Target Selection in Drug Discovery

In this review, four criteria will be proposed to evaluate new targets: linkage to the disease, potential therapeutic index, chemical tractability, and economics. But even the best targets have issues. The ability to identify these issues, develop a plan to address these issues, and apply judgment as to the likely outcome of these issues will have a significant impact on the success of any drug discovery and development effort. Viewed from this perspective, target selection is a process not an event. In particular, as internal and external data become available, targets should be reevaluated with respect to these criteria to determine the appropriateness of continued work. Keywords: target selection; human clinical data; human genetics; chemical tractability; potential therapeutic index

[1]  M. Olivier.  A haplotype map of the human genome , 2003, Nature.

[2]  J. Drews.  Drug discovery: a historical perspective. , 2000, Science.

[3]  Andreas Vogt,et al.  Chemical complementation: a definitive phenotypic strategy for identifying small molecule inhibitors of elusive cellular targets. , 2005, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[4]  J. Drews,et al.  Drug Development: The role of innovation in drug development , 1997, Nature Biotechnology.

[5]  D. Lauffenburger,et al.  Integrating cell-level kinetic modeling into the design of engineered protein therapeutics , 2005, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  A. M. Saunders,et al.  Protective effect of apolipoprotein E type 2 allele for late onset Alzheimer disease , 1994, Nature Genetics.

[7]  E. Butcher.  Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[8]  M. Haffner.  Adopting orphan drugs--two dozen years of treating rare diseases. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[9]  J. Lehmann,et al.  An Antidiabetic Thiazolidinedione Is a High Affinity Ligand for Peroxisome Proliferator-activated Receptor γ (PPARγ) (*) , 1995, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

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

[11]  L. Hardy,et al.  The multiple orthogonal tools approach to define molecular causation in the validation of druggable targets. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[12]  X. Chen,et al.  TTD: Therapeutic Target Database , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  H. Lebovitz.  Insulin-mimetic and insulin-sensitizing drugs. , 1993, Diabetes research and clinical practice.

[14]  J. DiMasi,et al.  Risks in new drug development: Approval success rates for investigational drugs , 2001, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[15]  B. Druker,et al.  Perspectives on the development of a molecularly targeted agent. , 2002, Cancer cell.

[16]  J. Olesen,et al.  Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist BIBN 4096 BS for the acute treatment of migraine. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[17]  J. Haines,et al.  Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer's disease in late onset families. , 1993, Science.

[18]  R. Mahley,et al.  Apolipoprotein E4: a causative factor and therapeutic target in neuropathology, including Alzheimer's disease. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  D. J. Matthews,et al.  Using model-system genetics for drug-based target discovery. , 2001, Drug discovery today.

[20]  M. Maggini,et al.  Cholinesterase Inhibitors: Drugs Looking for a Disease? , 2006, PLoS medicine.

[21]  Lefkos Middleton,et al.  Disease-specific target selection: a critical first step down the right road. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[22]  M. Brown,et al.  Lowering plasma cholesterol by raising LDL receptors. , 1981, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  E. Siemers,et al.  New pathways in drug discovery for alzheimer’s disease , 2006, Current neurology and neuroscience reports.

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

[25]  Stylianos E. Antonarakis,et al.  Mendelian disorders deserve more attention , 2006, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[26]  M. Austen,et al.  Phenotype-first screening for the identification of novel drug targets. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[27]  Richard Pazdur,et al.  Accelerated approval of oncology products: a decade of experience. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  Dalia Cohen,et al.  Functional genomics to new drug targets , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[29]  Y. Z. Chen,et al.  Therapeutic Targets: Progress of Their Exploration and Investigation of Their Characteristics , 2006, Pharmacological Reviews.

[30]  D. Selkoe.  Alzheimer's disease: genes, proteins, and therapy. , 2001, Physiological reviews.

[31]  B. Fadeel,et al.  A journey of hope: lessons learned from studies on rare diseases and orphan drugs , 2006, Journal of internal medicine.

[32]  Alex Bateman,et al.  The InterPro database, an integrated documentation resource for protein families, domains and functional sites , 2001, Nucleic Acids Res..

[33]  M. Krempf,et al.  PCSK9: a promising therapeutic target for dyslipidemias? , 2006, Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism.

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

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

[36]  A. Citri,et al.  EGF–ERBB signalling: towards the systems level , 2006, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[37]  A. Sands,et al.  Knockouts model the 100 best-selling drugs—will they model the next 100? , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.