Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine

Despite over a century of applying organic synthesis to the search for drugs, we are still far from even a cursory examination of the vast number of possible small molecules that could be created. Indeed, a thorough examination of all ‘chemical space’ is practically impossible. Given this, what are the best strategies for identifying small molecules that modulate biological targets? And how might such strategies differ, depending on whether the primary goal is to understand biological systems or to develop potential drugs?

[1]  P. Andrews,et al.  Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. , 1984, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  S. van Gestel,et al.  Thirty‐three years of drug discovery and research with Dr. Paul Janssen , 1986 .

[3]  Barry A. Bunin,et al.  A general and expedient method for the solid-phase synthesis of 1,4-benzodiazepine derivatives , 1992 .

[4]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Discovering High-Affinity Ligands for Proteins: SAR by NMR , 1996, Science.

[5]  W. Sneader.  Drug prototypes and their exploitation , 1996 .

[6]  G. Rishton.  Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS , 1997 .

[7]  Ajay,et al.  Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  P. Schleyer.  Encyclopedia of computational chemistry , 1998 .

[9]  S. Schreiber.  Chemical genetics resulting from a passion for synthetic organic chemistry. , 1998, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[10]  P. Kollman,et al.  Encyclopedia of computational chemistry , 1998 .

[11]  C. Crews,et al.  Chemical genetics: exploring and controlling cellular processes with chemical probes. , 1999, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[12]  Ajay,et al.  Recognizing molecules with drug-like properties. , 1999, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[13]  J. Wang,et al.  Toward designing drug-like libraries: a novel computational approach for prediction of drug feasibility of compounds. , 1999, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[14]  C. Lipinski.  Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. , 2000, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[15]  T. Raju.  The Nobel Chronicles , 2000, The Lancet.

[16]  R. Stroud,et al.  Site-directed ligand discovery. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[17]  Vicki L. Nienaber,et al.  Discovering novel ligands for macromolecules using X-ray crystallographic screening , 2000, Nature Biotechnology.

[18]  T. Raju,et al.  The Nobel Chronicles , 2000, The Lancet.

[19]  C. Rader,et al.  Antibody libraries in drug and target discovery. , 2001, Drug discovery today.

[20]  I. Muegge,et al.  Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Darren V. S. Green,et al.  Prediction of Biological Activity for High-Throughput Screening Using Binary Kernel Discrimination , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  M. G. Finn,et al.  Click Chemistry: Diverse Chemical Function from a Few Good Reactions. , 2001, Angewandte Chemie.

[23]  I. Muegge,et al.  Computational methods to estimate drug development parameters. , 2001, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[24]  R. Dolle.  Comprehensive survey of combinatorial library synthesis: 2000. , 2001, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[25]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  Molecular Complexity and Its Impact on the Probability of Finding Leads for Drug Discovery , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[27]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Chemography: the Art of Navigating in Chemical Space , 2000 .

[28]  Robert Schweitzer,et al.  Comparison of Assay Technologies for a Tyrosine Kinase Assay Generates Different Results in High Throughput Screening , 2002, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[29]  Rudi Verbeeck,et al.  Outlier Mining in High Throughput Screening Experiments , 2002, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[30]  Harren Jhoti,et al.  High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

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

[33]  J. Proudfoot.  Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. , 2002, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[34]  R. Griffey,et al.  SAR by MS: a ligand based technique for drug lead discovery against structured RNA targets. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Chemical space navigation in lead discovery. , 2002, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[36]  Walters Wp,et al.  Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. , 2002 .

[37]  M. Murcko,et al.  Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[38]  K. Shokat,et al.  Novel chemical genetic approaches to the discovery of signal transduction inhibitors. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[39]  R. Remmele,et al.  Designing proteins that work using recombinant technologies. , 2002, Current pharmaceutical biotechnology.

[40]  Jean-Pierre Marquette,et al.  SAR and X-ray. A new approach combining fragment-based screening and rational drug design: application to the discovery of nanomolar inhibitors of Src SH2. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[41]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[42]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[43]  G. Rishton.  Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[44]  I. Muegge.  Selection criteria for drug‐like compounds , 2003, Medicinal research reviews.

[45]  J Fraser Glickman,et al.  Comparison of Assay Technologies for a Nuclear Receptor Assay Screen Reveals Differences in the Sets of Identified Functional Antagonists , 2003, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[46]  Roland E Dolle,et al.  Comprehensive survey of combinatorial library synthesis: 2002. , 2003, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[47]  David F. Horrobin,et al.  Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality? , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[48]  H. Kolb,et al.  The growing impact of click chemistry on drug discovery. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[49]  S. Teague.  Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[51]  A L Hopkins,et al.  Target analysis: a priori assessment of druggability. , 2003, Ernst Schering Research Foundation workshop.

[52]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Kinase inhibitors: not just for kinases anymore. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[53]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. , 2003, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[54]  Michael Williams.  A return to the fundamentals of drug discovery? , 2004, Current opinion in investigational drugs.

[55]  M. Congreve,et al.  Fragment-based lead discovery , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[56]  Richard Morphy,et al.  From magic bullets to designed multiple ligands. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[57]  D. Swinney,et al.  Biochemical mechanisms of drug action: what does it take for success? , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[58]  A. Sands,et al.  Modeling drug action in the mouse with knockouts and RNA interference , 2004 .

[59]  Michael S Lajiness,et al.  Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[60]  Nicolas Foloppe,et al.  Drug-like Annotation and Duplicate Analysis of a 23-Supplier Chemical Database Totalling 2.7 Million Compounds , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[61]  G. Hannon,et al.  Unlocking the potential of the human genome with RNA interference , 2004, Nature.

[62]  James R Horn,et al.  Allosteric inhibition through core disruption. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[63]  T. Insel,et al.  NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative , 2004, Science.

[64]  Michelle R. Arkin,et al.  Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: progressing towards the dream , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[65]  C. Wermuth.  Selective optimization of side activities: another way for drug discovery. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[66]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[67]  Daniel A Erlanson,et al.  Tethering: fragment-based drug discovery. , 2004, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[68]  T. Rabbitts,et al.  Intracellular antibodies as specific reagents for functional ablation: future therapeutic molecules. , 2004, Current molecular medicine.