The impact of physicochemical and molecular properties in drug design: navigation in the "drug-like" chemical space.

Physicochemical and molecular properties influence both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic process, as well as drug safety, often in a conflicting way. In this aspect the current trend in drug discovery is to consider ADME (T) properties in parallel with target affinity. The concept of "drug-likeness" defines acceptable boundaries of fundamental properties formulated as simple rules of thumb, in order to aid the medicinal chemist to prioritize drug candidates. Special attention is given to lipophilicity and molecular weight, since there is a tendency for those parameters to increase in regard to complex compounds generated by new technologies, with potential consequences in bioavailability, while high lipophilicity is also associated with undesired effects. Such rules have the advantage to be very simple and are easy to interpret; however their drawback is that they do not take into consideration uncertainties in measurements and calculations as well as the receptor requirements. The case of PPARs, a nuclear receptor family, is discussed in detail in regard to the chemical space covered by the ligands, focusing on the high demands of the ligand binding domain in both lipophilicity and molecular size. Such paradigms indicate that it would be more appropriate to adapt drug-like properties according to specific drug discovery projects.

[1]  H. van de Waterbeemd,et al.  Property-based design: optimization of drug absorption and pharmacokinetics. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  H. Pajouhesh,et al.  Medicinal chemical properties of successful central nervous system drugs , 2005, NeuroRX.

[3]  Bart Hens,et al.  A review of drug solubility in human intestinal fluids: implications for the prediction of oral absorption. , 2014, European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences.

[4]  A. Tsantili-Kakoulidou,et al.  Quantitative Structure‐Activity Relationships for PPAR‐γ Binding and Gene Transactivation of Tyrosine‐Based Agonists Using Multivariate Statistics , 2008, Chemical biology & drug design.

[5]  Bernard Testa,et al.  Lipophilicity Profiles of Ampholytes. , 1997, Chemical reviews.

[6]  T. Willson,et al.  The PPARs: from orphan receptors to drug discovery. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  R. Mannhold,et al.  Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: state of the art and comparison of methods on more than 96000 compounds , 2009, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[8]  Theodosia Vallianatou,et al.  Analysis of PPAR‐α/γ Activity by Combining 2‐D QSAR and Molecular Simulation , 2013, Molecular informatics.

[9]  A. Tsantili-Kakoulidou,et al.  Structural basis for the design of PPAR-gamma ligands: a survey on quantitative structure- activity relationships. , 2009, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[10]  R. Hertzberg,et al.  High-throughput screening: new technology for the 21st century. , 2000, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

[12]  A. Leo,et al.  Hydrophobicity and central nervous system agents: on the principle of minimal hydrophobicity in drug design. , 1987, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[13]  G. Gaviraghi,et al.  Pharmacokinetic Challenges in Lead Optimization , 2007 .

[14]  A. Tsantili-Kakoulidou,et al.  A consideration of PPAR-γ ligands with respect to lipophilicity: current trends and perspectives , 2007 .

[15]  J. Fleckner,et al.  Synthesis and biological and structural characterization of the dual-acting peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha/gamma agonist ragaglitazar. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  A QSAR Study on Indole-Based PPAR-γ Agonists in Respect to Receptor Binding and Gene Transactivation Data , 2009 .

[17]  M. Congreve,et al.  A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[18]  Roberto Todeschini,et al.  Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics , 2009 .

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

[20]  C. Hansch Quantitative approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships , 1969 .

[21]  K. Wanner,et al.  Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry , 2007 .

[22]  Joseph C. Lin Rule of Three: a case of discrimination against certain authors caused by the cataloging rules , 1985 .

[23]  Vinod P. Shah,et al.  Biopharmaceutics Classification System: The Scientific Basis for Biowaiver Extensions , 2002, Pharmaceutical Research.

[24]  Iskander Yusof,et al.  Considering the impact drug-like properties have on the chance of success. , 2013, Drug discovery today.

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

[26]  C. Abad-Zapatero,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices for effective drug discovery , 2007, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[27]  C. Hansch,et al.  p-σ-π Analysis. A Method for the Correlation of Biological Activity and Chemical Structure , 1964 .

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

[29]  Bernard,et al.  Advances in Drug Research , 1964 .

[30]  Bernard Testa,et al.  The parametrization of lipophilicity and other structural properties in drug design , 1987 .

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

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