Abstract
Despite over a century of applying organic synthesis to the search for drugs, we are still far from even a cursory examination of the vast number of possible small molecules that could be created. Indeed, a thorough examination of all ‘chemical space’ is practically impossible. Given this, what are the best strategies for identifying small molecules that modulate biological targets? And how might such strategies differ, depending on whether the primary goal is to understand biological systems or to develop potential drugs?
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sneader, W. Drug Prototypes and their Exploitation (Wiley, London, 1996).
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23, 3–25 (1997).
Schreiber, S. L. Chemical genetics resulting from a passion for synthetic organic chemistry. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 6, 1127–1152 (1998).
Austin, C. P., Brady, L. S., Insel, T. R. & Collins, F. S. NIH molecular libraries initiative Science 306, 1138–1139 (2004).
Bleicher, K. H., Bohm, H. J., Muller, K. & Alanine, A. I. Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 369–378 (2003).
Bunin, B. A. & Ellman, J. A. A general and expedient method for the solid-phase synthesis of 1,4-benzodiazepine derivatives. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 114, 10997–10998 (1992).
Dolle, R. E. Comprehensive survey of combinatorial library synthesis: 2002. J. Comb. Chem. 5, 693–753 (2003).
Wermuth, C. G. Selective optimization of side activities: another way or drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 47, 1303–1314 (2004).
Zambrowicz, B. P. & Sands, A. T. Knockouts model the 100 best-selling drugs — will they model the next 100? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 38–51 (2003).
Crews, C. M. & Splittgerber, U. Chemical genetics: exploring and controlling cellular processes with chemical probes. Trends Biochem. Sci. 24, 317–320 (1999).
McGovern, S. L. & Shoichet, B. K. Kinase inhibitors: not just for kinases anymore. J. Med. Chem. 46, 1478–1483 (2003).
Krejsa, C. M. et al. Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 6, 470–480 (2003).
Wu, X., Glickman, J. F., Bowen, B. R. & Sills, M. A. Comparison of assay technologies for a nuclear receptor assay screen reveals differences in the sets of identified functional antagonists. J. Biomol. Screen. 8, 381–392 (2003).
Sills, M. A. et al. Comparison of assay technologies for a tyrosine kinase assay generates different results in high throughput screening. J. Biomol. Screen. 7, 191–214 (2002).
Harper, G., Bradshaw, J., Gittins, J. C., Green, D. V. & Leach, A. R. Prediction of biological activity for high-throughput screening using binary kernel discrimination. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1295–1300 (2001).
Engels, M. F. M., Wouters, L., Verbeeck, R. & Vanhoof, G. Outlier mining in high throughput screening experiments. J. Biomol. Screen. 7, 341–351 (2002).
Lipinski, C. A. in Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry (eds van de Waterbeemd, H. et al.) 18, Ch. 9 215–231 (2003).
Rishton, G. M. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov. Today 2, 382–384 (1997).
Rishton, G. M. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov. Today 8, 86–96 (2003).
Swinney, D. C. Biochemical mechanism of drug action: what does it take for success? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 801–808 (2004).
Baurin, N. et al. Drug-like annotation and duplicate analysis of a 23-supplier chemical database totalling 2.7 million compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 643–651 (2004).
Andrews, P. R., Craik, D. J. & Martin, J. L. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J. Med. Chem. 27, 1648–1657 (1984).
Hann, M. M., Leach, A. R. & Harper, G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 856–864 (2001).
Williams, M. A return to the fundamentals of drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Investig. Drugs 5, 29–33 (2004).
Horrobin, D. F. Modern biomedical research: an internally self-consistent universe with little contact with medical reality. Nature Rev. Drug. Discov. 2, 151–154 (2003).
Morphy, R., Kay, C. & Rankovic, Z. From magic bullets to designed multiple ligands. Drug Discov. Today 9, 641–651 (2004).
Lipper, R. A. How can we optimize selection of drug development candidates from many compounds at the discovery stage? Mod. Drug Discov. 2, 55–60 (1999).
Van Gestel, S. & Schuermans, V. Thirty-three years of drug discovery and research with Dr. Paul Janssen. Drug Dev. Res. 8, 1–13 (1986).
Raju, T. N. The Nobel chronicles. Lancet 355, 1022 (2000).
Hopkins, A. L. & Groom, C. R. The druggable genome. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 727–730 (2002).
Hopkins, A. L. & Groom, C. R. Target analysis: a priori assessment of druggability. Ernst Schering Res. Found. Workshop 42, 11–17 (2003).
Arkin, M. R. & Wells, J. A. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions: progressing towards the dream. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 301–317 (2004).
Teague, S. J. Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 527–541 (2003).
Rader, C. Antibody libraries in drug and target discovery. Drug Discov. Today 6, 36–43 (2001).
