Добавил:
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_5364_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
02.09.2026
Размер:
21 Мб
Скачать
12 Experimental Assays: Chemical Properties, Biochemical and... 377
188. Seram, M. S. M., et al. (2023). Synthetic curcumin analogues present antiavivirus activity in vitro with potential multiavivirus activity from a thiazolylhydrazone moiety. Future Pharmacology, 3, 364–378.
189. Tyagi, P., Singh, M., Kumari, H., Kumari, A., & Mukhopadhyay, K. (2015). Bactericidal activity of curcumin I is associated with damaging of bacterial membrane. PLoS One, 10, e0121313.
190. Chen, T.-Y., et al. (2013). Inhibition of enveloped viruses infectivity by curcumin. PLoS One, 8, e62482.
191. Bhattacharjee, S. (2016). DLS and zeta potentialWhat they are and what they are not? Journal of Controlled Release, 235, 337–351.
192. Biriukov, D., Fibich, P., & Předota, M. (2020). Zeta potential determination from molecular simulations. Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 124, 3159–3170.
193. Shakour, N., et al. (2021). Curcumin can bind and interact with CRP: An in silico study. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 1308,91–100.
194. Halder, S., et al. (2015). Alteration of zeta potential and membrane permeability in bacteria: A study with cationic agents. Springerplus, 4, 672.
195. Duda, M., Cygan, K., & Wisniewska-Becker, A. (2020). Effects of curcumin on lipid membranes: An EPR spin-label study. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, 78, 139–147.
196. Bergström, C. A. S., & Larsson, P. (2018). Computational prediction of drug solubility in water-based systems: Qualitative and quantitative approaches used in the current drug discov­ery and development setting. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 540, 185–193.
197. Jorgensen, W. L., & Duffy, E. M. (2002). Prediction of drug solubility from structure. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 54, 355–366.
198. Kataoka, M., et al. (2019). In vitro assessment of Supersaturation/precipitation and biological membrane permeation of poorly water-soluble drugs: A case study with albendazole and ketoconazole. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 108, 2580–2587.
199. Waybright, T. J., Britt, J. R., & McCloud, T. G. (2009). Overcoming problems of compound storage in DMSO: Solvent and process alternatives. Journal of Biomolecular Screening, 14, 708–715.
200. Banerjee, P., Eckert, A. O., Schrey, A. K., & Preissner, R. (2018). ProTox-II: A webserver for the prediction of toxicity of chemicals. Nucleic Acids Research, 46, 257–263.
201. Yang, H., et al. (2019). admetSAR 2.0: Web-service for prediction and optimization of chemical ADMET properties. Bioinformatics, 35, 1067–1069.
202. Dulsat, J., López-Nieto, B., Estrada-Tejedor, R., & Borrell, J. I. (2023). Evaluation of free online ADMET tools for academic or small biotech environments. Molecules, 28, 776.
203. Braga, R. C., et al. (2015). Pred-hERG: A novel web-accessible computational tool for predicting cardiac toxicity. Molecular Informatics, 34, 698–701.
204. Dong, J., et al. (2018). ADMETlab: A platform for systematic ADMET evaluation based on a comprehensively collected ADMET database. Journal of Cheminformatics, 10
205. Xiong, G., et al. (2021). ADMETlab 2.0: An integrated online platform for accurate and comprehensive predictions of ADMET properties. Nucleic Acids Research, 49,W5–W14.
206. Maia, E. H. B., Assis, L. C., de Oliveira, T. A., da Silva, A. M., & Taranto, A. G. (2020). Structure-based virtual screening: From classical to articial intelligence. Frontiers in Chem- istry, 8.
207. Ghosh, A. K., Osswald, H. L., & Prato, G. (2016). Recent Progress in the development of HIV-1 protease inhibitors for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 59, 5172–5208.
208. Weber, I. T., Wang, Y.-F., & Harrison, R. W. (2021). HIV protease: Historical perspective and current research. Viruses, 13, 839.
209. Wlodawer, A. (2002). Rational approach to AIDS drug design through structural biology. Annual Review of Medicine, 53, 595–614.
210. Kitchen, V. S., et al. (1995). Safety and activity of saquinavir in HIV infection. The Lancet, 345, 952–955.
, 29.
378 M. Sá Magalhães Seram et al.
211. von Itzstein, M. (2007). The war against inuenza: Discovery and development of sialidase inhibitors. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 6, 967–974.
212. Talele, T. T., Khedkar, S. A., & Rigby, A. C. (2010). Successful applications of computer aided drug discovery: Moving drugs from concept to the clinic. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 10, 127–141.
213. Njoroge, F. G., Chen, K. X., Shih, N.-Y., & Piwinski, J. J. (2008). Challenges in modern drug discovery: A case study of boceprevir, an HCV protease inhibitor for the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection. Accounts of Chemical Research, 41,50–59.
214. Graham, B. S., & Sullivan, N. J. (2018). Emerging viral diseases from a vaccinology perspective: Preparing for the next pandemic. Nature Immunology, 19,20–28.
215. Ten health issues WHO will tackle this year. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-
threats-to-global-health-in-2019
216. Gorbalenya, A. E., et al. (2020). The species severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: Classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2. Nature Microbiology, 5, 536–544.
217. Zhu, N., et al. (2020). A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. The New England Journal of Medicine, 382, 727–733.
218. Morens, D. M., & Fauci, A. S. (2020). Emerging pandemic diseases: How we got to COVID-19. Cell, 182, 1077–1092.
219. Pierson, T. C., & Diamond, M. S. (2020). The continued threat of emerging aviviruses. Nature Microbiology, 5, 796–812.
220. Kalil, A. C. (2020). Treating COVID-19Off-label drug use, compassionate use, and ran­domized clinical trials during pandemics. JAMA, 323, 1897.
221. Adamson, C. S., et al. (2021). Antiviral drug discovery: preparing for the next pandemic. Chemical Society Reviews, 50, 3647–3655.
222. Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2020). Natural products as sources of new drugs over the nearly four decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019. Journal of Natural Products, 83, 770–803.
223. De Clercq, E., & Li, G. (2016). Approved antiviral drugs over the past 50 years. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 29, 695–747.
224. De Clercq, E. (2012). Human viral diseases: What is next for antiviral drug discovery? Current Opinion in Virology, 2, 572–579.
225. Hu, Y., Musharraeh, R., Zheng, M., & Wang, J. (2020). Enterovirus D68 antivirals: Past, present, and future. ACS Infectious Diseases, 6, 1572–1586.
226. Bule, M., Khan, F., & Niaz, K. (2019). Antivirals: Past, present and future. In Recent advances in animal virology (pp. 425–446).
227. Sera
228. De Cena, G. L., Scavassa, B. V., & Conceição, K. (2022). In Silico prediction of anti-infective
229. Bryan-Marrugo, O. L., et al. (2015). History and progress of antiviral drugs: From acyclovir to
230. McFadden, G., Mohamed, M. R., Rahman, M. M., & Bartee, E. (2009). Cytokine determinants
231. Nakajima, N., Lu, R., & Engelman, A. (2001). Human immunodeciency virus type 1 repli-
232. Zahradník, J., et al. (2021). SARS-CoV-2 variant prediction and antiviral drug design are
233. Baxter, V. K., & Montgomery, S. A. (2022). Preclinical coronavirus studies and pathology:
m, M. S. M., et al. (2021). Knowing and combating the enemy: A brief review on SARS­CoV-2 and computational approaches applied to the discovery of drug candidates. Bioscience Reports, 41, BSR20202616.
and cell-penetrating peptides from Thalassophryne nattereri natterin toxins. Pharmaceuticals, 15, 1141.
direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) for Hepatitis C. Medicina Universitaria, 17, 165–174.
of viral tropism. Nature Reviews. Immunology, 9, 645–655.
cation in the absence of integrase-mediated DNA recombination: Denition of permissive and nonpermissive T-cell lines. Journal of Virology, 75, 7944–7955.
enabled by RBD in vitro evolution. Nature Microbiology, 6, 1188–1198.
Challenges of the high-containment laboratory. Veterinary Pathology, 59, 556–564.
12 Experimental Assays: Chemical Properties, Biochemical and... 379
234. Pereira Oliveira, G., & Kroon, E. G. (2021). Mouse hepatitis virus: A betacoronavirus model to study the virucidal activity of air disinfection equipment on surface contamination. Journal of Virological Methods, 297, 114274.
235. Andrade, A. C. D. S. P., et al. (2021). A biosafety level 2 mouse model for studying Betacoronavirus-induced acute lung damage and systemic manifestations. Journal of Virol- ogy, 95, e0127621.
