The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates

Carney, S. How can we avoid the productivity gap? Drug Discov. Today 10, 1011–1013 (2005).

Goodnow, R. A. & Gillespie, P. in Progress in Medicinal Chemistry Vol. 45 Ch. 1 (eds King, F. D. & Lawton, G.) 1–61 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2006).

Keseru, G. M. & Makara, G. M. Hit discovery and hit-to-lead approaches. Drug Discov. Today 11, 741–748 (2006).

Davis, A. M., Keeling, D. J., Steele, J., Tomkinson, N. P. & Tinker A. C. Components of successful lead generation. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5, 421–439 (2005).

Deprez, B. & Deprez-Poulain R. Trends in hit-to-lead: an update. Front. Med. Chem. 3, 653–673 (2006).

CMR International. Drug Discovery Performance Metrics Programme. CMR International web site [online] , (2004).

Edwards, R. A., Zhang, K. & Firth, L. Benchmarking chemistry functions within pharmaceutical drug discovery and preclinical development. Drug Discov. World 67–71 (2002).

CMR International. Drug Discovery Performance Metrics Programme, CMR International. CMR International web site [online] , (2005).

Proudfoot, J. R. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 12, 1647–1650 (2002).

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, 856–864 (2001). Based on the property analysis of a large set of initial and optimized leads, the authors demonstrated for the first time that less complex molecules are more likely to become hits, albeit weaker binders.

Hann, M. M. & Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 255–263 (2004).

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, 3–25 (1997).

Morphy, R. The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds J. Med. Chem. 49, 2969–2978 (2006).

Leeson, P. D. & Springthorpe, B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 6, 881–890 (2007). This paper reports that current medicinal chemistry produces compounds with molecular mass and cLogP higher than that of oral drugs and development compounds, emphasizing the importance of lipophilicity.

Fox, S. et al. High throughput screening: update on practices and success. J. Biomol. Screen. 11, 864–869 (2006).

Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S., Sopchak, L., Boggs, A. & Comley, J. High throughput screening: searching for higher productivity. J. Biomol. Screen. 9, 354–358 (2004).

Parker, C. N. & Bajorath, J. Towards unified compound screening strategies: a critical evaluation of error sources in experimental and virtual high-throughput screening. QSAR Comb. Sci. 25, 1153–1161 (2006).

Macarron, R. Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 11, 277–279 (2006). An analysis of transformations in HTS practices throughout the years with respect to targets, compounds and screening platforms.

Harper, G., Pickett, S. D. & Green, D. V. S. Design of a compound screening collection for use in high throughput screening. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 7, 63–70 (2004).

Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S. & Yund, M. A. High throughput screening for drug discovery: continually transitioning into new technology. J. Biomol. Screen. 4, 183–186 (1999).

Inglese, J. et al. Quantitative high-throughput screening: a titration-based approach that efficiently identifies biological activities in large chemical libraries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 31, 11473–11478 (2006).

Crisman, T. J. et al. “Plate Cherry Picking”: a novel semi-sequential screening paradigm for cheaper, faster, information-rich compound selection. J. Biomol. Screen. 12, 320–327 (2007).

Di, L. & Kerns, E. H. Biological assay challenges from compound solubility: strategies for bioassay optimization. Drug Discov. Today 11, 447–451 (2006).

Andrews, P. R., Craik D. J. & Martin, J. L. Functional group contributions to drug–receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27, 1648–1657 (1984).

Veber, D. F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615–2623 (2002).

Congreve, M., Carr, R., Murray, C. & Jhoti, H. A 'Rule of Three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today 8, 876–877 (2003).

Hopkins, A. L., Groom, C. R. & Alex, A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9, 430–431 (2004). An introduction to the principle of ligand efficiency as a measure of the binding energy per non-hydrogen atom — a useful parameter in the selection and optimization of leads.

Makara, G. M. & Athanasopoulos, J. Improving success rates for lead generation using affinity binding technologies. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 16, 666–673 (2005).

Golebiowski, A., Klopfenstein, S. R. & Portlockz D. E. Lead compounds discovered from libraries: part 2. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 7, 308–325 (2003).

Rees, D. C., Congreve, M., Murray, C. W. & Carr, R. Fragment-based lead discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 660–672 (2004).

Alex, A. A. & Flocco, M. M. Fragment-based drug discovery: what has it achieved so far? Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 7, 1544–1567 (2007).

Harvey, A. L. Natural products as a screening resource. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 11, 480–484 (2007).

McInnes, C. Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 11, 494–502 (2007).

Wyss, D. F., McCoy, M. A. & Senior, M. M. NMR-based approaches for lead discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5, 630–647 (2002).

Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 235–249 (2000).

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, 1308–1315 (2001).

Oprea, T. I. et al. Lead-like, drug-like or “pub-like”: how different are they? J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 21, 113–119 (2007).

Fobare, W. F. et al. Thiophene substituted acylguanidines as BACE1 inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 5353–5356 (2007).

Coburn, C. A. et al. Identification of a small molecule nonpeptide active site β-secretase inhibitor that displays a nontraditional binding mode for aspartyl proteases. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6117–6119 (2004).

Durham T. B. & Shepherd, T. A. Progress toward the discovery and development of efficacious BACE inhibitors. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 9, 776–791 (2006).

Congreve, M. et al. Application of fragment screening by X-ray crystallography to the discovery of aminopyridines as inhibitors of β-secretase. J. Med. Chem. 50, 1124–1132 (2007).

Edwards, P. D. et al. Application of fragment-based lead generation to the discovery of novel, cyclic amidine β-secretase inhibitors with nanomolar potency, cellular activity, and high ligand efficiency. J. Med. Chem. 50, 5912–5925 (2007).

Kuglstatter, A. et al. Tyramine fragment binding to BACE-1 Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 1304–1307 (2008).

Reynolds, C. H., Tounge, B. A. & Bembenek, S. D. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications J. Med. Chem. 51, 2432–2438 (2008).

Congreve, M., Chessari, G., Tisi, D. & Woodhead, A. J. Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 51, 3661–3680 (2008). A recent review that highlights the trends in fragment screening, screening libraries and fragment optimization strategies.