Graddis, T. J. et al. Designing proteins that work using recombinant technologies. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 3, 285–297 (2002).
Zambrowicz, B. P. & Sands, A. T. Modeling drug action in the mouse with knockouts and RNA interference. Drug Discov. Today: TARGETS 3, 198–207.
Shokat, K. & Velleca, M. Novel chemical genetic approaches to the discovery of signal transduction inhibitors. Drug Discov. Today 7, 872–879 (2002).
Hannon, G. J. & Rossi, J. J. Unlocking the potential of the human genome with RNA interference. Nature 431, 371–378 (2004).
Lobato, M. N. & Rabbitts, T. H. Intracellular antibodies as specific reagents for functional ablation: future therapeutic molecules. Curr. Mol. Med. 4, 519–528 (2004).
Rees, D. C., Congreve, M., Murray, C. W. & Carr, R. Fragment-based lead discovery. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 660–672 (2004).
Shuker, S. B., Hajduk, P. J., Meadows, R. P. & Fesik, S. W. Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science 274, 1531–1534 (1996).
Swayze, E. E. et al. SAR by MS: a ligand based technique for drug lead discovery against structured RNA targets. J. Med. Chem. 45, 3816–3819 (2002).
Nienaber, V. L. et al. Discovering novel ligands for macromolecules using X-ray crystallographic screening. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 1105–1108 (2000).
Lesuisse, D. et al. SAR and X-ray. A new approach combining fragment-based screening and rational drug design: application to the discovery of nanomolar inhibitors of Src SH2. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2379–2387 (2002).
Blundell, T. L., Jhoti, H. & Abell, C. High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 45–54 (2002).
Kolb, H. C. & Sharpless, K. B. The growing impact of click chemistry on drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 8, 1128–1137 (2003).
Kolb, H. C., Finn, M. G. & Sharpless, K. B. Click chemistry: diverse chemical function from a few good reactions. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn Engl. 40(11), 2004–2021 (2001).
Erlanson, D. A. et al. Site-directed ligand discovery. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9367–9372 (2000).
Erlanson, D. A., Wells, J. A. & Braisted, A. C. Tethering: fragment-based drug discovery. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 33, 199–223 (2004).
Weininger, D. in Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry (eds Von Ragué Schleyer, P. et al.) 425–530 (Wiley, New York, 1998).
Oprea, T. I. & Gottfries, J. Chemography: the art of navigating in chemical space. J. Comb. Chem. 3, 157–166 (2001).
Oprea, T. I. Chemical space navigation in lead discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 6, 384–389 (2002).
Vieth, M. et al. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 47, 224–232 (2004).
Ajay, A., Walters, W. P. & Murcko, M. A. Can we learn to distinguish between ‘drug-like’ and ‘nondrug-like’ molecules? J. Med. Chem. 41, 3314–3324 (1998).
Wang, J. & Ramnarayan, K. Towards designing drug-like libraries: a novel computational approach for prediction of drug feasibility of compounds. J. Comb. Chem. 1, 524–533 (1999).
Walters, W. P., Ajay & Murcko, M. A. Recognizing molecules with drug-like properties. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 3, 384–387 (1999).
Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 3–25 (2000).
Podlogar, B. L., Muegge, I. & Brice, L. J. Computational methods to estimate drug development parameters. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 4, 102–109 (2001).
Muegge, I., Heald, S. L. & Brittelli, D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1841–1846 (2001).
Veber, D. F. et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2615–2623 (2002).
Proudfoot, J. R. Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 12, 1647–1650 (2002).
Walters, W. P. & Murcko, M. A. Prediction of ‘drug-likeness’. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54, 255–271 (2002).
Egan, W. J., Walters, W. P. & Murcko, M. A. Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 5, 540–549 (2002).
Muegge, I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med. Res. Rev. 23, 302–321 (2003).
Lajiness, M. S., Vieth, M. & Erickson, J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 7, 470–477 (2004).
Horn, J. R. & Shoichet, B. K. Allosteric inhibition through core disruption. J. Mol. Biol. 336, 1283–1291 (2004).
Acknowledgements
We thank R. W. Spencer, J. Everett and J. Mason for discussions and advice during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
A. Hopkins is employed by the Pfizer Global Research and Development.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lipinski, C., Hopkins, A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 432, 855–861 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03193
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03193
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Computational discovery of novel FYN kinase inhibitors: a cheminformatics and machine learning-driven approach to targeted cancer and neurodegenerative therapy
Molecular Diversity (2024)
-
Making sense of chemical space network shows signs of criticality
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
Chemoselective chromium-catalysed cross-coupling enables three-component tertiary alkane synthesis
Nature Synthesis (2023)
-
Navigating with chemometrics and machine learning in chemistry
Artificial Intelligence Review (2023)
-
Inferences of actinobacterial metabolites to combat Corona virus
Advances in Traditional Medicine (2023)