 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. 29 (2016), 564–616.
17. Cavalluzzi, M.M., et al. Ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery: the pros and cons from a practical perspective. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 12 (2017), 1087–1104.
18. Segall, M., Drug-like or likely to be a drug. Innov. Pharm. Technol. 43 (2012), 20–23.
19. Yusof, I., Segall, M., Considering the impact of ‘drug-like’ properties on the chance of success. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 659–666.
20. Keller, T.H., et al. A practical view of ‘druggability’. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 10 (2006), 357–361.
21. Hughes, J.D., et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18 (2008), 4872–4875.
22. Gleeson, M.P., Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J. Med. Chem. 51 (2008), 817–834.
23. Johnson, T.W., et al. Using the Golden Triangle to optimize clearance and oral absorption. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19 (2009), 5560–5564.
24. Lovering, F., et al. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52 (2009), 6752–6756.
25. Giordanetto, F., Kihlberg, J., Macrocyclic drugs and clinical candidates: what can medicinal chemists learn from their properties?. J. Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 278–295.
26. DeLorbe, J.E., et al. Thermodynamic and structural effects of macrocyclic constraints in protein–ligand interactions. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 1 (2010), 448–452.
27. Whitty, A., et al. Quantifying the chameleonic properties of macrocycles and other high-molecular-weight drugs. Drug Discov. Today 21 (2016), 712–717.
28. Goldberg, F.W., et al. Designing novel building blocks is an overlooked strategy to improve compound quality. Drug Discov. Today 20 (2015), 11–17.
29. Congreve, M., et al. A rule of three for fragment-based lead discovery?. Drug Discov. Today 8 (2003), 876–877.
30. Dai, R., et al. Fragment-based exploration of binding site flexibility in Mycobacterium tuberculosis BioA. J. Med. Chem. 58 (2015), 5208–5217.
31. Ferenczy, G.G., Keserü, G.M., Thermodynamics guided lead discovery and optimization. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 919–932.
32. Tarcsay, A., Keserü, G.M., Is there a link between selectivity and binding thermodynamics profiles?. Drug Discov. Today 20 (2015), 86–94.
33. Ruben, A.J., et al. Overcoming roadblocks in lead optimization: a thermodynamic perspective. Chem. Biol. Drug. Des. 67 (2006), 2–4.
34. Keighley, W., The need for high throughput kinetics early in the drug discovery process. Drug Discov. World(Summer), 2011, 39–45.
35. Borhani, D.W., et al. Molecular determinants of drug-receptor binding kinetics. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 667–673.
36. Young, D.L., Michelson, S., Systems Biology in Drug Discovery and Development. 2012, Wiley.
37. Lu, H., Tonge, P.J., Drug–target residence time: critical information for lead optimization. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14 (2010), 467–474.
38. Pan, A.C., et al. Molecular determinants of drug-receptor binding kinetics. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 667–673.
39. Smith, G.F., Medicinal chemistry by the numbers: the physicochemistry, thermodynamics and kinetics of modern drug design. Prog. Med. Chem. 48 (2009), 1–29.
40. Kuntz, I.D., et al. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96 (1999), 9997–10002.
41. 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.
42. Hopkins, A.L., et al. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13 (2014), 105–121.
43. Reynolds, C.H., Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J. Med. Chem. 51 (2008), 2432–2438.
44. Erlanson, D.A., et al. Twenty years on: the impact of fragments on drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 15, 2016, 605619.
45. 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.
46. Shultz, M.D., The thermodynamic basis for the use of lipophilic efficiency (LipE) in enthalpic optimizations. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23 (2013), 5992–6000.
47. Braggio, S., et al. Drug efficiency: a new concept to guide lead optimization programs towards the selection of better clinical candidates. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5 (2010), 609–618.
48. Lewis, M.L., 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. 23 (2009), 97–103.
49. Ferenczy, G.G., Keseru, G.M., Thermodynamics guided lead discovery and optimization. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 919–932.
50. Bickerton, G.R., et al. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem. 4 (2012), 90–98.
51. Arkin, M.R., et al. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: progressing towards the reality. Chem. Biol. 21 (2014), 1102–1114.
52. Edwards, M.P., Price, D.A., Role of physicochemical properties and ligand efficiency in addressing drug safety risks. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 45 (2010), 381–391.
53. Mortenson, P.N., Murray, C.W., Assessing the lipophilicity of fragments and early hits. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 25 (2011), 663–667.
54. 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 (2010), 420–434.
55. Ritchie, T.J., Macdonald, S.J.-F., How drug-like are ‘ugly’ drugs: do drug-likeness metrics predict ADME behavior in humans?. Drug Discov. Today 19 (2014), 489–495.
56. Wager, T.T., et al. Central nervous system multiparameter optimization desirability: application in drug discovery. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 7 (2016), 767–775.
57. Abad-Zapatero, C., et al. Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemo-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 804–811.
58. Abad-Zapatero, C., et al. Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemo-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 804–811.
59. Hoedler, S., et al. Discovery of small molecule cancer drugs: successes, challenges and opportunities. Mol. Oncol. 6 (2012), 155–176.
60. Mignani, S., et al. Compound high-quality criteria: a new vision to guide the development of drugs, current situation. Drug Discov. Today 21 (2016), 573–584.
61. Segall, M., Multi-parameter optimisation in drug discovery. Innov. Pharm. Technol. 39 (2011), 42–46.
62. Shultz, M.D., Improving the plausibility of success with inefficient metrics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 5 (2014), 2–5.
63. Murray, C.W., et al. Validity of ligand efficiency metrics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 5 (2014), 616–618.
64. Shultz, M.D., Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 23 (2013), 5980–5991.
65. Ferenczy, G.G., Keserü, G.M., Thermodynamics guided lead discovery and optimization. Drug Discov. Today 15 (2010), 919–932.
66. Kawasaki, Y., Freire, E., Finding a better path to drug selectivity. Drug Discov. Today 16 (2011), 985–990.
67. Morelli, X., et al. Chemical and structural lessons from recent successes in protein-protein interaction inhibition (2P2I). Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 15 (2011), 475–481.
68. Mignani, S., et al. Why and how have drug discovery strategies in pharma changed? What are the new mindsets?. Drug Discov. Today 21 (2016), 239–249.
69. Bleicher, H.H., et al. A guide to drug discovery: hit and lead generation: beyond high–throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2 (2003), 369–378.
70. Waring, M.J., et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14 (2015), 475–486.