Molecular Diversity

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 199–208 | Cite as

Current trends in lead discovery: Are we looking for the appropriate properties?

  • Tudor I. Oprea


The new drug discovery paradigm is based on high-throughputtechnologies, both with respect to synthesis and screening. Theprogression HTS hits → lead series → candidatedrug → marketed drugappears to indicate that the probability of reaching launched status isone in a million. This has shifted the focus from good qualitycandidate drugs to good quality leads. We examined the current trendsin lead discovery by comparing MW (molecular weight), LogP(octanol/water partition coefficient, estimated by Kowwin [17])and LogSw (intrinsic water solubility, estimated by Wskowwin [18])for the following categories: 62 leads and 75 drugs [11];compounds in the development phase (I, II, III and launched), asindexed in MDDR; and compounds indexed in medicinal chemistry journals[ref. 20], categorized according to their biological activity.Comparing the distribution of the above properties, the 62 leadstructures show the lowest median with respect to MW (smaller) and LogP(less hydrophobic), and the highest median with respect to LogSw (moresoluble). By contrast, over 50% of the medicinal chemistry compoundswith activities above 1 nanomolar have MW > 425, LogP > 4.25 andLogSw < -4.75, indicating that the reported active compounds arelarger, more hydrophobic and less soluble when compared to time-testedquality leads. In the MDDR set, a progressive constraint to reduce MWand LogP, and to increase LogSw, can be observed when examining trendsin the developmental sequence: phase I, II, III and launched drugs.These trends indicate that other properties besides binding affinity,e.g., solubility and hydrophobicity, need to be considered whenchoosing the appropriate leads.

database filtering drug-likeness drug research hydrophobicity lead-likeness property distribution `rule of 5' test solubility 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Drews, J., Drug Discov. Today, 3 (1998) 491–494.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Horrobin, D.F., J. R. Soc. Med., 93 (2000) 341–345.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Olsson, T. and Oprea, T.I. Curr. Op Drug Discov. Dev., 4 (2001) 308–313.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Lebl, M., J. Comb. Chem., 1 (1999) 3–24.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    Martin, Y.C., J. Comb. Chem. 3 (2001) 231–250.Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S. and Yund, M.A., J. Biomol. Screening, 4 (1999) 183–186.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Oprea, T.I., Curr. Op. Chem. Biol., 6 (2002) 384–389.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Rishton, G.M., Drug Discov. Today, 2 (1997) 382–384.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    DeStevens, G., Prog. Drug. Res., 30 (1986) 189–203.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Oprea, T.I., Davis, A.M., Teague, S.J. and Leeson, P.D., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41 (2001) 1308–1315.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Boyd, D.B., In: Liljefors, T., Jorgensen, F.S., Krogsgaard-Larsen, P. (eds.) Rational Molecular Design in Drug Research, Munksgaard, Copenhagen, (1998) 15–29.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    Kennedy, T., Drug Discov. Today, 2 (1997) 436–444.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Lipinski, C.A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B.W. and Feeney, P.J., Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev., 23 (1997) 3–25.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Teague, S.J., Davis, A.M., Leeson, P.D. and Oprea, T.I., Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 38 (1999) 3743–3748. German version: Angew. Chem., 111 (1999) 3962-3967.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Hann, M.M., Leach, A.R. and Harper, G., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41 (2001) 856–864.Google Scholar
  16. 17.
    Meylan, W.M. and Howard, P.H., J. Pharm. Sci., 84 (1995) 83–92. KOWWIN v1.6 is available from US EPA, Scholar
  17. 18.
    Meylan, W.M., Howard, P.H. and Boethling, R.S., Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 15 (1996) 100–106. WSKOWIN 1.40 is available from US EPA, exposure/docs/episuited1.htmGoogle Scholar
  18. 20.
    The following publications were included in this survey: Journal of Medicinal Chemistry volumes 40 (1997) and 41 (1998) - forming over 90% of the structures analysed; Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships volumes 17 (1998), 18 (1999), and 19 (2000), as well as European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry volume 36 (2001).Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    Lipinski, C.A., J. Pharmacol Toxicol Meth., 44 (2000) 235–249.Google Scholar
  20. 22.
    Kuntz, I.D., Chen, K., Sharp, K.A. and Kollman, P.A., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96 (1999) 9997–10002.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Oprea, T.I., Molecules, 7 (2002) 55-64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tudor I. Oprea
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Office of BiocomputingUNM School of MedicineAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations