Moving beyond rules: the development of a central nervous system multiparameter optimization (CNS MPO) approach to enable alignment of druglike properties.

The interplay among commonly used physicochemical properties in drug design was examined and utilized to create a prospective design tool focused on the alignment of key druglike attributes. Using a set of six physicochemical parameters ((a) lipophilicity, calculated partition coefficient (ClogP); (b) calculated distribution coefficient at pH = 7.4 (ClogD); (c) molecular weight (MW); (d) topological polar surface area (TPSA); (e) number of hydrogen bond donors (HBD); (f) most basic center (pK(a))), a druglikeness central nervous system multiparameter optimization (CNS MPO) algorithm was built and applied to a set of marketed CNS drugs (N = 119) and Pfizer CNS candidates (N = 108), as well as to a large diversity set of Pfizer proprietary compounds (N = 11 303). The novel CNS MPO algorithm showed that 74% of marketed CNS drugs displayed a high CNS MPO score (MPO desirability score ≥ 4, using a scale of 0-6), in comparison to 60% of the Pfizer CNS candidates. This analysis suggests that this algorithm could potentially be used to identify compounds with a higher probability of successfully testing hypotheses in the clinic. In addition, a relationship between an increasing CNS MPO score and alignment of key in vitro attributes of drug discovery (favorable permeability, P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux, metabolic stability, and safety) was seen in the marketed CNS drug set, the Pfizer candidate set, and the Pfizer proprietary diversity set. The CNS MPO scoring function offers advantages over hard cutoffs or utilization of single parameters to optimize structure-activity relationships (SAR) by expanding medicinal chemistry design space through a holistic assessment approach. Based on six physicochemical properties commonly used by medicinal chemists, the CNS MPO function may be used prospectively at the design stage to accelerate the identification of compounds with increased probability of success.

[1]  P. Verhoest,et al.  Defining desirable central nervous system drug space through the alignment of molecular properties, in vitro ADME, and safety attributes. , 2010, ACS chemical neuroscience.

[2]  Bill J Smith,et al.  Prediction of Human Pharmacokinetics From Preclinical Information: Comparative Accuracy of Quantitative Prediction Approaches , 2009, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[3]  György M. Keserü,et al.  The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[4]  Ying Zhang,et al.  In Silico Modeling of Nonspecific Binding to Human Liver Microsomes , 2008, Drug Metabolism and Disposition.

[5]  J. Hughes,et al.  Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[6]  Bo Feng,et al.  In Vitro P-glycoprotein Assays to Predict the in Vivo Interactions of P-glycoprotein with Drugs in the Central Nervous System , 2008, Drug Metabolism and Disposition.

[7]  P. Leeson,et al.  The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry , 2007, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[8]  Christine Williams,et al.  Early evaluation of compound QT prolongation effects: a predictive 384-well fluorescence polarization binding assay for measuring hERG blockade. , 2007, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[9]  Abhyuday Mandal,et al.  Identifying Promising Compounds in Drug Discovery: Genetic Algorithms and Some New Statistical Techniques , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  C. Abad-Zapatero,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices for effective drug discovery , 2007, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[11]  E. Walum,et al.  Research perspectives for pre-screening alternatives to animal experimentation: on the relevance of cytotoxicity measurements, barrier passage determinations and high throughput screening in vitro to select potentially hazardous compounds in large sets of chemicals. , 2005, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[12]  A. Kalgutkar,et al.  Minimising the potential for metabolic activation in drug discovery , 2005, Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology.

[13]  Ernesto Callegari,et al.  A comprehensive listing of bioactivation pathways of organic functional groups. , 2005, Current drug metabolism.

[14]  Bruno Boulanger,et al.  A Fast Exchange Algorithm for Designing Focused Libraries in Lead Optimization , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  C. Lipinski.  Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. , 2004, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

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

[17]  R. Waterhouse,et al.  Determination of lipophilicity and its use as a predictor of blood-brain barrier penetration of molecular imaging agents. , 2003, Molecular imaging and biology : MIB : the official publication of the Academy of Molecular Imaging.

[18]  B. Fermini,et al.  The impact of drug-induced QT interval prolongation on drug discovery and development , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[19]  P. Selzer,et al.  Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Gennady M Verkhivker,et al.  Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[21]  Amit S. Kalgutkar,et al.  Role of Bioactivation in Idiosyncratic Drug Toxicity: Structure–Toxicity Relationships , 2008 .