236. Pathan, R. K., Biswas, M., & Khandaker, M. U. (2020). Time series prediction of COVID-19 by mutation rate analysis using recurrent neural network-based LSTM model. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 138, 110018.
237. Kumar, M., et al. (2021). A chronicle of SARS-CoV-2: Seasonality, environmental fate, transport, inactivation, and antiviral drug resistance. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 405,
124043.
238. von Delft, A., et al. (2023). Accelerating antiviral drug discovery: Lessons from COVID-19. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 22, 585–603.
239. Scudellari, M. (2020). Researchers are betting that AI and automation can cut drug discovery from ve years to six months: Automating antivirals. IEEE Spectrum, 57,44–49.
240. Case, J. B., Bailey, A. L., Kim, A. S., Chen, R. E., & Diamond, M. S. (2020). Growth, detection, quantication, and inactivation of SARS-CoV-2. Virology, 548,39–48.
241. Jureka, A. S., Silvas, J. A., & Basler, C. F. (2020). Propagation, inactivation, and safety testing of SARS-CoV-2. Viruses, 12, 622.
242. McNamara, R. P., & Dittmer, D. P. (2020). Modern techniques for the isolation of extracellular vesicles and viruses. Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, 15, 459–472.
243. Liu, C., Elvati, P., & Violi, A. (2021). On drug-membrane permeability of antivirals for SARS-CoV-2. Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 12, 1384–1389.
244. Landry, M. L., et al. (2000). A standardized plaque reduction assay for determination of drug susceptibilities of cytomegalovirus clinical isolates. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 44, 688–692.
245. Mendoza, E. J., Manguiat, K., Wood, H., & Drebot, M. (2020). Two detailed plaque assay protocols for the quantication of infectious SARS-CoV-2. Current Protocols in Microbiol- ogy, 57, cpmc105.
246. Huang, Y., Yang, C., Xu, X., Xu, W., & Liu, S. (2020). Structural and functional properties of SARS-CoV-2 spike protein: Potential antivirus drug development for COVID-19. Acta Pharmacologica Sinica, 41, 1141–1149.
247. Pirolli, D., et al. (2023). Virtual screening and molecular dynamics simulations provide insight into repurposing drugs against SARS-CoV-2 variants spike protein/ACE2 interface. Scientic Reports, 13, 1494.
248. Osipiuk, J., et al. (2021). Structure of papain-like protease from SARS-CoV-2 and its complexes with non-covalent inhibitors. Nature Communications, 12, 743.
249. Yin, W., et al. (2020). Structural basis for inhibition of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase from SARS-CoV-2 by remdesivir. Science, 368, 1499–1504.
250. Dong, T. N., Brogden, G., Gerold, G., & Khosla, M. (2021). A multitask transfer learning framework for the prediction of virus-human protein–protein interactions. BMC Bioinformat-
, 572.
ics, 22
251. Madan, S., Demina, V., Stapf, M., Ernst, O., & Fröhlich, H. (2022). Accurate prediction of virus-host protein-protein interactions via a Siamese neural network using deep protein sequence embeddings. Patterns, 3, 100551.
252. Liu-Wei, W., et al. (2021). DeepViral: Prediction of novel virus–host interactions from protein sequences and infectious disease phenotypes. Bioinformatics, 37, 2722–2729.
253. Asim, M. N., Fazeel, A., Ibrahim, M. A., Dengel, A., & Ahmed, S. (2022). MP-VHPPI: Meta predictor for viral host protein-protein interaction prediction in multiple hosts and viruses. Frontiers in Medicine, 9.
380 M. Sá Magalhães Seram et al.
254. Yang, X., Yang, S., Ren, P., Wuchty, S., & Zhang, Z. (2022). Deep learning-powered prediction of human-virus protein-protein interactions. Frontiers in Microbiology, 13.
255. Gupta, P., & Mohanty, D. (2021). SMMPPI: A machine learning-based approach for predic­tion of modulators of protein–protein interactions and its application for identication of novel inhibitors for RBD:hACE2 interactions in SARS-CoV-2. Briengs in Bioinformatics, 22, bbab111.
256. Qureshi, A., Thakur, N., Tandon, H., & Kumar, M. (2014). AVPdb: A database of experi­mentally validated antiviral peptides targeting medically important viruses. Nucleic Acids Research, 42, D1147–D1153.
