Natural Products in Drug Discovery: Present Status and Perspectives

  • Gabriella Molinari
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 655)


Natural products and their derivatives have been and continue to be rich sources for drug discovery. However, natural products are not drugs. They are produce in nature and through biological assays they are identified as leads, which become candidates for drug development. More than 60% of the drugs that are in the market derive from natural sources. During the last two decades, research aimed at exploiting natural products as a resource has seriously declined. This is in part due to the development of new technologies such as combinatorial chemistry, metagenomics and high-throughput screening. However, the new drug discovery approaches did not fulfilled the initial expectations. This has lead to a renewed interest in natural products, determined by the urgent need for new drugs, in particular to fight against infections caused by multi-resistant pathogens.


Natural Product Drug Discovery Combinatorial Chemistry Drug Discovery Process Drug Discovery Program 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cragg GM, Newman DJ, Snader KN. Natural products in drug discovery and development. J Nat Prod 1997; 60:52–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Feher M, Schmidt JM. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003; 43:218–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Newman DJ, Cragg GM, Snader KM. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the period 1981–2002. J Nat prod 2003; 66:1022–1037.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demain AL. Small bugs, big business: the economic power of the microbe. Biotechnol Adv 2000; 18:499–514.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Demain AL, Fang A. The natural functions of secondary metabolites. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2000; 69:1–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Firn RD, Jones CG. The evolution of secondary metabolism—a unifying model. Mol Microbiol 2000; 37:989–994.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kochn FE, Carter GT. The evolving role of natural products in drug discovery. Nature Rev Drug Discov 2005; 4:206–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ajay A, Walters WP, Murcko MA. Can we learn to distinguish between “drug-like” and “non-drug-like” molecules? J Med Chem 1998; 41:3314–3324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Butler MS. Natural products to drugs: natural products derived compounds in clinical trials. Nat Prod Rep 2005; 22:162–195.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clardy J, Walsh C. Lessons from natural molecules. Nature 2004; 432:829–837.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Verdine GL. The combinatorial chemistry of nature. Nature 1996; 384:11–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Del Rev 1997; 23:3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. I. Molecular Frameworks. J Med Chem 1996; 39:2887–2993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. II. Side chains. J Med Chem. 1999; 42:5095–5099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oprea TI. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 2000; 14:251–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu J, Stevenson J. Drug-like index: a new approach to measure drug-like compounds and their diversity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000; 40:1177–1187.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schmidt-Ioanas M, de Roux A, Lode H. New antibiotics for the treatment of severe staphylococcal infection in the critically ill patient. Curr Opin Crit Care 2005; 11:481–486.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McGowan JE. Resistance in nonfermenting gram-negative bacteria: multidrug resistance to the maximum. Am J Infect Control 2006; 34(5 Suppl 1):S29–S37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abbott A. Medics braced for fresh superbug. Nature 2005; 436:758.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Navon-Venezia S, Ben-Ami R, Carmeli Y. Update on Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter baumanii infections in the healthcare setting. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2005; 18:306–313.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shah NS, Wright A, Bai GH et al. Worldwide emergence of extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. Emerg Infect Dis 2007; 13:380–387.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norrby SR, Nord CE, Finch R et al. Lack of development of new antimicrobial drugs: a potential serious threat to public health. Lancet Infect Dis 2005; 5:115–119.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Timmis KN. Golden age of drug discovery or dark age of missed chances? Environm Microbiol 2005; 7:1861–1863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keller M, Zengler K. Tapping into microbial diversity. Nature Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dawid W. Biology and global distribution of myxobacteria in soils. FEMS Microbiol. Rev 2000; 24:403–427.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reinchenbach H, Höfle G. Myxobacteria as producers of secondary metabolites. In: Grabley S, Thierriecke R, Eds. Drug discovery from Nature, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin and Heidelberg GmbH and Co: 1999: 149–179.