Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: Strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters.

Over the past 15years there have been extensive efforts to understand and reduce the high attrition rates of drug candidates with an increased focus on physicochemical properties. The fruits of this labor have been the generation of numerous efficiency indices, metric-based rules and visualization tools to help guide medicinal chemists in the design of new compounds with more favorable properties. This deluge of information may have had the unintended consequence of further obfuscating molecular optimizations by the inability of these scoring functions, rules and guides to reach a consensus on when a particular transformation is identified as beneficial. In this manuscript, several composite parameters, or efficiency indices, are examined utilizing theoretical and experimental matched molecular pair analyses in order to understand the basis for how each will perform under varying scenarios of molecular optimizations. In contrast to empirically derived composite parameters based on heavy atom count, lipophilic efficiency (LipE) sets consistent expectations regardless of molecular weight or relative potency and can be used to generate consistent expectations for any matched molecular pair.

[1]  M. Waring Lipophilicity in drug discovery , 2010, Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery.

[2]  John P. Overington,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemico-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[3]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings , 1997 .

[4]  Brett A Tounge,et al.  Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drug discovery. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[5]  C. Humblet,et al.  Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Arun K Mandagere,et al.  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. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Peter Ertl,et al.  The graphical representation of ADME-related molecule properties for medicinal chemists. , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[8]  Samuel H. Yalkowsky,et al.  Prediction of Drug Solubility by the General Solubility Equation (GSE) , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Marta Bellini,et al.  Straightforward recursive partitioning model for discarding insoluble compounds in the drug discovery process. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Christopher W. Murray,et al.  Assessing the lipophilicity of fragments and early hits , 2011, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[11]  Y. Lazebnik Can a biologist fix a radio? — or, what i learned while studying apoptosis , 2004, Biochemistry (Moscow).

[12]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  When Is More Better? , 2005 .

[13]  S. Bembenek,et al.  Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Marcel L Verdonk,et al.  Group Efficiency: A Guideline for Hits‐to‐Leads Chemistry , 2008, ChemMedChem.

[15]  J. Peters,et al.  Pharmacological Promiscuity: Dependence on Compound Properties and Target Specificity in a Set of Recent Roche Compounds , 2009, ChemMedChem.

[16]  P. Andrews,et al.  Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. , 1984, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  P. Leeson,et al.  The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[18]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood-brain barrier penetration. , 1999, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[19]  Stephen R. Johnson,et al.  Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Chris de Graaf,et al.  Ligand efficiency as a guide in fragment hit selection and optimization. , 2010, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[21]  J. Willem M. Nissink,et al.  Simple Size-Independent Measure of Ligand Efficiency , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  P. Selzer,et al.  Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Alexander Hillisch,et al.  In Silico ADMET Traffic Lights as a Tool for the Prioritization of HTS Hits , 2006, ChemMedChem.

[24]  J J Baldwin,et al.  Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  John P. Overington,et al.  Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[26]  Darren V S Green,et al.  Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[27]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[29]  Tudor I. Oprea Current trends in lead discovery: Are we looking for the appropriate properties? , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[30]  M. Gleeson Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Christopher K. Hsee Less is Better: When Low-Value Options are Valued More Highly than High-Value Options , 1998 .

[32]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Chemography: the Art of Navigating in Chemical Space , 2000 .

[33]  Kazuki Ohno,et al.  Two 'Golden Ratio' indices in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[34]  M. Waring,et al.  A quantitative assessment of hERG liability as a function of lipophilicity. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[35]  J. Hughes,et al.  Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[36]  Daniel J. Warner,et al.  Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  P. N. Craig,et al.  Interdependence between physical parameters and selection of substituent groups for correlation studies. , 1971, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Daniel M. Lowe,et al.  ADMET rules of thumb II: A comparison of the effects of common substituents on a range of ADMET parameters. , 2009, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[39]  Brett A Tounge,et al.  The role of molecular size in ligand efficiency. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[40]  A. Gill,et al.  Kinetic efficiency: the missing metric for enhancing compound quality? , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[41]  A. Bender,et al.  Modeling Promiscuity Based on in vitro Safety Pharmacology Profiling Data , 2007, ChemMedChem.

[42]  J. T. Metz,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[43]  Emanuele Perola,et al.  An analysis of the binding efficiencies of drugs and their leads in successful drug discovery programs. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[44]  E. Shafir,et al.  On the pursuit and misuse of useless information. , 1998, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[45]  György G Ferenczy,et al.  How are fragments optimized? A retrospective analysis of 145 fragment optimizations. , 2013, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[46]  Cele Abad-Zapatero,et al.  Time‐Trajectories in Efficiency Maps as Effective Guides for Drug Discovery Efforts , 2011, Molecular informatics.

[47]  S. Planey,et al.  The influence of lipophilicity in drug discovery and design , 2012, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[48]  Anne Mai Wassermann,et al.  SARANEA: A Freely Available Program To Mine Structure-Activity and Structure-Selectivity Relationship Information in Compound Data Sets , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  M. Edwards,et al.  Using the Golden Triangle to optimize clearance and oral absorption. , 2009, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[50]  M. Hann Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery , 2011 .

[51]  Paul D Leeson,et al.  Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[52]  György M. Keserü,et al.  The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[53]  N. Meanwell Improving drug candidates by design: a focus on physicochemical properties as a means of improving compound disposition and safety. , 2011, Chemical research in toxicology.

[54]  Stephen D Pickett,et al.  The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: further insights by examining carbo- and hetero-aromatic and -aliphatic ring types. , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[55]  Akos Tarcsay,et al.  Impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[56]  Paul D. Leeson,et al.  Impact of ion class and time on oral drug molecular properties , 2011 .

[57]  D C Spellmeyer,et al.  Measuring diversity: experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[58]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. , 2004, Drug discovery today.