Topography-biased compound library design: the shape of things to come?

The design and synthesis of quality compound libraries is of critical importance to any pharmaceutical company that relies on high throughput screening efforts for the identification of lead compounds. In this perspective, we use a moment of inertia derived shape analysis to interrogate potential libraries for chemical synthesis. An analysis of known 'Rule of Five' compliant drug shapes using this methodology clearly highlights compound libraries that may be reasonably expected, shape wise, to interact with biologically relevant protein active site topography and those that, although being structurally diverse in shape, have little chance of being pharmacologically productive. The use of multicomponent reactions as a means of producing structurally novel, bioactive compounds in a synthetically expeditious manner is also highlighted.

[1]  Wolfgang H. B. Sauer,et al.  Molecular Shape Diversity of Combinatorial Libraries: A Prerequisite for Broad Bioactivity , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[2]  A. Sands,et al.  Knockouts model the 100 best-selling drugs—will they model the next 100? , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[3]  Synthesis of diazepinones via intramolecular transamidation. , 2004, Organic letters.

[4]  Wolfgang H. B. Sauer,et al.  Size doesn't matter: Scaffold diversity shape diversity, and biological activity of combinatorial libraries , 2003 .

[5]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  I. Akritopoulou‐Zanze,et al.  Synthesis of novel fused isoxazoles and isoxazolines by sequential Ugi/INOC reactions , 2004 .

[7]  Y. Z. Chen,et al.  Therapeutic Targets: Progress of Their Exploration and Investigation of Their Characteristics , 2006, Pharmacological Reviews.

[8]  Herbert Waldmann,et al.  From protein domains to drug candidates-natural products as guiding principles in the design and synthesis of compound libraries. , 2002, Angewandte Chemie.

[9]  P. Imming,et al.  Drugs, their targets and the nature and number of drug targets , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[10]  Stephen D. Pickett,et al.  Research Papers) Design of a Compound Screening Collection for use in High Throughput Screening , 2004 .

[11]  John P. Overington,et al.  How many drug targets are there? , 2006, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[12]  Peter Meier,et al.  Key aspects of the Novartis compound collection enhancement project for the compilation of a comprehensive chemogenomics drug discovery screening collection. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[13]  A. Hopkins,et al.  The druggable genome , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Predicting protein druggability. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[15]  Herbert Waldmann,et al.  From protein domains to drug candidates – natural products as guiding principles in , 2002 .

[16]  D. Chantry,et al.  G protein-coupled receptors: from ligand identification to drug targets , 2003 .

[17]  Janet M. Thornton,et al.  Real spherical harmonic expansion coefficients as 3D shape descriptors for protein binding pocket and ligand comparisons , 2005, Bioinform..

[18]  S. Teague.  Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[19]  Ramaswamy Nilakantan,et al.  A novel approach to combinatorial library design. , 2002, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[20]  Herbert Waldmann,et al.  Design of compound libraries based on natural product scaffolds and protein structure similarity clustering (PSSC). , 2005, Molecular bioSystems.

[21]  V. Gracias,et al.  Sequential Ugi/Heck cyclization strategies for the facile construction of highly functionalized N-heterocyclic scaffolds , 2004 .

[22]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..