Leadlikeness and structural diversity of synthetic screening libraries
- 333 Downloads
High program failure rates in the pharmaceutical industry have prompted the development of predictive software that can profile compound libraries as being ‘druglike’ (resembling existing drugs) and/or ‘leadlike’ (possessing the structural and physicochemical profile of a quality lead). In recent years, these two notions prompted pharmaceutical companies to clean up their corporate libraries of screening compounds. In order to maintain and expand the size and diversity of these corporate libraries, pharmaceutical companies still continue to add compounds to these, mainly by the acquisition of screening libraries. In this paper, we have analyzed 45 commercially available libraries, offered by suppliers of screening chemistry, for leadlikeness and diversity of the offered structures. To this end we have used a set of structural and physicochemical filters for leadlikeness that was developed in-house. These 45 supplier libraries contained a total of 5.3 million structures, of which 49% (2,592,778 structures) turned out to be unique, and only 12% (677,328 structures) were found to be both unique and leadlike. A diversity analysis revealed that big differences exist between the various offered libraries.
Key wordsdiversity druglikeness drug development library filtering high throughput screening lead identification leadlikeness physicochemical properties property profile screening library
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 9.Blake, J.F.,Examiniation of the computed molecular properties of compounds selected for clinical development, Biotechniques, 34 (2003) S16–S20.Google Scholar
- 12.(a) McGovern, S.L., Caselli, E., Grigorieff, N. and Shoichet, B.K.,A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening, J. Med. Chem., 45 (2002) 1712–1722. (b) Seidler, J., McGovern, S.L., Doman, T.N. and Shoichet, B.K.,Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs, J. Med. Chem., 46 (2003) 4477–4486.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Roche, O., Schneider, P., Zuegge, J., Guba, W., Kansy, M., Alanine, A., Bleicher, K., Danel, F., Gutknecht, E-M., Rogers-Evans, M., Neidhart, W., Stalder, H., Dillon, M., Sjögren, E., Fotouhi, N., Gillespie, P., Goodnow, R., Harris, W., Jones, P., Taniguchi, M., Tsujii, S., von der Saal, W., Zimmerman, G. and Schneider, G.,Development of a virtual screening method for identification of ‘frequent hitters’ in compound libraries, J. Med. Chem., 45 (2002) 137–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.(a) Oprea, T.I., Gottfries, J., Sherbukhin, V., Svensson, P. and Kuhler, T.C.,Chemical information management in drug discovery: Optimizing the computational and combinatorial chemistry interfaces, J. Mol. Graph. Mol., 18 (2000) 512–524. (b) Oprea, T.I., Zamora, I. and Ungell, A.,Pharmacokinetically Based Mapping Device for Chemical Space Navigation, J. Comb. Chem., 4 (2002) 258–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.(a) Rishton, G.M.,Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening, Drug Discovery Today, 8 (2003) 86–96. (b) Rishton, G.M.,Failure and Success in Modern Drug Discovery: Guiding Principles in the Establishment of High Probability of Success Drug Discovery Organizations, Medicinal Chemistry, 1 (2005) 519–527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Lipinski, C.A., Presentation ‘Combinatorial chemistry and HTS: Causes of or solutions to the innovation gap’, 4th Symposium on Drug Discovery, April 7–8, 2005, Antwerp, Belgium.Google Scholar
- 18.Hemmerle, H., Presentation ‘Platform library science and compound collection enhancement as the base for successful medicinal chemistry’, DDT Conference, August 9–11, 2005, Boston, U.S.A.Google Scholar
- 21.Baurin, N., Baker, R., Richardson, C., Chen, I., Foloppe, N., Potter, A., Jordan, A., Roughley, S., Parratt, M., Greany, P., Morley, D. and Hubbard, R.E.,Drug-like annotation and duplicate analysis of a 23-supplier chemical database totalling 2.7\ million compounds, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 44 (2004) 643–651.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.MDL Information Systems, Inc., 14600 Catalina Street, San Leandro, CA 94577, U.S.A. http://www.mdli.com/.
- 23.Chemical Computing Group, Inc. 1010 Sherbrooke St. West, Suite 910, Montreal, H3A 2R7 Canada. http://www.chemcomp.com/
- 24.Syracuse Research Corporation, 6225 Running Ridge Road, North Syracuse, NY 13212, U.S.A. KOWWIN and WSKOWWIN are part of the EPI suite (V3.12), available from http://www.epa.gov/oppt/-exposure/docs/episuitedl.htm
- 34.Maybridge PLC., Trevillett, Tintagel, Cornwall PL34 OHW, England. http://www.maybridge.com/.