Two Decades under the Influence of the Rule of Five and the Changing Properties of Approved Oral Drugs

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 62, Issue 4, 2019, Pages 1701-1714

  Shultz, Michael D ^a  

^a NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG DERIVATIVE; OCTANOL; WATER; DRUG;

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FRACTION OF SP CARBON ATOM; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; HYDROGEN BOND ACCEPTOR; HYDROGEN BOND DONOR; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; OCTANOL WATER PARTITION COEFFICIENT; PARTITION COEFFICIENT; REVIEW; ROTATABLE BOND; SURFACE AREA; TOPOLOGICAL POLAR SURFACE AREA; CHEMICAL PHENOMENA; CHEMISTRY; PHARMACOLOGY; PROCEDURES;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; HYDROGEN BONDING; HYDROPHOBIC AND HYDROPHILIC INTERACTIONS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOLOGY;

EID: 85054416332     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: 15204804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00686     Document Type: Review

References (77)

1. 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 Delivery Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25, 10.1016/S0169-409X(96)00423-1
2. 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. 2004, 47, 224-232, 10.1021/jm030267j
3. Ritchie, T. J.; Macdonald, S. J. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability - are too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design?. Drug Discovery Today 2009, 14, 1011-1020, 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.07.014
4. Vistoli, G.; Pedretti, A.; Testa, B. Assessing drug-likeness - what are we missing?. Drug Discovery Today 2008, 13, 285-294, 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.11.007
5. Palm, K.; Luthman, K.; Ungell, A. L.; Strandlund, G.; Beigi, F.; Lundahl, P.; Artursson, P. Evaluation of dynamic polar molecular surface area as predictor of drug absorption: comparison with other computational and experimental predictors. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 5382-5392, 10.1021/jm980313t
6. Ursu, O.; Rayan, A.; Goldblum, A.; Oprea, T. I. Understanding drug-likeness. Wires Comput. Mol. Sci. 2011, 1, 760-781, 10.1002/wcms.52
7. Oprea, T. I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 251-264, 10.1023/A:1008130001697
8. Veber, D. F.; Johnson, S. R.; Cheng, H. Y.; Smith, B. R.; Ward, K. W.; Kopple, K. D. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2615-2623, 10.1021/jm020017n
9. 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, 10.1021/jm901241e
10. DeGoey, D. A.; Chen, H. J.; Cox, P. B.; Wendt, M. D. Beyond the rule of 5: lessons learned from AbbVie's drugs and compound collection. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 2636-2651, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b00717
11. Doak, B. C.; Kihlberg, J. Drug discovery beyond the rule of 5-opportunities and challenges. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2017, 12, 115-119, 10.1080/17460441.2017.1264385
12. 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. 2014, 21, 1115-1142, 10.1016/j.chembiol.2014.08.013
13. Maggiora, G. M.; Shanmugasundaram, V. Molecular similarity measures. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 672, 39-100, 10.1007/978-1-60761-839-3-2
14. Willett, P. Similarity searching using 2D structural fingerprints. Methods Mol. Biol. 2010, 672, 133-158, 10.1007/978-1-60761-839-3-5
15. Cheeseright, T.; Mackey, M.; Rose, S.; Vinter, A. Molecular field extrema as descriptors of biological activity: definition and validation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 665-766, 10.1021/ci050357s
16. FDA Orange Book. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/default.htm.
17. DrugBank Database. https://www.drugbank.ca/.
18. Eros, D.; Kovesdi, I.; Orfi, L.; Takacs-Novak, K.; Acsady, G.; Keri, G. Reliability of logP predictions based on calculated molecular descriptors: a critical review. Curr. Med. Chem. 2002, 9, 1819-29, 10.2174/0929867023369042
19. Wildman, S. A.; Crippen, G. M. Prediction of Physicochemical Parameters by Atomic Contributions. J. Chem. Inf Comp Sci. 1999, 39, 868-873, 10.1021/ci990307l
20. Moka logP, Molecular Discovery. http://www.moldiscovery.com/.
21. Optibrium. https://www.optibrium.com/.
22. Hill, A. P.; Young, R. J. Getting physical in drug discovery: a contemporary perspective on solubility and hydrophobicity. Drug Discovery Today 2010, 15, 648-655, 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.05.016
23. 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 Discovery Today 2011, 16, 822-830, 10.1016/j.drudis.2011.06.001
24. Ritchie, T. J.; Macdonald, S. J.; Young, R. J.; Pickett, S. D. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: further insights by examining carbo- and hetero-aromatic and -aliphatic ring types. Drug Discovery Today 2011, 16, 164-171, 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.11.014
25. Navia, M. A.; Chaturvedi, P. R. Design Principles for orally bioavailable drugs. Drug Discovery Today 1996, 1, 179-189, 10.1016/1359-6446(96)10020-9
26. Bar-Hillel, M. The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychol. 1980, 44, 211-233, 10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3
27. Winiwarter, S.; Ax, F.; Lennernas, H.; Hallberg, A.; Pettersson, C.; Karlen, A. Hydrogen bonding descriptors in the prediction of human in vivo intestinal permeability. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2003, 21, 273-287, 10.1016/S1093-3263(02)00163-8
28. Yusof, I.; Segall, M. D. Considering the impact drug-like properties have on the chance of success. Drug Discovery Today 2013, 18, 659-666, 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.02.008
29. Ruddigkeit, L.; van Deursen, R.; Blum, L. C.; Reymond, J. L. Enumeration of 166 billion organic small molecules in the chemical universe database GDB-17. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 2864-2875, 10.1021/ci300415d
30. Polishchuk, P. G.; Madzhidov, T. I.; Varnek, A. Estimation of the size of drug-like chemical space based on GDB-17 data. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2013, 27, 675-679, 10.1007/s10822-013-9672-4
31. Ward, D. J.; Martino, O. I.; Simpson, S.; Stevens, A. J. Decline in new drug launches: myth or reality? Retrospective observational study using 30 years of data from the UK. BMJ Open 2013, 3, e002088, 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002088
32. Paul, S. M.; Mytelka, D. S.; Dunwiddie, C. T.; Persinger, C. C.; Munos, B. H.; Lindborg, S. R.; Schacht, A. L. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2010, 9, 203-214, 10.1038/nrd3078
33. Scannell, J. W.; Blanckley, A.; Boldon, H.; Warrington, B. Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2012, 11, 191-200, 10.1038/nrd3681
34. Pammolli, F.; Magazzini, L.; Riccaboni, M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2011, 10, 428-438, 10.1038/nrd3405
35. Vieth, M.; Sutherland, J. J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 3451-3453, 10.1021/jm0603825
36. 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, 10.1021/jm021053p
37. Leeson, P. D. Molecular inflation, attrition and the rule of five. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2016, 101, 22-33, 10.1016/j.addr.2016.01.018
38. Bayliss, M. K.; Butler, J.; Feldman, P. L.; Green, D. V.; Leeson, P. D.; Palovich, M. R.; Taylor, A. J. Quality guidelines for oral drug candidates: dose, solubility and lipophilicity. Drug Discovery Today 2016, 21, 1719-1727, 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.07.007
39. Johnstone, C. Medicinal chemistry matters-a call for discipline in our discipline. Drug Discovery Today 2012, 17, 538-543, 10.1016/j.drudis.2012.01.010
40. Leeson, P. D.; Young, R. J. Molecular Property Design: Does Everyone Get It?. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2015, 6, 722-725, 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.5b00157
41. Gruber, K. A. Endogenous druglike substances: implications and approaches to their study. Perspect Biol. Med. 1982, 26, 51-61, 10.1353/pbm.1982.0017
42. 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. 2001, 41, 1308-1315, 10.1021/ci010366a
43. Hopkins, A. L.; Groom, C. R.; Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discovery Today 2004, 9, 430-431, 10.1016/S1359-6446(04)03069-7
44. Reynolds, C. H.; Bembenek, S. D.; Tounge, B. A. The role of molecular size in ligand efficiency. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007, 17, 4258-4261, 10.1016/j.bmcl.2007.05.038
45. Bembenek, S. D.; Tounge, B. A.; Reynolds, C. H. Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 2009, 14, 278-283, 10.1016/j.drudis.2008.11.007
46. Reynolds, C. H.; Tounge, B. A.; Bembenek, S. D. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 2432-2438, 10.1021/jm701255b
47. Polanski, J.; Tkocz, A.; Kucia, U. Beware of ligand efficiency (LE): understanding LE data in modeling structure-activity and structure-economy relationships. J. Cheminf. 2017, 9, 1-8, 10.1186/s13321-017-0236-9
48. Polanski, J.; Tkocz, A. Between descriptors and properties: understanding the ligand efficiency trends for G protein-coupled receptor and kinase structure-activity data sets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2017, 57, 1321-1329, 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00116
49. Nissink, J. W. Simple size-independent measure of ligand efficiency. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1617-1622, 10.1021/ci900094m
50. Shultz, M. D. Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: Strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2013, 23, 5980-5991, 10.1016/j.bmcl.2013.08.029
51. Shultz, M. D. Improving the plausibility of success with inefficient metrics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 2-5, 10.1021/ml4004638
52. Reynolds, C. H. Ligand efficiency metrics: why all the fuss?. Future Med. Chem. 2015, 7, 1363-1365, 10.4155/fmc.15.70
53. Hopkins, A. L.; Keseru, G. M.; Leeson, P. D.; Rees, D. C.; Reynolds, C. H. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2014, 13, 105-121, 10.1038/nrd4163
54. 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. 2016, 29, 564-616, 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00043
55. Kenny, P. W.; Montanari, C. A. Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2013, 27, 1-13, 10.1007/s10822-012-9631-5
56. 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. 2012, 55, 6455-6466, 10.1021/jm300684u
57. Ohno, K.; Nagahara, Y.; Tsunoyama, K.; Orita, M. Are there differences between launched drugs, clinical candidates, and commercially available compounds?. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 815-821, 10.1021/ci100023s
58. Smietana, K.; Siatkowski, M.; Moller, M. Trends in clinical success rates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2016, 15, 379-380, 10.1038/nrd.2016.85
59. Kola, I.; Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 711-715, 10.1038/nrd1470
60. 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 Discovery 2015, 14, 475-486, 10.1038/nrd4609
61. Empfield, J. R.; Leeson, P. D. Lessons learned from candidate drug attrition. IDrugs 2010, 13, 869-873
62. Leeson, P. D.; Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6338-6348, 10.1021/jm049717d
63. Murray, C. W.; Erlanson, D. A.; Hopkins, A. L.; Keseru, G. M.; Leeson, P. D.; Rees, D. C.; Reynolds, C. H.; Richmond, N. J. Validity of ligand efficiency metrics. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 616-618, 10.1021/ml500146d
64. Winiwarter, S.; Bonham, N. M.; Ax, F.; Hallberg, A.; Lennernas, H.; Karlen, A. Correlation of human jejunal permeability (in vivo) of drugs with experimentally and theoretically derived parameters. A multivariate data analysis approach. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 4939-4949, 10.1021/jm9810102
65. Wang, J.; Hou, T. Advances in computationally modeling human oral bioavailability. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2015, 86, 11-16, 10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.001
66. Rossi Sebastiano, M.; Doak, B. C.; Backlund, M.; Poongavanam, V.; Over, B.; Ermondi, G.; Caron, G.; Matsson, P.; Kihlberg, J. Impact of dynamically exposed polarity on permeability and solubility of chameleonic drugs beyond the rule of 5. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 4189-4202, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00347
67. 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. 2016, 59, 2312-2327, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01286
68. 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, 10.1038/nchem.1243
69. Ertl, P.; Schuffenhauer, A. Estimation of synthetic accessibility score of drug-like molecules based on molecular complexity and fragment contributions. J. Cheminf. 2009, 1, 8, 10.1186/1758-2946-1-8
70. Pennington, L. D.; Moustakas, D. T. The necessary nitrogen atom: a versatile high-impact design element for multiparameter optimization. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 60, 3552-3579, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01807
71. Lipinski, C. A. Rule of five in 2015 and beyond: Target and ligand structural limitations, ligand chemistry structure and drug discovery project decisions. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 2016, 101, 34-41, 10.1016/j.addr.2016.04.029
72. Pye, C. R.; Hewitt, W. M.; Schwochert, J.; Haddad, T. D.; Townsend, C. E.; Etienne, L.; Lao, Y.; Limberakis, C.; Furukawa, A.; Mathiowetz, A. M.; Price, D. A.; Liras, S.; Lokey, R. S. Nonclassical size dependence of permeation defines bounds for passive adsorption of large drug molecules. J. Med. Chem. 2017, 60, 1665-1672, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.6b01483
73. Valeur, E.; Gueret, S. M.; Adihou, H.; Gopalakrishnan, R.; Lemurell, M.; Waldmann, H.; Grossmann, T. N.; Plowright, A. T. New modalities for challenging targets in drug discovery. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2017, 56, 10294-10323, 10.1002/anie.201611914
74. Young, R. J.; Leeson, P. D. Mapping the efficiency and physicochemical trajectories of successful optimizations. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 6421-6467, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00180
75. Scott, J. S.; Waring, M. J. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2018, 26, 3006-3015, 10.1016/j.bmc.2018.04.004
76. Hansch, C.; Bjorkroth, J. P.; Leo, A. Hydrophobicity and central nervous system agents: on the principle of minimal hydrophobicity in drug design. J. Pharm. Sci. 1987, 76, 663-687, 10.1002/jps.2600760902
77. Johnson, T. W.; Gallego, R. A.; Edwards, M. P. Lipophilic efficiency as an important metric in drug design. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 61, 6401-6420, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.8b00077