Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 121–124 | Cite as

Can we really do computer-aided drug design?



In this article, we discuss what we mean by ‘design’ and contrast this with the application of computational methods in drug discovery. We suggest that the predictivity of the computational models currently applied in drug discovery is not yet sufficient to permit a true design paradigm, as demonstrated by the large number of compounds that must currently be synthesised and tested to identify a successful drug. However, despite the uncertainties in predictions, computational methods have enormous potential value in narrowing the range of compounds to consider, by eliminating those that have negligible chance of being a successful drug, while focussing efforts on chemistries with the best likelihood of success. Applied appropriately, computational approaches can support decision-makers in achieving multi-parameter optimisation to guide the selection and design of compounds with the best chance of achieving an appropriate balance of properties for a drug discovery project’s objectives. Finally, we consider some approaches that may contribute over the next 25 years to improve the accuracy and transferability of computational models in drug discovery and move towards a genuine design process.


Drug discovery Quantitative structure activity relationship Multi-parameter optimisation Quantum mechanics 



The author would like to thank Ed Champness, Chris Leeding, Iskander Yusof and James Chisholm for helpful discussions regarding the topics in this article.


  1. 1.
    Beresford AP, Selick HE, Tarbit MH (2002) The emerging importance of predictive ADME simulation in drug discovery. Dug Discov Today 7:109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oprea TI (2002) Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? J Comput Aided Mol Des 16:325–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paul S, Mytelka D, Dunwiddie D, Persinger C, Munos B, Lindborg S, Schacht A (2010) How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:203–214Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ekins S, Mestres J, Testa B (2007) In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling. Br J Pharmacol 152:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bender A, Glen RC (2005) A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication. J Chem Inf Model 45:1369–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kroemer RT (2007) Structure-based drug design: docking and scoring. Curr Protein Pept Sci 8:312–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dearden JC (2006) In silico prediction of aqueous solubility. Expt Opin Drug Discov 1:31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Segall MD (2008) Why is it still drug discovery? Eur Biopharmaceut Rev. MayGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weaver S, Gleeson NP (2008) The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graph Model 26:1315–1326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chadwick AT, Segall MD (2010) Overcoming psychological barriers to good discovery decisions. Drug Discov Today 15:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ekins S, Boulanger B, Swaan P, Hupcey M (2001) Towards a new age of virtual ADME/TOX and multidimensional drug discovery. J Comp Aided Mol Design 16:381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Segall MD (2011) Multi-parameter optimization: identifying high quality compounds with a balance of properties. Curr Pharm Des (in press)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Svetink V, Liaw A, Tong C, Culberson J, Sheridan R, Feutson B (2003) Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43:1947–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Doucet JPBF, Xia H, Panaye A, Fan B (2007) Nonlinear SVM approaches to QSPR/QSAR studies and drug design. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 3:263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Devillers J (1996) Neural networks in QSAR and drug design (Principles of QSAR and drug design). Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Obrezanova O, Csanyi G, Gola JM, Segall MD (2007) Gaussian processes: a method for automatic QSAR modelling of ADME properties. J Chem Inf Model 47:1847–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bolton E, Wang Y, Thiessen P, Bryant S (2008) PubChem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities. In: Annual reports in computational chemistry, vol 4. American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp 217–241Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Warr WA (2009) ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A. Warr. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:195–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenny PW (2009) Hydrogen bonding, electrostatic potential, and molecular design. J Chem Inf Model 49:1234–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones JP, Mysinger M, Korzekwa KR (2002) Computational models for cytochrome P450: a predictive electronic model for aromatic oxidation and hydrogen atom abstraction. Drug Metab Dispos 30:7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zaretzki J, Bergeron C, Rydberg P, Huang T, Bennett KP, Breneman CM (2011) RS-predictor: a new tool for predicting sites of cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism applied to CYP 3A4. J Chem Inf Model 51:1667–1689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Skylaris CK, Haynes PD, Mostofi AA, Payne MC (2005) Introducing ONETEP: linear-scaling density functional simulations. J Chem Phys 122:084119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heady L, Fernandez-Serra M, Mancera RL, Joyce S, Venkitaraman A, Artacho E, Skylaris CK, Ciacchi LC, Payne MC (2006) Novel structural features of CDK inhibition revealed by an ab initio computational method. J Med Chem 49:5141–5153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bartok AP, Payne MC, Kondor R, Csanyi G (2010) Gaussian approximation potentials: the accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons. Phys Rev Lett 104:136403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38:114–117Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Optibrium LtdCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations