Computer-Aided Drug Design: An Overview.

The term drug design describes the search of novel compounds with biological activity, on a systematic basis. In its most common form, it involves modification of a known active scaffold or linking known active scaffolds, although de novo drug design (i.e., from scratch) is also possible. Though highly interrelated, identification of active scaffolds should be conceptually separated from drug design. Traditionally, the drug design process has focused on the molecular determinants of the interactions between the drug and its known or intended molecular target. Nevertheless, current drug design also takes into consideration other relevant processes than influence drug efficacy and safety (e.g., bioavailability, metabolic stability, interaction with antitargets).This chapter provides an overview on possible approaches to identify active scaffolds (including in silico approximations to approach that task) and computational methods to guide the subsequent optimization process. It also discusses in which situations each of the overviewed techniques is more appropriate.

[1]  E. Poluzzi,et al.  The hERG K+ channel: target and antitarget strategies in drug development. , 2008, Pharmacological research.

[2]  Jeffrey J Sutherland,et al.  Relating molecular properties and in vitro assay results to in vivo drug disposition and toxicity outcomes. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Natalia Novac,et al.  Challenges and opportunities of drug repositioning. , 2013, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[4]  Graeme Milligan,et al.  High-Throughput Identification and Characterization of Novel, Species-selective GPR35 Agonists , 2013, The Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[5]  Piero Procacci,et al.  Reformulating the entropic contribution in molecular docking scoring functions , 2016, J. Comput. Chem..

[6]  Nathan Brown,et al.  Exploiting QSAR methods in lead optimization. , 2006, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[7]  X. Barril,et al.  Understanding and predicting druggability. A high-throughput method for detection of drug binding sites. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  Michael S Bodnarchuk,et al.  Water, water, everywhere… It's time to stop and think. , 2016, Drug discovery today.

[9]  Alan Talevi Tailored Multi-Target Agents. Applications and Design Considerations. , 2016, Current pharmaceutical design.

[10]  Markus Hartenfeller,et al.  De novo drug design. , 2010, Methods in molecular biology.

[11]  Antonio Lavecchia,et al.  Machine-learning approaches in drug discovery: methods and applications. , 2015, Drug discovery today.

[12]  M. Markowicz,et al.  Adaptation of High-Throughput Screening in Drug Discovery—Toxicological Screening Tests , 2011, International journal of molecular sciences.

[13]  M. Pangalos,et al.  Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  M. Gilson,et al.  Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2007, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[15]  Alan Talevi,et al.  Combined Virtual Screening Strategies , 2009 .

[16]  Dennis M. Krüger,et al.  Comparison of Structure‐ and Ligand‐Based Virtual Screening Protocols Considering Hit List Complementarity and Enrichment Factors , 2010, ChemMedChem.

[17]  C. Harris,et al.  The Design and Application of Target-Focused Compound Libraries , 2011, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[18]  Matthew E Welsch,et al.  Privileged scaffolds for library design and drug discovery. , 2010, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[19]  J. Correa-Basurto,et al.  Automated docking for novel drug discovery , 2013, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[20]  Jonathan Knowles,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Target selection in drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[22]  Richard B. Smith,et al.  Repositioned drugs: integrating intellectual property and regulatory strategies , 2011 .

[23]  Ruibo Wu,et al.  Molecular Dynamics-Based Virtual Screening: Accelerating the Drug Discovery Process by High-Performance Computing , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  C. Laggner,et al.  Why drugs fail--a study on side effects in new chemical entities. , 2005 .

[25]  Jahan B Ghasemi,et al.  Methods and applications of structure based pharmacophores in drug discovery. , 2013, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[26]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Jianfeng Pei,et al.  Binding site detection and druggability prediction of protein targets for structure-based drug design. , 2013, Current pharmaceutical design.

[28]  Nathan Brown,et al.  Multi-objective optimization methods in drug design. , 2013, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[29]  Alan Talevi,et al.  Antiepileptic Drug Discovery , 2016, Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology.

[30]  Bradley C Doak,et al.  How Beyond Rule of 5 Drugs and Clinical Candidates Bind to Their Targets. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Forbes J. Burkowski,et al.  A constructive approach for discovering new drug leads: Using a kernel methodology for the inverse-QSAR problem , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[32]  Shweta Gupta,et al.  Formulation Strategies to Improve the Bioavailability of Poorly Absorbed Drugs with Special Emphasis on Self-Emulsifying Systems , 2013, ISRN pharmaceutics.

[33]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Deterministic Pharmacophore Detection Via Multiple Flexible Alignment of Drug-Like Molecules , 2007, RECOMB.

[34]  Christopher J. H. Porter,et al.  Computational prediction of formulation strategies for beyond-rule-of-5 compounds. , 2016, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

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

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

[37]  R. M. Owen,et al.  An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies , 2015, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[38]  A. Brown,et al.  Optimising metabolic stability in lipophilic chemical space: the identification of a metabolically stable pyrazolopyrimidine CRF-1 receptor antagonist. , 2009, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[39]  Nigel Greene,et al.  Physicochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes: a review , 2009, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[40]  Sally Robinson,et al.  Reducing attrition in drug development: smart loading preclinical safety assessment. , 2014, Drug discovery today.

[41]  P. Verhoest,et al.  Moving beyond rules: the development of a central nervous system multiparameter optimization (CNS MPO) approach to enable alignment of druglike properties. , 2010, ACS Chemical Neuroscience.

[42]  Christian N. S. Pedersen,et al.  Methods for Similarity-based Virtual Screening , 2013, Computational and structural biotechnology journal.

[43]  Valerie J. Gillet,et al.  Generation of multiple pharmacophore hypotheses using multiobjective optimisation techniques , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[44]  Martin Pouliot,et al.  Pan Assay Interference Compounds (PAINS) and Other Promiscuous Compounds in Antifungal Research. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[45]  Fabrizio Giordanetto,et al.  Oral druggable space beyond the rule of 5: insights from drugs and clinical candidates. , 2014, Chemistry & biology.

[46]  Alan Talevi,et al.  Computational approaches for innovative antiepileptic drug discovery , 2016, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[47]  Hiromasa Kaneko,et al.  Inverse QSPR/QSAR Analysis for Chemical Structure Generation (from y to x) , 2016, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Rapid Context-Dependent Ligand Desolvation in Molecular Docking , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Khusru Asadullah,et al.  What makes a good drug target? , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[50]  I. Kola,et al.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[51]  Jennifer L. Knight,et al.  Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. , 2015, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[52]  Tian Zhu,et al.  Hit identification and optimization in virtual screening: practical recommendations based on a critical literature analysis. , 2013, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[53]  Mark A. Murcko,et al.  Virtual screening : an overview , 1998 .

[54]  T. Klabunde,et al.  GPCR Antitarget Modeling: Pharmacophore Models for Biogenic Amine Binding GPCRs to Avoid GPCR‐Mediated Side Effects , 2005, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[55]  X. Barril Druggability predictions: methods, limitations, and applications , 2013 .

[56]  Christopher A Lipinski,et al.  Rule of five in 2015 and beyond: Target and ligand structural limitations, ligand chemistry structure and drug discovery project decisions. , 2016, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[57]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.