The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry
Tóm tắt
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
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 Del. Rev. 23, 3–25 (1997).
Lipinski, C. A. Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 1, 337–341 (2004). A perspective of the impact of the 'rule of five' in drug discovery.
Abraham, M. H., Chadha, H. S., Whiting, G. S. & Mitchell, R. C. Hydrogen bonding. 32. An analysis of water-octanol and water-alkane partitioning and the Δ log P parameter of Seiler. J. Pharm. Sci. 83, 1085–1100 (1994).
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, 1250–1256 (2003).
Vieth, M. et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 224–232 (2004). The physical property profiles of oral drugs are compared with topical and intravenous drugs.
Proudfoot, J. R. The evolution of synthetic oral drug properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 1087–1090 (2005).
Hou, T., Wang, J., Zhang, W. & Xu, X. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 7. Prediction of oral absorption by correlation and classification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 208–218 (2007).
Linnankoski, J., Maekelae, J. M., Ranta, V.-P., Urtti, A. & Yliperttula, M. Computational prediction of oral drug absorption based on absorption rate constants in humans. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3674–3681 (2006).
Veber, D. F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615–2623 (2002).
Lu, J. J. et al. Influence of molecular flexibility and polar surface area metrics on oral bioavailability in the rat. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6104–6107 (2004).
Hou, T., Wang, J., Zhang, W. & Xu, X. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 6. can oral bioavailability in humans be effectively predicted by simple molecular property-based rules? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 460–463 (2007).
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). A thorough study from the recent literature of medicinal chemical optimization practice across target classes, and consequent changes in physical-property profiles.
Oprea, T. I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? J. Comp Aided Mol. Design 16, 325–334 (2002).
Vieth, M. & Sutherland, J. J. Dependence of molecular properties on proteomic family for marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49, 3451–3453 (2006).
Paolini, G. V., Shapland, R. H. B., van Hoorn, W. P., Mason, J. S. & Hopkins, A. L. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nature Biotech. 24, 805–815 (2006). Exemplifies the power of knowledge exploitation using large databases, providing insights into drug-like chemical space encompassing several hundred proteins.
Leeson, P. D. & Davis, A. M. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 6338–6348 (2004).
Blake, J. F. Identification and evaluation of molecular properties related to preclinical optimization and clinical fate. Med. Chem. 1, 649–655 (2005).
Cheng, A. C. et al. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability. Nature Biotech. 25, 71–75 (2007). Accurate 'druggability' predictions emerge from considerations of the predicted affinities of ligands for structurally characterized binding sites.
Hajduk, P. J., Huth, J. R. & Fesik, S. W. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J. Med. Chem. 48, 2518–2525 (2005).
van de Waterbeemd, H., Smith, D. A., Beaumont, K. & Walker, D. K. Property-based design: optimization of drug absorption and pharmacokinetics. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1313–1333 (2001). A key paper, laying down the essential principles and importance of physical-property optimization.
Hansch, C. Quantitative approach to biochemical structure–activity relationships. Acc. Chem. Res. 2, 232–9 (1969).
Tute, M. S. Principles and practice of Hansch analysis. Guide to structure–activity correlation for the medicinal chemist. Adv. Drug Res. 6, 1–77 (1971).
Kubinyi, H. Lipophilicity and biological activity. Drug transport and drug distribution in model systems and in biological systems. Arzn. Forsch. 29, 1067–1080 (1979).
Cronin, M. T. D. The role of hydrophobicity in toxicity prediction. Curr. Comp. Aided Drug Des. 2, 405–413 (2006).
Krejsa, C M. et al. Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. ( http://www.cerep.fr/cerep/users/pages/collaborations/bioprint.asp ). Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Dev. 6, 470–480 (2003).
Fliri, A. F., Loging, W. T., Thadeio, P. F. & Volkmann, R. A. Analysis of drug-induced effect patterns to link structure and side effects of medicines. Nature Chem. Biol. 1, 389–397 (2005). One of the first studies showing that in vitro binding profiles across multiple assays can be used to predict clinical side effects.
Hopkins, A. L., Mason, J. S. & Overington, J. P. Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16, 127–136 (2006).
Morphy, R. & Rankovic, Z. The physicochemical challenges of designing multiple ligands. J. Med. Chem. 49, 4961–4970 (2006).
Price, D. A. et al. Overcoming HERG affinity in the discovery of the CCR5 antagonist maraviroc. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16, 4633–4637 (2006).