257. Qureshi, A., Tandon, H., & Kumar, M. (2015). AVP-IC50 Pred: Multiple machine learning techniques-based prediction of peptide antiviral activity in terms of half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50). Biopolymers, 104, 753–763.
258. Nikitina, A. A., Orlov, A. A., Kozlovskaya, L. I., Palyulin, V. A., & Osolodkin, D. I. (2019). Enhanced taxonomy annotation of antiviral activity data from ChEMBL. Database: The Journal of Biological Databases and Curation, 2019.
259. Zhang, Y., et al. (2017). Inuenza research database: An integrated bioinformatics resource for inuenza virus research. Nucleic Acids Research, 45, D466–D474.
260. Tzou, P. L., et al. (2020). Coronavirus antiviral research database (CoV-RDB): An online database designed to facilitate comparisons between candidate anti-coronavirus compounds. Viruses, 12, 1006.
261. Keshavarzi Arshadi, A., et al. (2020). Articial intelligence for COVID-19 drug discovery and vaccine development. Frontiers in Articial Intelligence, 3.
262. Riva, L., et al. (2020). Discovery of SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drugs through large-scale com­pound repurposing. Nature, 586, 113–119.
263. Ma, Y., et al. (2021). Medicinal chemistry strategies for discovering antivirals effective against drug-resistant viruses. Chemical Society Reviews.
264. Pizzorno, A., Padey, B., Terrier, O., & Rosa-Calatrava, M. (2019). Drug repurposing approaches for the treatment of inuenza viral infection: Reviving old drugs to ght against a long-lived enemy. Frontiers in Immunology, 10.
265. Trivedi, J., Mohan, M., & Byrareddy, S. N. (2020). Drug repurposing approaches to combat­ing viral infections. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9, 3777.
266. Bauso, L. V., Imbesi, C., Irene, G., Calì, G., & Bitto, A. (2021). New approaches and repurposed antiviral drugs for the treatment of the SARS-CoV-2 infection. Pharmaceuticals, 14, 503.
267. Li, G., Hilgenfeld, R., Whitley, R., & De Clercq, E. (2023). Therapeutic strategies for COVID­19: Progress and lessons learned. Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 22, 449–475.
268. Balasubramaniam, B., et al. (2021). Antibacterial and antiviral functional materials: Chemistry and biological activity toward tackling COVID-19-like pandemics. ACS Pharmacology & Translational Science, 4,8–54.
269. Mantravadi, P. K., Kalesh, K. A., Dobson, R. C. J., Hudson, A. O., & Parthasarathy, A. (2019). The quest for novel antimicrobial compounds: Emerging trends in research, development, and technologies.
Antibiotics, 8,8.
270. Seram, M. S. M., et al. (2020). The application of machine learning techniques to innovative antibacterial discovery and development. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 15, 1165–1180.
271. Miethke, M., et al. (2021). Towards the sustainable discovery and development of new antibiotics. Nature Reviews Chemistry, 5, 726–749.
272. Mediavilla, J. R., et al. (2016). Colistin- and Carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli harboring mcr-1 and bla
, causing a complicated urinary tract infection in a patient from the United
NDM-5
States. MBio, 7, e01191–e01116.
273. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2019). Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/82532.
12 Experimental Assays: Chemical Properties, Biochemical and... 381
274. ONeill, J.. (2016). Tackling drug-resistant infections globally: Final report and recommendations.
275. Ghosh, C., Sarkar, P., Issa, R., & Haldar, J. (2019). Alternatives to conventional antibiotics in the era of antimicrobial resistance. Trends in Microbiology, 27, 323–338.
276. Boucher, H. W., et al. (2009). Bad bugs, no drugs: No ESKAPE! An update from the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 48,1–12.
277. Tacconelli, E., et al. (2018). Discovery, research, and development of new antibiotics: The WHO priority list of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and tuberculosis. The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 18, 318–327.
278. Egger, N. B., et al. (2022). The rise of Candida auris: From unique traits to co-infection potential. Microbial Cell, 9, 141–144.
279. Nelson, R. (2023). Emergence of resistant Candida auris. The Lancet Microbe, 4, e396.
280. Chowdhary, A., & Sharma, A. (2020). The lurking scourge of multidrug resistant Candida auris in times of COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, 22, 175–176.
281. Mulet Bayona, J. V., et al. (2021). Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Candidaemia, invasive Aspergillosis and antifungal consumption in a tertiary hospital. Journal of Fungi, 7, 440.
