Shaping a Screening File for Maximal Lead Discovery Efficiency and Effectiveness: Elimination of Molecular Redundancy

High Throughput Screening (HTS) is a successful strategy for finding hits and leads that have the opportunity to be converted into drugs. In this paper we highlight novel computational methods used to select compounds to build a new screening file at Pfizer and the analytical methods we used to assess their quality. We also introduce the novel concept of molecular redundancy to help decide on the density of compounds required in any region of chemical space in order to be confident of running successful HTS campaigns.

[1]  B. Munos.  Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[2]  Peter Willett,et al.  Chemoinformatics: a history , 2011 .

[3]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Virtual screening: an endless staircase? , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[4]  David A. Price,et al.  Maraviroc (UK-427,857), a Potent, Orally Bioavailable, and Selective Small-Molecule Inhibitor of Chemokine Receptor CCR5 with Broad-Spectrum Anti-Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Activity , 2005, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[5]  George M. Milne,et al.  Chapter 35. Pharmaceutical productivity — the imperative for new paradigms , 2003 .

[6]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Dissimilarity-based approaches to compound acquisition. , 2008, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[7]  D. Pereira,et al.  Origin and evolution of high throughput screening , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[8]  Brian Hudson,et al.  Strategic Pooling of Compounds for High-Throughput Screening , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Asher Mullard,et al.  2011 FDA drug approvals , 2012, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[10]  Lorenz M Mayr,et al.  Novel trends in high-throughput screening. , 2009, Current opinion in pharmacology.

[11]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. , 2012, Nature chemistry.

[12]  F. Pullen,et al.  The application of non-combinatorial chemistry to lead discovery. , 2001, Drug discovery today.

[13]  Bethan Hughes,et al.  2008 FDA drug approvals , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[14]  Channa K. Hattotuwagama,et al.  Lead-oriented synthesis: a new opportunity for synthetic chemistry. , 2012, Angewandte Chemie.

[15]  D. Bojanic,et al.  Impact of high-throughput screening in biomedical research , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[16]  Willem P. van Hoorn,et al.  Designing Compound Subsets: Comparison of Random and Rational Approaches Using Statistical Simulation , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Peter Willett,et al.  Effectiveness of 2D fingerprints for scaffold hopping. , 2011, Future medicinal chemistry.

[18]  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.

[19]  Ramaswamy Nilakantan,et al.  A fresh look at pharmaceutical screening library design. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[20]  Hualin Xi,et al.  The design, annotation, and application of a kinase-targeted library. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[21]  A. Leach,et al.  Molecular complexity and fragment-based drug discovery: ten years on. , 2011, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[22]  Valerie J. Gillet,et al.  Diversity selection algorithms , 2011 .

[23]  C. Harris,et al.  How large does a compound screening collection need to be? , 2008, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[24]  Warren R. J. D. Galloway,et al.  Drug discovery: A question of library design , 2011, Nature.

[25]  Chris Abell,et al.  Drugging challenging targets using fragment-based approaches. , 2010, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[26]  C. Dobson.  Chemical space and biology , 2004, Nature.

[27]  J. Scannell,et al.  Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency , 2012, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[28]  Andreas Bender,et al.  “Plate Cherry Picking”: A Novel Semi-Sequential Screening Paradigm for Cheaper, Faster, Information-Rich Compound Selection , 2007, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[29]  Esther F. Schmid,et al.  R&D technology investments: misguided and expensive or a better way to discover medicines? , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[30]  Andreas Larsson,et al.  Efficiency of hit generation and structural characterization in fragment-based ligand discovery. , 2011, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[31]  Julian Blagg,et al.  Structure–Activity Relationships for In vitro and In vivo Toxicity , 2006 .

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

[33]  Stanislav Gobec,et al.  False positives in the early stages of drug discovery. , 2010, Current medicinal chemistry.

[34]  K. M. Smith,et al.  Novel software tools for chemical diversity , 1998 .

[35]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Application of Belief Theory to Similarity Data Fusion for Use in Analog Searching and Lead Hopping , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[37]  Arthur P. Dempster,et al.  Upper and Lower Probabilities Induced by a Multivalued Mapping , 1967, Classic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions.

[38]  Renaldo Mendoza,et al.  ALARM NMR: a rapid and robust experimental method to detect reactive false positives in biochemical screens. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[39]  Stephen Frye,et al.  US academic drug discovery , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[40]  F. Pammolli,et al.  The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[42]  Raghunandan M Kainkaryam,et al.  Pooling in high-throughput drug screening. , 2009, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[43]  P. Willett,et al.  Promoting Access to White Rose Research Papers Similarity-based Virtual Screening Using 2d Fingerprints , 2022 .

[44]  P. Hajduk,et al.  A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[45]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[46]  Christopher P Austin,et al.  Quantitative analyses of aggregation, autofluorescence, and reactivity artifacts in a screen for inhibitors of a thiol protease. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[47]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine , 2004, Nature.

[48]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  An Empirical Process for the Design of High-Throughput Screening Deck Filters. , 2006 .

[49]  S D Pickett,et al.  Design of a compound screening collection for use in high throughput screening. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[50]  David R Spring,et al.  Rational methods for the selection of diverse screening compounds. , 2011, ACS chemical biology.

[51]  Jörg Hüser,et al.  High-Throughput Screening in Drug Discovery: HUESER:HTS IN DRUG DISC. O-BK , 2006 .

[52]  A. Schuffenhauer,et al.  Chemical diversity and biological activity , 2006 .

[53]  A. Stepan,et al.  Structural alert/reactive metabolite concept as applied in medicinal chemistry to mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity: a perspective based on the critical examination of trends in the top 200 drugs marketed in the United States. , 2011, Chemical research in toxicology.

[54]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. , 2001, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[55]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Plate-Based Diversity Selection Based on Empirical HTS Data to Enhance the Number of Hits and Their Chemical Diversity , 2009, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[56]  Robert D Clark,et al.  Neighborhood behavior: a useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[57]  Daniel James,et al.  Lessons Learnt from Assembling Screening Libraries for Drug Discovery for Neglected Diseases , 2007, ChemMedChem.

[58]  Paul D. Leeson,et al.  The influence of the 'organizational factor' on compound quality in drug discovery , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[59]  J. Baell,et al.  New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.