Knowledge and Intelligence in Drug Design

Publisher Summary Ackoff and Emery's dual nature of knowledge provides a useful framework for the understanding of medicinal chemistry and how it enables chemists to be productive. Ackoff and Emery propose that knowledge consists of at least two different senses: possession of facts (or awareness of a state of affairs) and possession of skills. By considering drug design as a process, the core of medicinal chemistry knowledge can be abstracted as the possession of facts and the possession of skills. The possession of facts encompasses the knowledge gained by understanding the probability of predicted and observed properties of the chemical structure in relation to its desired properties. The possession of skills is the knowledge required to efficiently navigate the optimization path to achieve the desired balance of properties. Each new piece of information—whether the crystal structure of a drug bound to a protein or the identification of a labile site of reactive metabolite, or the general physicochemical properties of drug-space—further restricts our hypothesis space in drug design. Practical skills such as the mastery of design tactics or parallel chemistry methods help the medicinal chemists efficiently navigate a pathway through hypothesis space. Therefore, by understanding and formalizing how knowledge is generated and used in medicinal chemistry, a methodology to rationally improve the efficiency and effectiveness of drug designs can be developed.

[1]  C. Thornber,et al.  Isosterism and molecular modification in drug design , 1979 .

[2]  Shawn P Williams,et al.  Recent applications of protein crystallography and structure-guided drug design. , 2005, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[3]  S. Frantz Drug discovery: Playing dirty , 2005, Nature.

[4]  W. Sneader Drug prototypes and their exploitation , 1996 .

[5]  Bruno Boulanger,et al.  A Fast Exchange Algorithm for Designing Focused Libraries in Lead Optimization , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  J. Tidd,et al.  Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 2007 .

[7]  Henry S. Rzepa,et al.  Chemical Markup, XML, and the World-Wide Web. 3. Toward a Signed Semantic Chemical Web of Trust , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[8]  Alice M. Sapienza,et al.  Recognizing, appreciating, and capturing the tacit knowledge of R&D scientists , 2002 .

[9]  Alfonso Valencia,et al.  Text-mining approaches in molecular biology and biomedicine. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[10]  B. Roth,et al.  The Multiplicity of Serotonin Receptors: Uselessly Diverse Molecules or an Embarrassment of Riches? , 2000 .

[11]  Meir Glick,et al.  Prediction of Biological Targets for Compounds Using Multiple-Category Bayesian Models Trained on Chemogenomics Databases , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  John A. Lowe,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: The role of the medicinal chemist in drug discovery — then and now , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[13]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[14]  William Frawley,et al.  Knowledge Discovery in Databases , 1991 .

[15]  Kristina Luthman,et al.  Polar Molecular Surface Properties Predict the Intestinal Absorption of Drugs in Humans , 1997, Pharmaceutical Research.

[16]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Annotating and mining the ligand-target chemogenomics knowledge space , 2004 .

[17]  J. Ashby Fundamental structural alerts to potential carcinogenicity or noncarcinogenicity. , 1985, Environmental mutagenesis.

[18]  Henry S Rzepa,et al.  Enhancement of the chemical semantic web through the use of InChI identifiers. , 2005, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[19]  John P. Overington,et al.  Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[20]  Sean Ekins,et al.  Reengineering the pharmaceutical industry by crash-testing molecules. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[21]  T. Nikolskaya,et al.  Biological networks and analysis of experimental data in drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[22]  Denis M. Bayada,et al.  Polar Molecular Surface as a Dominating Determinant for Oral Absorption and Brain Penetration of Drugs , 1999, Pharmaceutical Research.

[23]  Victor V. Kryssanov,et al.  Understanding design fundamentals: how synthesis and analysis drive creativity, resulting in emergence , 2001, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[24]  S. Frye Structure-activity relationship homology (SARAH): a conceptual framework for drug discovery in the genomic era. , 1999, Chemistry & biology.

[25]  Stephen Luntz,et al.  The Common Thread , 2002 .

[26]  Russell L. Ackoff,et al.  On purposeful systems , 1972 .

[27]  G. Rishton Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS , 1997 .

[28]  M. Polanyi Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[29]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Keynote review: Structural biology and drug discovery , 2005 .

[30]  F. Salemme,et al.  Chemical genomics as an emerging paradigm for postgenomic drug discovery. , 2003, Pharmacogenomics.

[31]  D. Rogers,et al.  Using Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints with Laplacian-Modified Bayesian Analysis in High-Throughput Screening Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[32]  Simon M. Tyrrell,et al.  Representation and use of chemistry in the global electronic age. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[33]  G. Cruciani,et al.  MetaSite: understanding metabolism in human cytochromes from the perspective of the chemist. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  J. Topliss,et al.  Utilization of operational schemes for analog synthesis in drug design. , 1972, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Christopher H. Bryant,et al.  Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist , 2004, Nature.

[36]  B. Stockwell Exploring biology with small organic molecules , 2004, Nature.

[37]  Dominic P. Williams,et al.  Toxicophores: groups and metabolic routes associated with increased safety risk. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[38]  Michel Dumontier,et al.  CO: A chemical ontology for identification of functional groups and semantic comparison of small molecules , 2005, FEBS letters.

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

[40]  G. S. Johnson,et al.  An Information-Intensive Approach to the Molecular Pharmacology of Cancer , 1997, Science.

[41]  A. Fliri,et al.  Biological spectra analysis: Linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[42]  B. Stockwell,et al.  Biological mechanism profiling using an annotated compound library. , 2003, Chemistry & biology.

[43]  F Darvas,et al.  Recent advances in chemical genomics. , 2004, Current medicinal chemistry.

[44]  Ruedi Stoop,et al.  An Ontology for Pharmaceutical Ligands and Its Application for in Silico Screening and Library Design , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[45]  T. Ideker,et al.  Modeling cellular machinery through biological network comparison , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[46]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Chemogenomics knowledge-based strategies in drug discovery. , 2003, Drug news & perspectives.

[47]  Kanji Ueda,et al.  Synthesis and emergence - research overview , 2001, Artif. Intell. Eng..

[48]  B. E. Evans,et al.  Methods for drug discovery: development of potent, selective, orally effective cholecystokinin antagonists. , 1988, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[49]  Henry S. Rzepa,et al.  Chemistry in Bioinformatics , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[50]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[51]  T. Baillie,et al.  Organic Chemistry in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

[52]  Stephen H. Muggleton,et al.  2020 Computing: Exceeding human limits , 2006, Nature.

[53]  Nikolay P Savchuk,et al.  Exploring the chemogenomic knowledge space with annotated chemical libraries. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[54]  R. Strausberg,et al.  From Knowing to Controlling: A Path from Genomics to Drugs Using Small Molecule Probes , 2003, Science.

[55]  J. Goguen An introduction to algebraic semiotics, with application to user interface design , 1999 .

[56]  I C Parmee Human-centric intelligent systems for exploration and knowledge discovery. , 2005, The Analyst.

[57]  Henry S. Rzepa,et al.  Communication and re-use of chemical information in bioscience , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[58]  M. Polanyi,et al.  Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy , 1959 .

[59]  A. Fliri,et al.  Analysis of drug-induced effect patterns to link structure and side effects of medicines , 2005, Nature chemical biology.

[60]  A. Fliri,et al.  Biospectra analysis: model proteome characterizations for linking molecular structure and biological response. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[61]  J. Natarajan,et al.  Knowledge Discovery in Biology and Biotechnology Texts: A Review of Techniques, Evaluation Strategies, and Applications , 2005, Critical reviews in biotechnology.

[62]  Tanja Bekhuis Conceptual biology, hypothesis discovery, and text mining: Swanson's legacy , 2006, Biomedical digital libraries.

[63]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Global mapping of pharmacological space , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[64]  Michael S Lajiness,et al.  Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[65]  Henry S. Rzepa,et al.  A global resource for computational chemistry , 2005, Journal of molecular modeling.