282. Villanueva-Lozano, H., et al. (2021). Outbreak of Candida auris infection in a COVID-19 hospital in Mexico. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 27, 813–816.
283. Chowdhary, A., Tarai, B., Singh, A., & Sharma, A. (2020). Multidrug-resistant Candida auris infections in critically ill coronavirus disease patients, India, April–July 2020. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 26, 2694–2696.
284. Horton, M. V., et al. (2020). Candida auris forms high-burden biolms in skin niche conditions and on porcine skin. mSphere, 5.
285. Hoenigl, M., et al. (2022). COVID-19-associated fungal infections. Nature Microbiology, 7, 1127–1140.
286. Stokes, J. M., et al. (2020). A deep learning approach to antibiotic discovery. Cell, 180, 688–702.e13.
287. Bouz, G., & Doležal, M. (2021). Advances in antifungal drug development: An up-to-date mini review. Pharmaceuticals, 14, 1312.
288. Fu, C., et al. (2021). Leveraging machine learning essentiality predictions and chemogenomic interactions to identify antifungal targets. Nature Communications, 12, 6497.
289. Delavy, M., et al. (2020). Machine learning approach for Candida albicans uconazole resistance detection using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-ight mass spec­trometry. Frontiers in Microbiology, 10.
290. Chun, F., Yoshitaka, M., Caihong, L., & Kentaro, S. (2019). Prediction of antifungal peptides by deep learning with character embedding. IPSJ Transactions on Bioinformatics, 12,21–
291. Ahmad, A., et al. (2021). Deep-AntiFP: Prediction of antifungal peptides using distanct multi­informative features incorporating with deep neural networks. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 208, 104214.
292. Lobo, F., González, M. S., Boto, A., & Pérez de la Lastra, J. M. (2023). Prediction of antifungal activity of antimicrobial peptides by transfer learning from protein Pretrained models. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24, 10270.
293. Zhang, J., et al. (2022). Large-scale screening of antifungal peptides based on quantitative structure–activity relationship. ACS Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 13,99–104.
294. Hughes, J., Rees, S., Kalindjian, S., & Philpott, K. (2011). Principles of early drug discovery. British Journal of Pharmacology, 162, 1239–1249.
295. McCue, C. (2015). Data mining and predictive analysis. In C. McCue (Ed.), Data mining and predictive analysis (2nd ed., pp. xxiii–xxvii). Butterworth-Heinemann.
29.
382 M. Sá Magalhães Seram et al.
296. Tenero, D., et al. (2019). First-time-in-human study and prediction of early bactericidal activity for GSK3036656, a potent leucyl-tRNA synthetase inhibitor for tuberculosis treat­ment. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 63.
297. Clinical & Laboratory Standards Institute, C. (2017) Performance standards for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.
298. de-Souza-Silva, C. M., et al. (2018). Broth microdilution in vitro screening: An easy and fast method to detect new antifungal compounds. Journal of Visualized Experiments, 57127.
299. Macalino, S. J. Y., Gosu, V., Hong, S., & Choi, S. (2015). Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery. Archives of Pharmacal Research, 38, 1686–1701.
300. Lagier, J.-C., et al. (2015). Current and past strategies for bacterial culture in clinical micro­biology. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 28, 208–236.
301. Huffnagle, G. B., & Noverr, M. C. (2013). The emerging world of the fungal microbiome. Trends in Microbiology, 21, 334–341.
302. Xie, M., et al. (2021). Viable but Nonculturable state of yeast Candida sp. strain LN1 induced by high phenol concentrations. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 87, e01110– e01121.
303. Fekadu, G., Tolossa, T., Turi, E., Bekele, F., & Fetensa, G. (2022). Pretomanid development and its clinical roles in treating tuberculosis. Journal of Global Antimicrobial Resistance, 31, 175–184.
304. Stover, C. K., et al. (2000). A small-molecule nitroimidazopyran drug candidate for the treatment of tuberculosis. Nature, 405, 962–966.
305. Pötter, T., & Matter, H. (1998). Random or rational design? Evaluation of diverse compound subsets from chemical structure databases. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 41, 478–488.
306. Medina-Franco, J. L., Martinez-Mayorga, K., Fernández-de Gortari, E., Kirchmair, J., & Bajorath, J. (2021). Rationality over fashion and hype in drug design. F1000Res, 10, Chem Inf Sci-397.