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neu HC. The crisis in antibiotic resistance. Science 1992; 257:1064–1073.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Torsvik V, Goksoyr J, Daae FL. High diversity in DNA of soil bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1990; 56:782–787.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leeds JA, Schmitt EK, Krastel P. Recent developments in antibacterial drug discovery: microbe-derived natural products—from collection to the clinic. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2006; 15:211–226.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Daffonchio D, Borin S, Brusa T et al. Stratified prokaryote network in the oxic-anoxic transition of a deep-sea halocline. Nature 2006; 440:203–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ferrer M, Golyshina OV, Chernikova TN et al. Novel microbial enzymes mined from the Urania deep-sea hypersaline anoxic basin. Chem Biol 2005; 12:895–904.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    van der Wielen PWJJ, Bolhuis H, Bolin S et al. The enigma of prokaryotic life in deep hypersaline anoxic basins. Science 2005; 307:121–123.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Connon SA, Gioavannoni SJ. High-throughput methods for culturing microorganisms in very-low-nutrient media yield diverse new marine isolates. Appl Environm Microbiol 2002; 68:3878–3885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Janssen PH, Yates PS, Grinton BE et al. Improved culturability of soil bacteria and isolation in pure culture of novel members of the divisions Acidobacteria, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria and Verrucomicrobia. Appl Environm Microbiol 2002; 68:2391–2396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zengler K et al. Cultivating the uncultured. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002; 99:15681–15686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thiericke R, Rohr J. Biological variation of microbial metabolites by precursor-directed biosynthesis. Nat Prod Rep 1993; 10:265–89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schugerl K. Extraction of primary and secondary metabolites. Adv in Biochem Eng Biotechnol 2005; 92:1–48.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Frykman S, Tsuruta H, Galazzo J et al. Characterization of product capture resin during microbial cultivations. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 2006; 33:445–453.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Romero-Tabarez M, Jansen R, Sylla M et al. 7-O-Malonyl macrolactin A, a new macrolactin antibiotic from Bacillus subtilis, active against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, vancomycin-resistant enterococci and a small colony variant of Burkholderia cepacia. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 5:1701–1709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yarbrough GG, Taylor DP, Rowlands RT et al. Screening microbial metabolites for new drugs—theoretical and practical issues. J Antibiotics 1993; 46:535–544.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fowler A, Swift D, Longman E et al. An evaluation of fluorescence polarization and lifetime discriminated polarization for high throughput screening of serine/threonine kinases. Anal Biochem 2002; 308:223–231.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Turek-Etienne TC, Small EC, Soh CS et al. Evaluation of fluorescent compound interference in 4 fluorescence polarization assays: 2 kinases, 1 protease and 1 phosphatase. J Biomol Screen 2003; 8:176–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cummins LL, Shuo Chen, Blyn LB et al. Multitarget affinity/specificity screening of natural products: finding and characterizing high-affinity ligands from complex mixtures by using high-performance mass spectrometry. J Nat Prod 2003; 66:1186–1190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wolfender J-L, Ndjoko K, Hostettmann K. Liquid chromatography with ultraviolet absorbance-mass spectrometric detection and with nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy: a powerful combination for the on-line structural investigation of plan metabolites. J Chrom A 2003; 1000:437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abel u, Koch C, Speitling M et al. Modern methods to produce natural-products libraries. Curr Opin Chem boil 2002; 6:453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Eldridge GR, Vervooth HC, Lee CM et al. High-throughput method for the production and analysis of large natural product libraries for drug discovery. Anal Chem 2002; 74:3963–3971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Strege MA. High performance liquid chromatographic-electrospray ionization mass spectrometric analyses for the integration of natural products with modern high-throughput screening. J Chrom B 1999; 725:67–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vuorela P, Leinonem M, Saikku P et al. Natural products in the process of finding new drug candidates. Curr Med Chem 2004; 11:1375–1389.