Cumming, J. G. et al. Modulators of the human CCR5 receptor. SAR of substituted 1-[3-(4-methanesulfonylphenyl)-3-phenylpropyl]-piperidinyl phenylacetamides. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16, 3533–3536 (2006).
Kim, D. et al. Potent 1,3,4-trisubstituted pyrrolidine CCR5 receptor antagonists: effects of fused heterocycles on antiviral activity and pharmacokinetic properties. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 2129–2134 (2005).
Kazmierski, W. M. et al. CCR5 Antagonists as Therapeutic Agents. World Patent WO2004054974 (2004).
Waring, M. J. & Johnstone, C. A quantitative assessment of hERG liability as a function of lipophilicity. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17, 1759–1764 (2007).
Baciu, M. et al. Degradative transport of cationic amphiphilic drugs across phospholipid bilayers. Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 364, 2597–2614 (2006).
Leach, A. R., Hann, M. M., Burrows, J. N. & Griffen, E. J. Fragment screening: an introduction. Mol. Biosyst. 2, 429–446 (2006).
Uetrecht, J. Prediction of a new drug's potential to cause idiosyncratic reactions. Curr. Opin. Drug Disc. Devel. 4, 55–59 (2001).
van de Waterbeemd, H. & Gifford, E. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192–204 (2003).
van de Waterbeemd, H. & Jones, B. C. Predicting oral absorption and bioavailability. Prog. Med. Chem. 41, 1–59 (2003).
Lobell, M. et al. In silico ADMET traffic lights as a tool for the prioritization of HTS hits. ChemMedChem 1, 1229–1236 (2006).
Wunberg, T. et al. Improving the hit-to-lead process: data-driven assessment of drug-like and lead-like screening hits. Drug Discov. Today 11, 175–180 (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).
Steinmeyer, A. The hit-to-lead process and Schering AG: strategic aspects. ChemMedChem 6, 1–7, (2005).
Bleicher, K. H., Nettekoven, M., Peters, J.-U. & Wyler, R. Lead generation: sowing the seeds for future success. Chimia 58, 588–600 (2004).
Jacoby, E. et al. Key aspects of the Novartis Compound Collection Enhancement Project for the compilation of a comprehensive chemogenomics drug discovery screening collection. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5, 397–411 (2005).
Teague, S J., Davis, A. M., Leeson, P. D. & Oprea, T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38, 3743–3748 (1999). The introduction of the 'lead-like' concept.
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. Comp. Sci. 41, 856–864 (2001). A fundamental paper, showing that increased molecular complexity reduces the probability of binding.
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. Comp. Sci. 41, 1308–1315 (2001).
Hopkins, A. L. & Polinsky, A. Knowledge and intelligence in drug design. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 41, 425–437 (2006). An interesting review discussing how medicinal chemists use their knowledge to make choices in drug discovery projects.
Lombardino, J. G. & Lowe, J. A. A guide to drug discovery: the role of the medicinal chemist in drug discovery — then and now. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 853–862 (2004).
Leeson, P. D., Davis, A. M. & Steele, J. Drug-like properties: guiding principles for design – or chemical prejudice? Drug Discov. Today Technol. 1, 189–195 (2004).
Kola, I. & Landis, J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 711–716 (2004).
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (FDA Orange Book). FDA web site [online] , (2007).
Science Integrity®. http://integrity.prous.com © Prous Science, a Thomson Scientific business; all rights reserved (2007).
Wood, A. Annual Reports in Medicinal Chemistry Volume 41 503–522 (Academic Press, Burlington, 2006).
American Chemical Society. Chemical Abstract Database (CAS): Scifinder. CAS web site [online] , (2007).
Merck Research Laboratories. The Merck Index. Cambridge Soft web site [online] , (2007).
Gray, N. Changing Landscapes: A Special Report on the World's Top 50 Pharma Companies. Pharmaceutical Executive web site [online] , (2006)
GVK Bio. GVK Bio databases. GVK Bio web site [online] , (2007).
Beaumont, K., Schmid, E. & Smith, D. A. Oral delivery of G protein-coupled receptor modulators: an explanation for the observed class difference. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15, 3658–3664 (2005).
SAS Institute. JMP Statistical Software. SAS Institute web site [online] , (2007)
TIBCO Software Inc. Spotfire DecisionSite product suite. TIBCO Software web site [online] , (2007).
Azzaoui, K. et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem 2, 874–880 (2007).