Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5849_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
235. Warr, W. A. ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics
at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology
Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2009, 23, 195–198.
236. Singh, M. K., Srivastava, S., Raghava, G. P., and Varshney, G. C. HaptenDB: a
comprehensive database of haptens, carrier proteins and anti-hapten antibodies. Bioin-
formatics 2006, 22, 253–255.
237. Wishart, D. S., et al. HMDB: the Human Metabolome Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007,
35, D521–D526.
238. Kanehisa, M. The KEGG database. Novartis Found. Symp. 2002, 247, 91–101; discussion 101–103, 119–128 244–252.
239. Feng, Z., Chen, L., Maddula, H., Akcan, O., Oughtred, R., Berman, H. M., and Westbrook,
J. Ligand depot: a data warehouse for ligands bound to macromolecules. Bioinformatics
2004, 20, 2153–2155.
240. von Grotthuss, M., Pas, J., and Rychlewski, L. Ligand-Info, searching for similar small
compounds using index profiles. Bioinformatics 2003, 19, 1041–1042.
241. MDPI. MDPI molecules. 2009.
242. Boyer, S., Arnby, C. H., Carlsson, L., Smith, J., Stein, V., and Glen, R. C. Reaction site
mapping of xenobiotic biotransformations. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2007, 47, 583–590.
243. Masciocchi, J., Frau, G., Fanton, M., Sturlese, M., Floris, M., Pireddu, L., Palla, P.,
Cedrati, F., Rodriguez-Tome, P., and Moro, S. MMsINC: a large-scale chemoinformatics
database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, D284–D290.
244. MDSI. MicroSource Discovery Systems, Inc. database. 2009.
245. Sitzmann, M., Filippov, I. V., and Nicklaus, M. C. Internet resources integrating many
small-molecule databases. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2008, 19, 1–9.
246. NTP U. National Toxicology Program (NTP) database. 2009. Available at http://ntp.
niehs.nih.gov/.
247. Wheeler, D. L., et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology
Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, D173–D180.
248. Klekota, J., Roth, F. P., and Schreiber, S. L. Query Chem: a Google-powered web search
combining text and chemical structures. Bioinformatics 2006, 22, 1670–1673.
249. Hendlich, M., Bergner, A., Gunther, J., and Klebe, G. Relibase: design and development
of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein–ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol.
2003, 326, 607–620.
250. Diago, L. A., Morell, P., Aguilera, L., and Moreno, E. Setting up a large set of
protein–ligand PDB complexes for the development and validation of knowledge-based
docking algorithms. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8, 310.
251. Dunkel, M., Fullbeck, M., Neumann, S., and Preissner, R. SuperNatural: a searchable
database of available natural compounds. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, D678–D683.
252. Goede, A., Dunkel, M., Mester, N., Frommel, C., and Preissner, R. SuperDrug: a
conformational drug database. Bioinformatics 2005, 21
, 1751–1753.
253. Gunther, S., Hempel, D., Dunkel, M., Rother, K., and Preissner, R. SuperHapten: a
comprehensive database for small immunogenic compounds. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007,
35, D906–D910.
254. Michalsky, E., Dunkel, M., Goede, A., and Preissner, R. SuperLigands—a database of
ligand structures derived from the Protein Data Bank. BMC Bioinformatics 2005, 6, 122.
118
IN SILICO ADME/Tox PREDICTIONS
https://t.me/medicina_free

255. Schmidt, U., Struck, S., Gruening, B., Hossbach, J., Jaeger, I. S., Parol, R., Lindequist, U.,
Teuscher, E., and Preissner, R. SuperToxic: a comprehensive database of toxic compounds. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, D295–D299.
256. TimTec. TimTec LLC databases. 2009.
257. Wexler, P. TOXNET: the National Library of Medicine’s toxicology database. Am. Fam.
Physician 1995, 52, 1677–1678.
258. Toxicity, Datasets. Chemoinformatics.org website. Available at http://cheminformatics.
org/datasets/index.shtml#tox, 2009.
259. ChemDB. ChemDB: The UC Irvine ChemDB datasets. 2009.
260. Briggs, K. A. Vitic—a data source for (quantitative) structure–activity relationship
modelling. Toxicol. Abstr. 2007.
261. Irwin, J. J. and Shoichet, B. K. ZINC—a free database of commercially available
compounds for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2005, 45, 177–182.
262. Lagorce, D., Sperandio, O., Galons, H., Miteva, M., and Villoutreix, B. FAF-Drugs2:
free ADME/tox filtering tool to assist drug discovery and chemical biology projects,
2008.
263. Song, C. M., Bernardo, P. H., Chai, C. L., and Tong,J. C. CLEVER: pipeline for designing
in silico chemical libraries. J. Mol. Graph. Model 2009, 27, 578–583.
264. ToxTree, Toxtree—Ideaconsult Ltd. 2009.
265. Cramer, G. M., Ford, R. A., and Hall, R. L., Estimation of toxic hazard—a decision tree
approach. Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 1978, 16, 255–276.
266. Ingsriswang, S., and Pacharawongsakda, E., sMOL Explorer: an open source, webenabled database and exploration tool for Small MOLecules datasets. Bioinformatics
2007, 23, 2498–2500.
267. Cheng, T., Zhao, Y., Li, X., Lin, F., Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Li, Y., Wang, R., and Lai, L.,
Computation of octanol–water partition coefficients by guiding an additive model with
knowledge. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2007, 47, 2140–2148.
268. Girke, T., Cheng, L. C., and Raikhel, N., ChemMine. A compound mining database for
chemical genomics. Plant Physiol. 2005, 138, 573–577.
269. Bolelli, L., Lu, X., Liu, Y., Jaiswal, A., Bai, K., Councill, I., Mitra, P.,Wang,J. Z., Mueller,
K., Kubicki, J., Garrison, B., Bandstra J., and Giles, C. L. ChemXSeer: A Chemistry
Web Portal for Scientific Literature and Datasets In Open Repositories Conference,
San Antonio, TX, 2007.
270. Helma, C. Lazy structure–activity relationships (lazar) for the prediction of rodent
carcinogenicity and Salmonella mutagenicity. Mol. Divers. 2006, 10, 147–158.
271. Sander, T., Freyss, J., von Korff, M., Reich, J. R., and Rufener, C. OSIRIS, an entirely
in-house developed drug discovery informatics system. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2009, 49(2),
232–246.
272. Moda, T. L., Torres, L. G., Carrara, A. E., and Andricopulo, A. D. PK/DB: database for
pharmacokinetic properties and predictive in silico ADME models. Bioinformatics 2008,
24, 2270–2271.
273. Alland, C., Moreews, F., Boens, D., Carpentier, M., Chiusa, S., Lonquety, M., Renault, N.,
Wong, Y., Cantalloube, H., Chomilier, J., Hochez, J., Pothier, J., Villoutreix, B. O.,
Zagury, J. F., and Tuffery, P. RPBS: a web resource for structural bioinformatics. Nucleic
Acids Res. 2005, 33, W44–W49.
REFERENCES 119
https://t.me/medicina_free

274. Sperandio, O., Petitjean, M., and Tuffery, P. wwLigCSRre: a 3D ligand-based server for
hit identification and optimization. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, W504–W509.
275. Varnek, A., Fourches, D., Horvath, D., Klimchuk, O., Gaudin, C., Vayer, P., Solov’ev, V.,
Hoonakker, F., Tetko, I. V., and Marcou, G. ISIDA—platform for virtual screening based
on fragment and pharmacophoric descriptors. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 2008, 4,
191–198.
276. Sanderson, D. M. and Earnshaw, C. G. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from
chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1991, 10, 261–273.
277. Klopman, G., Chakravarti, S. K., Zhu, H., Ivanov, J. M., and Saiakhov, R. D. ESP: a
method to predict toxicity and pharmacological properties of chemicals using multiple
MCASE databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 704–715.
278. Inpharmatica. ADMENSA INTERACTIVE. Available at http://www.admensa.com/
admensa_old.htm, 2009.
279. FILTER. OpenEye Scientific Software. Available at http://www.eyesopen.com/products/
applications/filter.html, 2009.
280. Schr€odinger. QikProp, 2009.
281. Accelrys. Discovery Studio 2.0. Available at http://accelrys.com/products/discoverystudio/, 2009.
282. Discovery, M., VolSurf þ . Available at http://www.moldiscovery.com, 2009.
283. Milletti, F., Storchi, L., Sforna, G., and Cruciani, G. New and original pK
a
prediction
method using grid molecular interaction fields. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2007, 47, 2172–2181.
284. Woo, Y. T., Lai, D. Y., Argus, M. F., and Arcos, J. C. Development of structure–activity
relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 1995,
79, 219–228.
285. q-pharm. Quantum Pharmaceuticals. Available at http://q-pharm.com/, 2009.
286. MOE. Chemical Computing Group. Available at http://www.chemcomp.com, 2009.
287. ChemAxon. Available at www.chemaxon.com, 2009.
288. Bemis, G. W. and Murcko, M. A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2887–2893.
289. Bemis, G. W. and Murcko, M. A. Properties of known drugs. 2. Side chains. J. Med. Chem.
1999, 42, 5095–5099.
290. Krier, M. and Hutter, M. C. Bioisosteric similarity of molecules based on structural
alignment and observed chemical replacements in drugs. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2009, 49(5),
1280–1297.
291. Vainio, M. J. and Johnson, M. S. Generating conformer ensembles using a multiobjective
genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2007, 47, 2462–2474.
292. Schuttelkopf, A. W. and van Aalten, D. M. PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput
crystallography of protein–ligand complexes. Acta Crystallogr. D Biol. Crystallogr.
2004, 60, 1355–1363.
293. Leite, T. B., Gomes, D., Miteva, M. A., Chomilier, J., Villoutreix, B. O., and Tuffery, P.
Frog: a FRee Online druG 3D conformation generator. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35,
W568–W572.
294. Lobell, M., Hendrix, M., Hinzen, B., Keldenich, J., Meier, H., Schmeck, C., SchoheLoop, R., Wunberg, T., and Hillisch, A. In silico ADMET traffic lights as a tool for the
prioritization of HTS hits. ChemMedChem. 2006, 1, 1229–1236.
120
IN SILICO ADME/Tox PREDICTIONS
https://t.me/medicina_free

295. Hennemann, M., Friedl, A., Lobell, M., Keldenich, J., Hillisch, A., Clark, T., and Goller,
A. H. CypScore: quantitative prediction of reactivity toward cytochromes P450 based on
semiempirical molecular orbital theory. ChemMedChem. 2009, 4, 657–669.
296. Pearce, B. C., Sofia, M. J., Good, A. C., Drexler, D. M., and Stock, D. A. An empirical
process for the design of high-throughput screening deck filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2006,
46, 1060–1068.
297. Stahl, M., Guba, W.,and Kansy,M. Integrating molecular design resources within modern
drug discovery research: the Roche experience. Drug Discov. Today 2006, 11, 326–333.
298. Alanine, A., Nettekoven, M., Roberts, E., and Thomas, A. W. Lead generation–enhancing
the success of drug discovery by investing in the hit to lead process. Comb. Chem. High
Throughput Screen 2003, 6, 51–66.
299. Fischer, H. CAFCA a novel tool for the calculation of amphiphilic properties of charged
drug molecules. Chimia 2000, 54, 640–645.
300. Davies, J. W., Glick, M., and Jenkins, J. L. Streamlining lead discovery by aligning
in silico and high-throughput screening. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2006, 10, 343–351.
301. Steinmeyer, A. The hit-to-lead process at Schering AG: strategic aspects. ChemMed-
Chem. 2006, 1, 31–36.
302. Giacomini, K. M., Krauss, R. M., Roden, D. M., Eichelbaum, M., Hayden, M. R., and
Nakamura, Y. When good drugs go bad. Nature 2007, 446, 975–977.
303. Gultekin, F. and Hicyilmaz, H. Renal deterioration caused by carcinogens as a consequence of free radical mediated tissue damage: a review of the protective action of
melatonin. Arch. Toxicol. 2007, 81, 675–681.
304. Metosh-Dickey, C. A., Mason, R. P., and Winston, G. W. Nitroarene reduction and
generation of free radicals by cell-free extracts of wild-type, and nitroreductase-deficient
and -enriched Salmonella typhimurium strains used in the umu gene induction assay.
Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1999, 154, 126–134.
305. Segers, K., Sperandio, O., Sack, M., Fischer, R., Miteva, M. A., Rosing, J., Nicolaes,
G. A., and Villoutreix, B. O. Design of protein membrane interaction inhibitors by virtual
ligand screening, proof of concept with the C2 domain of factor V. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 2007, 104, 12697–12702.
306. Hodgetts, K. J., Yoon, T., Huang, J., Gulianello, M., Kieltyka, A., Primus, R., Brodbeck,
R., De Lombaert, S., and Doller, D. 2-Aryl-3, 6-dialkyl-5-dialkylaminopyrimidin-4ones as novel crf-1 receptor antagonists. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2003, 13,
2497–2500.
307. Egan, W. J., Merz, K. M., Jr., and Baldwin, J. J. Prediction of drug absorption using
multivariate statistics. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3867–3877.
308. Benigni, R. and Bossa, C. Predictivity of QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2008, 48,
971–980.
309. Kortagere, S., Chekmarev, D., Welsh, W. J., and Ekins, S. New predictive models for
blood–brain barrier permeability of drug-like molecules. Pharm. Res. 2008, 25,
1836–1845.
310. Sch€olkopf, B., Smola, A., and Muller, K. R. Nonlinear component analysis as a kernel
eigenvalue problem. Neural Comput. 1998, 10, 1299–1319.
311. Rosipal, R. and Kramer, N. Overview and recent advances in partial least squares, in
subspace, latent structure and feature selection techniques. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci.,
2006, 34–51.
REFERENCES 121
https://t.me/medicina_free

312. Chohan, K. K., Paine, S. W.,Mistry, J., Barton, P., and Davis, A. M. A rapid computational
filter for cytochrome P450 1A2 inhibition potential of compound libraries. J. Med. Chem.
2005, 48, 5154–5161.
313. Luco, J. M. Prediction of the brain-blood distribution of a large set of drugs from
structurally derived descriptors using partial least-squares (PLS) modeling. J. Chem. Inf.
Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 396–404.
314. Obrezanova, O., Gola, J. M., Champness, E. J., and Segall, M. D. Automatic QSAR
modeling of ADME properties: blood–brain barrier penetration and aqueous solubility.
J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 431–440.
315. Kriegl, J. M., Eriksson, L., Arnhold, T., Beck, B., Johansson, E., and Fox, T. Multivariate
modeling of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition. Eur J. Pharm. Sci. 2005, 24, 451–463.
316. Durand, J.-F. and Sabatier, R. Additive splines for partial least squares regression. J. Am.
Stat. Assoc. 1997, 92, 1546–1554.
317. Hou, T., Wang, J., and Li, Y. ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 8. The prediction of
human intestinal absorption by a support vector machine. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2007, 47,
2408–2415.
318. Karatzoglou, A., Meyer, D., and Hornik, K. Support Vector Machines in R, Research
Report Series, Wirstchaftuniversitat Wien, 2005.
319. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., and Stone, C. Classification and Regression Trees,
New edition (1-1-1984) ed, ed Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 1984, p. 368.
320. Young, S. S. and Hawkins, D. M. Analysis of a 2(9) full factorial chemical library.J. Med.
Chem. 1995, 38, 2784–2788.
321. Rusinko, A., 3rd, Farmen, M. W., Lambert, C. G., Brown, P. L., and Young, S. S. Analysis
of a large structure/biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf.
Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 1017–1026.
322. van Rhee, A. M. Use of recursion forests in the sequential screening process: consensus
selection by multiple recursion trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 941–948.
323. Klekota, J. and Roth, F. P. Chemical substructures that enrich for biological activity.
Bioinformatics 2008, 24, 2518–2525.
324. Schneider, N., Jackels, C., Andres, C., and Hutter, M. C. Gradual in silico filtering for
druglike substances. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2008, 48, 613–628.
325. Deconinck, E., Zhang, M. H., Coomans, D., and Vander Heyden, Y. Classification tree
models for the prediction of blood–brain barrier passage of drugs. J. Chem. Inf. Model
2006, 46, 1410–1419.
326. Lamanna, C., Bellini, M., Padova, A., Westerberg, G., and Maccari, L. Straightforward
recursive partitioning model for discarding insoluble compounds in the drug discovery
process. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 2891–2897.
327. Gleeson, M. P., Waters, N. J., Paine, S. W., and Davis, A. M. In silico human and rat vs.
quantitative structure–activity relationship models. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 1953–1963.
328. de Cerqueira Lima, P., Golbraikh, A., Oloff, S., Xiao, Y., and Tropsha, A. Combinatorial
QSAR modeling of P-glycoprotein substrates. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2006,
46, 1245–1254.
329. Mente, S. R. and Lombardo, F. A recursive-partitioning model for blood–brain barrier
permeation. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2005, 19, 465–481.
330. Sakiyama, Y., Yuki, H., Moriya, T., Hattori, K., Suzuki, M., Shimada, K., and Honma, T.
Predicting human liver microsomal stability with machine learning techniques. J. Mol.
Graph Model 2008, 26, 907–915.
122
IN SILICO ADME/Tox PREDICTIONS
https://t.me/medicina_free

331. Yamashita, F., Hara, H., Ito, T., and Hashida, M. Novel hierarchical classification and
visualization method for multiobjective optimization of drug properties: application to
structure-activity relationship analysis of cytochrome P450 metabolism. J. Chem. Inf.
Model 2008, 48, 364–369.
332. Arimoto, R., Prasad, M. A., and Gifford, E. M. Development of CYP3A4 inhibition
models: comparisons of machine-learning techniques and molecular descriptors.
J. Biomol. Screen 2005, 10, 197–205.
333. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R. A., and Stone, C. J. Classification and Regression
Trees, Wadsworth and Brooks, Florence, KY, 1984.
334. Quinlan, J. R. C4.5: Programs for machine learning. Mach. Learn. 1993, 16, 235–240.
335. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001, 45, 5–32.
336. Rosenblatt, F. Principles of Neurodynamics, 1960. Spartan Books, Washington, DC,
1962.
337. Huuskonen, J., Salo, M., and Taskinen, J. Neural network modeling for estimation of the
aqueous solubility of structurally related drugs. J. Pharm. Sci. 1997, 86, 450–454.
338. Devillers, J., Domine, D., Guillon, C., and Karcher, W. Simulating lipophilicity of organic
molecules with a back-propagation neural network. J. Pharm. Sci. 1998, 87, 1086–1090.
339. Bruneau, P. Search for predictive generic model of aqueous solubility using Bayesian
neural nets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1605–1616.
340. Sadowski, J. and Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and
nondrugs. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 3325–3329.
341. Tetko, I. V. and Tanchuk, V. Y. Application of associative neural networks for prediction
of lipophilicity in ALOGPS 2.1 program. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42,
1136–1145.
342. Votano, J. R., Parham, M., Hall, L. M., Hall, L. H., Kier, L. B., Oloff, S., and Tropsha, A.
QSAR modeling of human serum protein binding with several modeling techniques
utilizing structure-information representation. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 7169–7181.
343. Jung, E., Kim, J., Kim, M., Jung, D. H., Rhee, H., Shin, J. M., Choi, K., Kang, S. K.,
Kim, M. K., Yun, C. H., Choi, Y. J., and Choi, S. H. Artificial neural network models for
prediction of intestinal permeability of oligopeptides. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8, 245.
344. Polley, M. J., Burden, F. R., and Winkler, D. A. Predictive human intestinal absorption—
QSAR models using Bayesian regularized neural networks. Aust. J. Chem. 2005, 58,
859–863.
345. Bazeley,P. S., Prithivi, S., Struble, C. A., Povinelli, R. J., and Sem, D. S. Synergistic use of
compound properties and docking scores in neural network modeling of CYP2D6
binding: predicting affinity and conformational sampling. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2006,
46, 2698–2708.
346. Molnar, L. and Keseru, G. M. A neural network based virtual screening of cytochrome
P450 3A4 inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2002, 12, 419–421.
347. Wang, Y. H., Li, Y., Li, Y. H., Yang, S. L., and Yang, L. Modeling K(m) values using
electrotopological state: substrates for cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated metabolism.
Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15
, 4076–4084.
348. Sadowski, J. Database Profiling by Neural Networks, In Virtual Screening for Bioactive
Molecules, Wiley, New York, 2000.
349. Gregori-Puigjane, E. and Mestres, J. Coverage and bias in chemical library design. Curr.
Opin. Chem. Biol. 2008, 12, 359–365.
REFERENCES 123
https://t.me/medicina_free

350. Caffrey, C. R., Rohwer, A., Oellien, F., Marhofer, R. J., Braschi, S., Oliveira, G.,
McKerrow, J. H., and Selzer, P. M. A comparative chemogenomics strategy to predict
potential drug targets in the metazoan pathogen, Schistosoma mansoni. PLoS One 2009,
4, e4413.
351. de Wildt, S. N., Ito, S., and Koren, G. Challenges for drug studies in children: CYP3A
phenotyping as example. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14, 6–15.
352. Ince, I., de Wildt, S. N., Tibboel, D., Danhof, M., and Knibbe, C. A. Tailor-made drug
treatment for children: creation of an infrastructure for data-sharing and population
PK-PD modeling. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14, 316–320.
353. Hilmer, S. N. ADME-tox issues for the elderly. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 2008,
4, 1321–1331.
354. Jamei, M., Dickinson, G. L., and Rostami-Hodjegan, A. A framework for assessing interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics using virtual human populations and integrating general knowledge of physical chemistry, biology, anatomy,physiology and genetics:
A tale of bottom-up vs. top-down recognition of covariates. Drug Metab. Pharma-
cokinet. 2009, 24, 53–75.
355. Jamei, M., Marciniak, S., Feng, K., Barnett, A., Tucker, G., and Rostami-Hodjegan, A.
The Simcyp((R)) population-based ADME Simulator. Expert Opin. Drug Metab.
Toxicol. 2009, 5(2), 211–223.
356. Hodge, A. E., Altman, R. B., and Klein, T. E. The PharmGKB: integration, aggregation,
and annotation of pharmacogenomic data and knowledge. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2007,
81, 21–24.
357. Weskamp, N., Hullermeier, E., and Klebe, G. Merging chemical and biological space:
Structural mapping of enzyme binding pocket space. Proteins 2009, 76, 317–330.
358. Yildirim, M. A., Goh, K. I., Cusick, M. E., Barabasi, A. L., and Vidal, M. Drug-target
network. Nat. Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 1119–1126.
359. Campillos, M., Kuhn, M., Gavin, A. C., Jensen, L. J., and Bork, P. Drug target
identification using side-effect similarity. Science 2008, 321, 263–266.
360. Scheiber, J., Jenkins, J. L., Sukuru, S. C., Bender, A., Mikhailov, D., Milik, M., Azzaoui,
K., Whitebread, S., Hamon, J., Urban, L., Glick, M., and Davies, J. W. Mapping Adverse
Drug Reactions in Chemical Space. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52, 3103–3107.
361. Schimmel, K. J., Richel, D. J., van den Brink, R. B., and Guchelaar, H. J. Cardiotoxicity of
cytotoxic drugs. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2004, 30, 181–191.
362. Mirza, A., Desai, R., and Reynisson, J. Known drug space as a metric in exploring the
boundaries of drug-like chemical space. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 44(12), 5006–5011.
363. Hohman, M., Gregory, K., Chibale, K., Smith, P. J., Ekins, S., and Bunin, B. Novel webbased tools combining chemistry informatics, biology and social networks for drug
discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14, 261–270.
364. Yang, L., Luo, H., Chen, J., Xing, Q., and He, L. SePreSA: a server for the prediction of
populations susceptible to serious adverse drug reactions implementing the methodology
of a chemical-protein interactome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37, W406–W412.
124
IN SILICO ADME/Tox PREDICTIONS
https://t.me/medicina_free

3
ABSORPTION AND
PHYSICOCHEMICAL
PROPERTIES OF THE NCE
JON SELBO AND PO-CHANG CHIANG
3.1. INTRODUCTION
Attrition of drug candidates during the discovery and development process is a
serious problem for the pharmaceutical industry. Other than a lack of in vivo efficacy
or unintended toxicological issues, failures are often associated with inappropriate
physicochemical characteristics contributing to poor absorption and poor pharmacokinetics [1–3]. The absorption of any chemical entity reflects a very complex
series of actions and efficacy can be affected by factors acting in concert or
independently. In human physiology, for example, the physicochemical properties
of the active ingredient, active or passive transport, disease state, formulation, and
dose are often important for bioavailability. Other factors such as dosing interval,
fed or fasted state, age, and gender can each affect the oral bioavailability of a given
drug. Due to this complexity, optimizing absorption of a drug or formulation often
requires full knowledge of how these variables interact. For a given compound it
may take years of research before such comprehensive knowledge can be accumulated. In the absence of such detailed information on a new compound,
optimization of a candidate to fit certain physicochemical properties and the
corresponding first in human formulation is often based on common considerations
of factors that affect absorption.
ADMET for Medicinal Chemists: A Practical Guide, Edited by Katya Tsaioun and Steven A. Kates
Copyright 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
125
https://t.me/medicina_free

3.2. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES
During the 1990s almost 40% of the failure in clinical trails was attributed to poor
absorption and poor pharmacokinetics [4–6]. In response, pharmaceutical researchers
began to focus on a better understanding of target selectivity, toxicological, and
physicochemical (pharmacokinetics related) properties of new chemical entities
(NCEs) [7, 8]. For example, approaches such as ‘‘property-based design’’ [8], a
method for understanding how medicinal chemists could manipulate critical combinations of physical and structural properties that contribute to ‘‘drug-like properties,’’
were adopted. The outcome was profound and within a decade, candidate attrition for
poor absorption and poor pharmacokinetics properties was reduced to less than 10%
of the total failures [4–6].
There have been numerous attempts to predict the properties that are the most
desirable for a good drug candidate. Analysis of the structures of orally administered
drugs, and of drug candidates, headed by Lipinski and his colleagues [9] led to the
establishment of the Lipinski rule of five. The rule states that an orally active drug
should have as little violations of these guidelines as possi ble:
.
molecular weight less than 500,
.
log P (octanol/water partition coefficient) less than 5,
.
no more than five hydrogen bond donors,
.
no more than 10 hydrogen bond acceptors.
Other parameters such as polar surface area (PSA) and molecular rigidity as
indicated by the number of rotatable bonds (NRB) [10] have also been associated with
drugability of NCEs.
More recently, PSA and molecular flexibility (measured as NRB) have been
demonstrated to be important predictors of good oral bioavailability [11]. After
analyzing more than 1100 drug candidates in rats, Veber et al. found that increasing
molecular rigidity had a positive impact on bioavailability while increasing the polar
surface area lowered bioavailability. They suggested that compounds with 10 or fewer
rotatable bonds and a polar surface area below 140 A
˚
2
would have a higher chance of
being orally bioavailable. Molecular weight, independent of NRB, did not appear to
correlate with oral bioavailability. At first glance, this result appears to be inconsistent
with Lipinski’s molecular weight rule. However, given that the major contributors to
the PSA are hydrogen-bond donors or acceptors and NRB count frequently increas es
with MW, these findings are still fairly consistent. PSA has also been reported to
correlate with transporter activities within a given molecular scaffold that can be
useful in building structure–activities relationships (SAR) [12].
It is worth mentioning that statistical analyses of over 1000 marketed drugs and
clinical candidates indicate that lower MW, balanced log P, and greater rigidity
remain important features of oral drug molecules [12–15]. Authors of those articles
tracked the changes of computed property profiles (MW, Clog P, PSA, etc.) relative to
the stage of clinical development candidates. By examining a large database of
126 ABSORPTION AND PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE NCE
https://t.me/medicina_free

compounds in clinical development, the authors found that as the stage of development progresses (preclinical, Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and launch), compounds that
are advanced further have lower molecular weight, Clog P, and polar surf ace area [16].
Compounds with excessive molecular weight (>500) or high lipophilicity (Clog
P > 5), tended to be highly disfavored in clinical development [14, 16]. This suggests
that physicochemical properties are intimately linked to physiological control.
Vieth et al. [17, 18] compiled a database of physicochemical properties of
marketed drugs, compounds in clinical development, and related molecules known
to have biological activity, but not moving forward for clinical development. They
distinguished between oral and other routes of administration for the known drugs.
Their goal was to establish the optimal physicochemical parameters associated with
compounds with good pharmacokinetic properties versus those with poor pharmacokinetic properties [16]. Over 1700 compounds were used in their study. It was not
surprising that they found that when compared with oral drugs, injectable drugs have
significantly higher MW, number of H-bond acceptors/donors, rotatable bonds,
aromatic rings, and much lower Clog P. Differences were also distinguished for
absorbent and topical compounds compared with oral, although these differences
were not as large as those found with injectable drugs. The authors also reported that
the average property distributions of oral drugs remains fairly constant over time,
suggesting that the properties of successful drug candidates are in a narrowly defined
property space, which is in agreement with simple rules such as Lipinski’s, NRB, and
PSA correlations.
Physicochemical properties have also been correlated with the in vivo performance
of drug candidates. For example, lipophilicity plays an important role in metabolism
by Cytochrome P450 enzymes. Theses enzymes, which mediate the clearance of more
than 50% of marketed drugs, have lipophilic active sites that accommodate and
metabolize drug molecules. In general, drug clearance increases with the increase of
lipophilicity. Common examples include the barbituric acid series [19, 20], b-adrenoceptor antagonists and calcium channel blockers [21], and the diverse structures of
CYP3A4 substrates [20]. Other investigations correlating plasma protein binding
with physicochemical properties have been reported as well [22, 23].
Compounds may fail for a number of reasons in clinical development. Factors such
as no or low efficacy, toxicity, or exposure [16, 24] are likely causes. However, certain
physical properties are favored for clinical development of human therapeutic agents.
In order to ensure the integration of these drug-like properties into the drug design
strategy, a strong emphasis on drug ‘‘developability’’ has been raised within the
pharmaceutical industry [25–28]. Empirical rules such as the rule-of-five are now
widely applied by many pharmaceutical companies as a first in silico filter that flags
compounds with potential issues for further development.
3.3. STABILITY
Another important property that impacts bioavailability is the chemical and physical
(especially gastrointestinal (GI)) stability of a drug candidate. Chemical stability is
STABILITY 127
https://t.me/medicina_free
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