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Miller MA. Chemical database techniques in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1:220–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nielsen KF, Smedsgaard J. Fungal metabolite screening: database of 474 mycotoxins and fungal metabolites for dereplication by standardised liquid chromatography-UV-mass spectrometry methodology. J Chrom A 2003; 1002:111–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chapman and Hall Dictionary of Drugs for PC. Chemical Design Ltd, Chipping Norton: Oxfordshire, UK, 1996.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Parekh S, Vinci VA, Strobel RJ. Improvement of microbial strains and fermentation processes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2002; 54:287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Blom KF, Glass B, Sparks R et al. Preparative LC-MS purification: improved compound-specific method optimization. J Comb Chem 2004; 6:874–883.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Weissman KJ, Leadlay PF. Combinatorial biosynthesis of reduced polyketides. Nat Rev Microbiol 2005; 3:925–936.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Griffiths BS, Ritz K, Glover LA. Broad-scale approaches to the determination of soil microbial community structure: application of the community DNA hybridization technique. Microb Ecol 1996; 31:269–280.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hugenholtz P, Goebel BM, Pace NR. Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity. J Bacteriol 1998; 180:4765–4774.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rondon MR, August PR, Bettermann AD et al. Cloning the soil metagenome: a strategy for accessing the genetic and functional diversity of uncultured microorganisms. App Env Microbiol 2000; 66:2541–2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    De Long EF. Microbial communities genomics in the ocean. Nature Rev Microbiol 2005; 3:459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Biotechnological prospects from metagenomics. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2003; 14:303–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Metagenomics for studying unculturable microorganisms: cutting the Gordian knot. Genome Biol 2005; 6:229–229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lorenz P, Eck J. Metagenomics and industrial applications. Nature Rev 2005; 3:510–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Harvey A. Natural products in drug discovery and development. IDrugs 2005; 8:719–721.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Breukink E, de Kruijff B. Lipid II as a target for antibiotics. Nature Rev Drug Discovery 2006; 5:321–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang J, Soisson SM, Young K et al. Platensimycin is a selective Fab inhibitor with potent antibiotic properties. Nature 2006; 441:358–361.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Young K, Jayasuriya H, Ondeyka JG et al. Discovery of FabH/FabF inhibitors from natural products. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2006; 50:519–526.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Payne DJ, Gwynn MN, Holmes DJ et al. Drugs for bad bugs: confronting the challenges of antibacterial discovery. Nature Rev 2007; 6:29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Haney SA, Alksne LE, Dunman PM et al. Genomics in anti-infective drug discovery—getting to endgame. Curr Pharmaceutical Design 2002; 8:10099–1118.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Monaghan RL, Barret JF. Antibacterial drug discovery. Then, now and the genomics future. Biochemical Pharmacol 2005; 7:901–909.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Pucci MJ. Use of genomics to select antibacterial targets. Biochem Pharmacol 2006; 71:1066–1072.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schmid MB. Seeing is believing: the impact of structural genomics on antimicrobial drug discovery. Nature Rev Microbiol 2004; 2:739–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    D’Costa VM, McGrann KM, Hughes DW et al. Sampling the antibiotic resistome. Science 2006; 311:374–377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Wright GD. The antibiotic resistome: the nexus of chemical and genetic diversity. Nature Rev 2007; 5:175–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Alksne LE, Projan SJ. Bacterial virulence as a target for antimicrobial chemotherapy. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2003 11:625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Lee YM, Almqvist F, Hultgren SJ. Targeting virulence for antimicrobial chemotherapy. Current Opin Pharmacol 2003; 3:513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Marra A. Can virulence factors be viable antibacterial targets? Expert Rev Anti-infective Ther 2004; 2:61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Melstrom KA, Smith JW, Gamelli Rl et al. New perspectives for a new century: implications of pathogen responses for the future of antimicrobial therapy. J Burn Care Res 2006; 27:251–264.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Butcher EC. Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? Nature Rev Drug Discovery 2005; 4:461–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Entzeroth E. Emerging trends in high-throughput screening. Curr Opinion Pharmacol 2003; 3:522–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriella Molinari
    • 1
  1. 1.Environmental MicrobiologyHelmholtz Centre for Infection ResearchBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations