Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The new drug discovery paradigm is based on high-throughput technologies, both with respect to synthesis and screening. The progression HTS hits → lead series → candidate drug → marketed drug appears to indicate that the probability of reaching launched status is one in a million. This has shifted the focus from good quality candidate drugs to good quality leads. We examined the current trends in 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), as indexed 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 lead structures show the lowest median with respect to MW (smaller) and LogP (less hydrophobic), and the highest median with respect to LogSw (more soluble). By contrast, over 50% of the medicinal chemistry compounds with activities above 1 nanomolar have MW > 425, LogP > 4.25 and LogSw < -4.75, indicating that the reported active compounds are larger, more hydrophobic and less soluble when compared to time-tested quality leads. In the MDDR set, a progressive constraint to reduce MW and LogP, and to increase LogSw, can be observed when examining trends in 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 when choosing the appropriate leads.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. The top 50 pharmaceutical companies have spent, on the average, 750 millions USD for each of the 21 truly novel drugs launched during the past decade [2].

  2. Drews, J., Drug Discov. Today, 3 (1998) 491–494.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Horrobin, D.F., J. R. Soc. Med., 93 (2000) 341–345.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Olsson, T. and Oprea, T.I. Curr. Op Drug Discov. Dev., 4 (2001) 308–313.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lebl, M., J. Comb. Chem., 1 (1999) 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Martin, Y.C., J. Comb. Chem. [vn3] (2001) 231–250.

  7. Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S. and Yund, M.A., J. Biomol. Screening, 4 (1999) 183–186.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Oprea, T.I., Curr. Op. Chem. Biol., 6 (2002) 384–389.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rishton, G.M., Drug Discov. Today, 2 (1997) 382–384.

    Google Scholar 

  10. DeStevens, G., Prog. Drug. Res., 30 (1986) 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  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 

  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 

  13. Kennedy, T., Drug Discov. Today, 2 (1997) 436–444.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lipinski, C.A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B.W. and Feeney, P.J., Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev., 23 (1997) 3–25.

    Google Scholar 

  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 

  16. Hann, M.M., Leach, A.R. and Harper, G., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 41 (2001) 856–864.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Meylan, W.M. and Howard, P.H., J. Pharm. Sci., 84 (1995) 83–92. KOWWIN v1.6 is available from US EPA, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/docs/episuited1.htm

    Google Scholar 

  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, http://www.epa.gov/oppt/ exposure/docs/episuited1.htm

    Google Scholar 

  19. Available from MDL Information Systems, http://www.mdli.com/dats/pharmdb.html. The MDDR database is developed in cooperation with Prous Science Publishers, http://www.prous.com/index.html. The search was conducted using the 2001.2 release.

  20. Lipinski, C.A., J. Pharmacol Toxicol Meth., 44 (2000) 235–249.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kuntz, I.D., Chen, K., Sharp, K.A. and Kollman, P.A., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96 (1999) 9997–10002.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Oprea, T.I., Molecules, 7 (2002) 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oprea, T.I. Current trends in lead discovery: Are we looking for the appropriate properties?. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16, 325–334 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020877402759

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020877402759

Navigation