Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 27, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness

Perspective

Abstract

Drug-likeness is a frequently invoked, although not always precisely defined, concept in drug discovery. Opinions on drug-likeness are to a large extent shaped by the relationships that are observed between surrogate measures of drug-likeness (e.g. aqueous solubility; permeability; pharmacological promiscuity) and fundamental physicochemical properties (e.g. lipophilicity; molecular size). This article draws on examples from the literature to highlight approaches to data analysis that exaggerate trends in data and the term correlation inflation is introduced in the context of drug discovery. Averaging groups of data points prior to analysis is a common cause of correlation inflation and results from analysis of binned continuous data should always be treated with caution.

Keywords

ADMET Correlation Drug-likeness Lipophilicity Solubility Promiscuity 

Supplementary material

10822_2012_9631_MOESM1_ESM.txt (626 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TXT 626 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ziliak ST, McCloskey DN (2008) The cult of statistical significance: How the standard error costs us jobs, justice and lives. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kelley K, Preacher KJ (2012) On effect size. Psychol Methods 17:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Fesik SW (2005) Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J Med Chem 48:2518–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:3–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abraham MH, Chadha HS, Whiting GS, Mitchell RC (1994) Hydrogen bonding. 32. An analysis of water-octanol and water-alkane partitioning and the Δlog P parameter of Seiler. J Pharm Sci 83:1085–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colclough N, Hunter A, Kenny PW, Kittlety RS, Lobedan L, Tam KY, Timms MA (2008) High throughput solubility determination with application to selection of compounds for fragment screening. Bioorg Med Chem 16:6611–6616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith DA, Di L, Kerns EH (2010) The effect of plasma protein binding on in vivo efficacy: misconceptions in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:929–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekins S, Honeycutt JD, Metz JT (2010) Multiobjective optimization for drug discovery. In: Abraham DJ, Rotella DP (eds) Burger’s medicinal chemistry, drug discovery and development, 7th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A (2004) Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today 9:430–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van de Waterbeemd H, Smith DA, Jones BC (2001) Lipophilicity in PK design: methyl, ethyl, futile…. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 15:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hann MM, Leach AR, Harper G (2001) Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 41:856–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Woltosz WS (2012) If we designed airplanes like we design drugs. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 26:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenny PW (2009) Hydrogen bonding, electrostatic potential and molecular design. J Chem Inf Model 49:1234–1244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rodgers JL, Nicewander WA (1988) Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat 42:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hou TJ, Xia K, Zhang W, Xu XJ (2004) ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 4. prediction of aqueous solubility based on atom contribution approach. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 44:266–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ADME/T prediction models and databases. http://modem.ucsd.edu/adme/databases/databases_logS.htm. Accessed 15 Oct 2012
  17. 17.
    LOGKOW, A databank of evaluated octanol-water partition coefficients. http://logkow.cisti.nrc.ca/logkow/index.jsp. Accessed 26 Oct 2012
  18. 18.
    OEChem Toolkit Manual, OpenEye Scientific Software, Santa Fe, NM 87508. http://www.eyesopen.com/docs/toolkits/current/html/OEChem_TK-c++/index.html. Accessed 26 Oct 2012
  19. 19.
    SMARTS Theory Manual, Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., Laguna Niguel, CA 92677. http://www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/theory/theory.smarts.html. Accessed 16 Dec 2012
  20. 20.
    JMP version 10.0.0, SAS Institute, Cary, NC 27513. http://www.jmp.com. Accessed 16 Dec 2012
  21. 21.
    Hopkins AL, Mason JS, Overington JP (2006) Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr Opin Struct Biol 16:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leeson PD, Springthorpe B (2007) The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:881–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C (2009) Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J Med Chem 52:6752–6756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maxwell JC (1874) Van der Waals on the continuity of gaseous and liquid states. Nature 10:477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gleeson MP (2008) Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J Med Chem 51:817–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tarcsay A, Kinga N, Keserű GM (2012) Impact of lipophilic efficiency on compound quality. J Med Chem 55:1252–1260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ritchie TJ, Ertl P, Lewis R (2011) The graphical representation of ADME-related molecule properties for medicinal chemists. Drug Discov Today 16:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hill AP, Young RJ (2010) Getting physical in drug discovery: a contemporary perspective on solubility and hydrophobicity. Drug Discov Today 15:648–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ritchie TJ, MacDonald SJF (2009) The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: are too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design? Drug Discov Today 14:1011–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kenny PW (2012) Computation, experiment and molecular design. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 26:69–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johnstone C (2012) Medicinal chemistry matters—a call for discipline in our discipline. Drug Discov Today 17:538–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stahl M, Bajorath J (2011) Computational medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 54:1–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grupo de Estudos em Química Medicinal de Produtos Naturais, NEQUIMED-PN, Instituto de Química de São CarlosUniversidade de São PauloSão CarlosBrazil

Personalised recommendations