What Works and What Does Not: Lessons From Experience in a Pharmaceutical Company

Computational chemists make two types of contributions in drug research. The traditional contribution is to develop models that predict molecular properties and so provide experimentalists with information that helps them rule out certain compounds before detailed investigation - for example, the investigation can be following up a high-throughput screening hit or synthesizing a new molecule. Our experience suggests that such models are useful, but a corollary utility is the addition of alternative perspective of a computational chemist to the usual composition of a discovery team. This alternative perspective can lead the team to novel discoveries, independent of quantitative models. Although we, computational chemists, show the inadequacy of global models to predict octanol-water log P, pK a , permeability, and bioavailability, scientists continue to use these models. Apparently, they are accurate enough for practical purposes. Computational chemists make a second type of contribution when they devise expert systems that encode knowledge into a computer system. An example of the latter is our development of red and yellow structure alerts that suggest that a compound might be reactive or unstable (red alert) or contain unattractive functional groups (yellow alert). These expert systems are not derived from traditional quantitative modeling techniques, nor can they be. Nonetheless, our experience had been that scientists make heavy use of such computer programs and take a responsibility for suggesting improvements in the rules. Experience suggests that computational chemists make the largest impact when they focus on solving the specific problems faced by their experimentalist colleagues.

[1]  P. Willett,et al.  Implementation of nonhierarchic cluster analysis methods in chemical information structure search , 1986 .

[2]  R. Tennant,et al.  Definitive relationships among chemical structure, carcinogenicity and mutagenicity for 301 chemicals tested by the U.S. NTP. , 1991, Mutation research.

[3]  U. Norinder,et al.  Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood-brain distribution. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[4]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood-brain barrier penetration. , 1999, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[5]  A. Ghose,et al.  Atomic Physicochemical Parameters for Three‐Dimensional Structure‐Directed Quantitative Structure‐Activity Relationships I. Partition Coefficients as a Measure of Hydrophobicity , 1986 .

[6]  Y. Martin,et al.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Robert D. Combes,et al.  The use of artificial intelligence systems for predicting toxicity , 1995 .

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

[9]  H. Matter,et al.  Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. , 1997, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  ALADDIN: An integrated tool for computer-assisted molecular design and pharmacophore recognition from geometric, steric, and substructure searching of three-dimensional molecular structures , 1989, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[11]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Simulation Analysis of Experimental Design Strategies for Screening Random Compounds as Potential New Drugs and Agrochemicals , 1995, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[13]  Y. Martin,et al.  A bioavailability score. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  W. Meylan,et al.  Atom/fragment contribution method for estimating octanol-water partition coefficients. , 1995, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[15]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Use of Structure-Activity Data To Compare Structure-Based Clustering Methods and Descriptors for Use in Compound Selection , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Hugo O Villar,et al.  Ring systems in mutagenicity databases. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  Grant D. Green,et al.  Chapter 33. Recent Advances in the Generation of Molecular Diversity , 1993 .

[18]  J. Kebabian,et al.  A68930: a potent agonist selective for the dopamine D1 receptor. , 1991, European journal of pharmacology.