307. Seram, M. S. M., et al. (2019). Antibacterial activity of synthetic 1,3-bis(aryloxy)propan-2­amines against Gram-positive bacteria. Microbiology, 8, e814.
308. Bradley, P., et al. (2015). Rapid antibiotic-resistance predictions from genome sequence data for Staphylococcus aureus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Nature Communications, 6,
10063.
309. Morselli Gysi, D., et al. (2021). Network medicine framework for identifying drug­repurposing opportunities for COVID-19. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118, e2025581118.
310. Zitnik, M., Sosič, R., & Leskovec, J. (2018). Prioritizing network communities. Nature Communications, 9, 2544.
311. Yuan, S., et al. (2017 ). Structure-based discovery of clinically approved drugs as Zika virus NS2B-NS3 protease inhibitors that potently inhibit Zika virus infection in vitro and in vivo. Antiviral Research, 145,33–43.
312. Swearengen, J. R. (2018). Choosing the right animal model for infectious disease research. Animal Models and Experimental Medicine, 1, 100–108.
313. Lin, Q., et al. (2022). Animal models for studying coronavirus infections and developing antiviral agents and vaccines. Antiviral Research, 203, 105345.
314. Zhang, Q., Zeng, S. X., & Lu, H. (2015). Determination of maximum tolerated dose and toxicity of Inauhzin in mice. Toxicology Reports, 2, 546–
315. Koneval, Z., et al. (2020). Antiseizure drug efcacy and tolerability in established and novel drug discovery seizure models in outbred vs inbred mice. Epilepsia, 61 , 2022–2034.
316. Dressman, J. B., & Reppas, C. (2000). In vitro–in vivo correlations for lipophilic, poorly water-soluble drugs. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11, S73–S80.
317. Steger-Hartmann, T., & Raschke, M. (2020). Translating in vitro to in vivo and animal to human. Current Opinion in Toxicology, 23–24,6–10.
554.
12 Experimental Assays: Chemical Properties, Biochemical and... 383
318. Fink, C., et al. (2020). Evaluating the role of solubility in Oral absorption of poorly water­soluble drugs using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 107, 650–661.
319. Albarnaz, J. D., et al. (2014). MEK/ERK activation plays a decisive role in yellow fever virus replication: Implication as an antiviral therapeutic target. Antiviral Research, 111,82–92.
320. de Oliveira, L. C., et al. (2020). The small molecule AZD6244 inhibits dengue virus replica­tion in vitro and protects against lethal challenge in a mouse model. Archives of Virology, 165, 671–681.
321. Ferreira, G. S., et al. (2019). A standardised framework to identify optimal animal models for efcacy assessment in drug development. PLoS One, 14, e0218014.
322. van de Waterbeemd, H., & Gifford, E. (2003). ADMET in silico modelling: Towards prediction paradise? Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery, 2, 192–204.
Chapter 13
Challenges Faced in the Development of Computational Methods for Predicting Pharmacokinetics Behavior
José Eduardo Gonçal ves
Abstract The pharmacokinetic behavior of a drug is determined by the intricate
interplay between the physicochemical properties of the molecule and its multifac­eted interactions with the biological system from the moment of administration until its elimination from the body. Consequently, the determination and evaluation of pharmacokinetic events constitute a complex process, which inevitably results in an equal or greater complexity in predictive studies. In light of this, it becomes evident that predictive methods employing computational models will present challenges that must be addressed to enable their broad development and application. To this end, it is essential to acquire detailed knowledge of the stages involved in the model creation process and identify the critical points requiring attention to minimize potential failures or low predictive power of computational methods. In this chapter, this approach will be employed, bringing forth experiences available in the literature on the process of creating computational models for predicting pharmacokinetic behavior at the early stages of drug development, highlighting the main challenges commonly encountered, and the strategies typically employed to mitigate prediction issues faced by different research groups in this eld.
Keywords In silico PK models · ADME prediction · Nonclinical studies

1 Introduction

The development of a new drug consists of a process in which various pieces of information regarding the efcacy and safety of the molecule in the biological system must be obtained. This mainly includes those related to the effect when acting on a specic target (pharmacodynamics), those related to how the molecule is disposed within the organism (pharmacokinetics), and the potential undesirable
J. E. Gonçalves () Produtos Farmacêuticos, Faculdade de Farmácia da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil e-mail: jegoncalves@ufmg.br
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024 V. G. Maltarollo (ed.), Computer-Aided and Machine Learning-Driven Drug Design, Computer-Aided Drug Discovery and Design 3,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-76718-0_13
385
386 J. E. Gonçalves
effects of this xenobiotic (toxicology). Such information is acquired in various successive stages, starting from the initial phases of development, the so-called nonclinical studies, and the clinical phase, which involves evaluation in human subjects [1]. Obtaining early insights into the efcacy, potential toxicity, and phar­macokinetics behavior of candidate drug molecules has been observed to reduce failures in subsequent stages [2].
Pharmacokinetic behavior is the result of multiple interactions between the drug and the biological system, inuenced by multifactorial elements that drive the processes of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion [1, 2]. In view of this, one must bear in mind the complexity involved in evaluating and determining the pharmacokinetics characteristics that lead to the disposition of the drug in the body.
In an effort to generate knowledge about the pharmacokinetic behavior of a drug from the early stages of development, several in vitro and in vivo studies are conducted in nonclinical stage, as apparent permeability studies, animal absolute oral bioavailability, tissue drug distribution, plasma protein binding, enzymatic metabolism, blood-brain barrier permeability, among other methods.
All these studies are subject to limitations and pose a considerable challenge in the development of new drugs. A critical obstacle involves the costs associated with conducting extensive studies on numerous promising molecules. Only after rigorous evaluation of pharmacokinetic data, desired therapeutic effects, and toxicological proles can a compound be considered for clinical trials. In this context, in silico methods emerge as an important complementary tool. These methods employ computational models and articial intelligence to predict pharmacokinetics charac­teristics in the early stages of development. The objective of in silico methods is to facilitate the evaluation of a larger number of candidates through high-throughput screening. This approach minimizes the probability of failures by discarding unpromising molecules and guiding potential molecular modications to enhance desirable pharmacokinetic characteristics [4].
Several generations of in silico models have emerged as a tool in research and development, many of which are widely available through open-access platforms. The success of using computational methods for pharmacokinetic prediction has been demonstrated over the years. A study published in 2014 shows the effective­ness of reducing failures in the development of new drugs by employing in silico methods alongside other tools in early-stage evaluations. This study observed a gradual and signicant decrease in clinical study discontinuation rates, from around 40% in the 1990s to approximately 1% by 2007 [5]. These ndings suggest the positive impact that computational methods have on the pharmaceutical industry.
However, it is crucial to emphasize that in silico predictions neither replace nor disqualify experimental testing. On the contrary, their goal is to complement exper­imental results and, together with other relevant scientic evidence, provide support for decision-making [5]. Nevertheless, there are several challenges in modeling pharmacokinetic properties using computational methods, and this chapter will discuss the key aspects of this topic.
13 Challenges Faced in the Development of Computational Methods... 387
2 Main Physicochemical and Pharmacokinetic
Characteristics Used in Developing Computational Methods
As previously mentioned, the bioavailab ility encompassing absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of a drug, which constitute pharmacokinetic processes, result from the interaction between the drug molecule and various biological struc­tures within the body. These interactions are inuenced even prior to their occur­rence by the biopharmaceutical properties of the drug and the formulation through which it is administered. The factors inuencing this pharmacokinetics behavior, which are used to develop predictive computational models, can generally be divided into three levels. These levels reect the complexity and detail each factor contributes to the model [ 6 ].
At Level 1, fundamental biopharmaceutical properties, including physicochemi­cal characteristics, are assessed. These properties encompass solubility, partition coefcient, hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, and adherence to established guidelines such as Lipinski s Rule of Five and Vebers criteria [2].
Level 2 incorporates information related to pharmacokinetic characteri stics. This level encompasses parameters indicative of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion processes.
At Level 3, models based on physiological, biochemical, and anatomical data are utilized, allowing for the prediction of how a drug will behave under different biological conditions. These methods are identied as physiologically based phar­macokinetic methods (PBPK).
Table 13.1 presents the main components commonly employed in the establish­ment of computational models. These components are classied into three levels, along with examples of developed platforms available for predicting these pharmacokinetic-related characteristics.
3 Construction of an In Silico Model to Predict ADME
Properties
The construction of a model, also known as the computational modeling process, for predicting pharmacokinetics, involves several steps. These range from the collection of data used to feed the model to the validation of the model itself. These steps are outlined below.