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_5443_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
2.7.1.7 Biodistribution studies
Monitoring the placement of nanoparticles in various organs and tissues after deliv-
ery to evaluate their capacity for targeting and propensity for accumulating in certain
areas.
2.7.1.8 Pharmacokinetic analysis
Examining how nanopa rticles are absorbed, distributed, metabo lized, and excreted
by the body.
2.7.1.9 Imaging techniques
Seeing and tracking the behavior of nanoparticles in real-time using imaging modali-
ties such as fluorescence imaging, positron emission tomography, or magnetic reso-
nance imaging.
2.7.1.10 Toxicity and safety assessments
Assessing the possible harm that nanoparticles might do to different physiological sys-
tems, including as organs, the immune system, and general health [44].
Researchers can gain a thorough understanding of the behavior, effectiveness, and
safety profile of nanoparticles by combining the results from both in vitro and in vivo
studies. This understanding is essential for their successful design and translation into
real-world applications like drug delivery, diagnostics, or imaging agents [45].
2.8 Challenges and future perspectives
Multiscale techniques in nanoparticulate design provide both difficulties and fascinat-
ing possibilities for the future. Let us go through some of the major issues and pro-
spective directions for this field’s future:
2 The role of multiscale approaches for the rational design 33
https://t.me/med1917
2.8.1 Challenges
2.8.1.1 Complexity of biological systems
It is difficult to comprehend how nanoparticles behave in intricate biological systems
because of their interactions with those systems. The interpretation of experimental
data and the transfer of knowledge to practical applications may be hampered by the
wide variety of cell types, tissues, and organs, as well as by the dynamic character of
biological processes.
2.8.1.2 Lack of standardized methodologies
Standardized procedures and approaches are required for describing nanoparticles
and assessing their biological impacts. Standardized in vitro and in vivo tests, meth-
ods for determining the biodistribution and toxicity of nanoparti cles, and guidelines
for repeatability and study comparability are all included in this [46].
2.8.1.3 Predictive modeling
It is still difficult to create precise and reliable computer models that can simulate
and predict the behavi or of nanoparticles at various sizes. Further developments in
modeling methods and data integration are required to include complicated physico-
chemical features, biological interactions, and the dynamic nature of nanoparticle sys-
tems into computer models.
2.8.1.4 Regulatory considerations
Regulatory issues are critical when nanoparticle-based products approach commer-
cialization. Robust testing procedures, standardized techniques, and unambiguous
guidelines for assessing the risk-benefit ratios of these items are necessary to ensure
their safety and efficacy [47].
2.8.2 Future perspectives
2.8.2.1 Integrated multiscale approaches
The fusion of multiscale methods is what will shape nanoparticulate design in the fu-
ture. Researchers may get a more complete knowledge of nanoparticle behavior, im-
34 Ram Babu Sharma et al.
https://t.me/med1917
prove their design, and foretell how they will interact with biological systems by inte-
grating experimental methods with computer modelling. The creation of risk-free and
productive nanoparticle-based technology can be accelerated by utilizing integrated
techniques.
2.8.2.2 Personalized nanomedicine
Nanoparticles have enormous promise for personalized medicine, which allows for
the customization of treatments to meet the unique needs of each patient. Designing
nanoparticles with precise targeting capabilities, regulated drug release mechanisms,
and individualized treatment plans based on patient-specific elements including ge-
netics, physiology, and disease status are all made possible by multiscale techniques.
2.8.2.3 Theranostics and multimodal imaging
As theranostic agents, nanoparticles can perform both therapeutic and diagnostic du-
ties simultaneously. The creation of nanoparticles that not only carry pharmaceuticals
but also allow real-time imaging and monitoring of treatment responses might result
from future breakthroughs in multiscale methods, enabling per sonalized medicine
and improved patient outcomes [48].
2.8.2.4 Biomimetic nanoparticle design
Researchers can create biomimetic nanoparticles that imitate the structure and opera-
tions of biological systems by drawing inspiration from nature. Biomimetic nanoparticles
can increase their effectiveness and reduce off-target effects by adding characteristics in-
cluding cell-specific targeting, stimuli-responsive behavior, and self-assembly quali-
ties [49].
2.9 Conclusion
As a result, the complexity of biological systems, the absence of standardized method-
ology, predictive modeling, and regulatory concerns provide difficulties for multiscale
approaches in nanoparticulate design. Having said that, these difficulties also open up
fascinating new possibilities for interdisciplinary strategies, individualized nanomedi-
cine,diagnostics,multimodalimaging,and biomimetic nanoparticle development.
The development of safe and efficient nanoparticle-based technologies with a variety
2 The role of multiscale approaches for the rational design 35
https://t.me/med1917
of applications in healthcare and beyondwillbefueledbyongoingresearchand
breakthroughs in these fields [50].
References
[1] Blanco, E., Shen, H., & Ferrari, M. Principles of nanoparticle design for overcoming biological
barriers to drug delivery. Nature Biotechnology, 2015, 33(9), 941–951. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3330,. PMID
26348965.
[2] Wilhelm, S., Tavares, A. J., Dai, Q., Ohta, S., Audet, J., Dvorak, H. F., et al. Analysis of nanoparticle
delivery to tumours. Nature Reviews Materials, 2016, 1(5), 16014. doi: 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.14.
[3] Parveen, S., & Sahoo, S. K. Nanomedicine: Clinical perspectives. Journal of Nanotechnology, 2011,
3, 10.
[4] Zhang, Y., & Chan, H. F. Nanoparticles in drug delivery and biomedical applications. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2020, 109(10), 3568– 3579.
[5] Farokhzad, O. C., & Langer, R. Impact of nanotechnology on drug delivery. ACS Nanotechnology,
2009, 3(1), 16–20. doi: 10.1021/nn900002m,. PMID 19206243.
[6] Mitra, A. K., et al. Nanoparticles in drug delivery: An overview of recent advances. Expert Opinion on
Drug Delivery, 2021, 18(2), 119–141.
[7] Patra, J. K., Das, G., Fraceto, L. F., Campos, E. V. R., Rodriguez-Torres, M. D. P., Acosta-Torres, L. S.,
et al. Nano based drug delivery systems: Recent developments and future prospects. Journal of
Nanobiotechnology, 2018 Sep 19, 16(1), 71. doi: 10.1186/s12951-018-0392-8,. PMID 30231877, PMCID
PMC6145203.
[8] Zhang, X., & Gonçalves, G. Nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems: A review. Science China Materials,
2017, 60(10), 1011–1020.
[9] Khan, A. U., Khan, M., Cho, M. H., & Khan, M. M. Selected nanotechnologies and nanostructures for
drug delivery, nanomedicine and cure. Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering, 2020 Aug, 43(8),
1339–1357. doi: 10.1007/s00449-020-02330-8,. PMID 32193755.
[10] Wilhelm, S., Tavares, A. J., Dai, Q., Ohta, S., Audet, J., Dvorak, H. F., et al. Analysis of nanoparticle
delivery to tumours. Nature Reviews Materials, 2016 Apr 26, 1(5), 1– 2. doi: 10.1038/
natrevmats.2016.14.
[11] Decuzzi, P., & Ferrari, M. Design maps for nanoparticles targeting the diseased microvasculature.
Biomaterials, 2008, 29(3), 377–384. doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.09.025,. PMID 17936897.
[12] Torchilin, V. P. Multifunctional, stimuli-sensitive nanoparticulate systems for drug delivery. Nature
Reviews Drug Discovery, 2014, 13(11), 813–827. doi: 10.1038/nrd4333,. PMID 25287120.
[13] Farjadian, F., Ghasemi, A., Gohari, O., Roointan, A., Karimi, M., & Hamblin,
M. R. Nanopharmaceuticals and nanomedicines currently on the market: Challenges and
opportunities. Nanomedicine (London), 2019 Jan, 14(1), 93– 126. doi: 10.2217/nnm-2018-0120. PMID
30451076, PMCID PMC6391637.
[14] Zhang, Y., & Chan, H. F. Nanoparticles in drug delivery and biomedical applications. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2020, 109(10), 3568– 3579.
[15] Li, X., Jian, M., Sun, Y., Zhu, Q., & Wang, Z. The peptide functionalized inorganic nanoparticles for
cancer-related bioanalytical and biomedical applications. Molecules, 2021 May 27, 26(11), 3228. doi:
10.3390/molecules26113228,. PMID 34072160.
[16] Sharma, A., Babu Sharma, R. B., Verma, A., & Thakur, R. Insight on nanoparticles, green synthesis
and applications in drug delivery system: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Life
Science and Pharma Research, 2022, 12(5), 68–84. doi: 10.22376/ijpbs/lpr.2022.12.5.P68-84.
36 Ram Babu Sharma et al.
https://t.me/med1917
[17] Mamidi, N., Delgadillo, R. M. V., & Castrejón, J. V. Unconventional and facile production of a stimuli-
responsive multifunctional system for simultaneous drug delivery and environmental remediation.
Environmental Science: Nano, 2021, 8(7), 2081–2097. doi: 10.1039/D1EN00354B.
[18] Salo-Ahen, O. M. H., Alanko, I., Bhadane, R., Bonvin, A. M. J. J., Honorato, R. V., Hossain, S., et al.
Molecular Dynamics simulations in drug discovery and pharmaceutical development. Processes,
2021, 9(1), 71. doi: 10.3390/pr9010071.
[19] Li, N., Cui, R., Zhang, F., Meng, X., & Liu, B. Current situation and future challenges of patulin
reduction-a review. Food Control, 2022 Apr 5, 138, 108996. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.108996.
[20] Bunker, A., & Róg, T. Mechanistic understanding from Molecular Dynamics simulation in
pharmaceutical Research 1: Drug delivery. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 2020 Nov 25, 7,
604770. doi: 10.3389/fmolb.2020.604770,. PMID 33330633, PMCID PMC7732618.
[21] Javan Nikkhah, S., & Thompson, D. Molecular modelling guided modulation of molecular shape and
charge for design of smart self-assembled polymeric drug transporters. Pharmaceutics, 2021 Jan 22,
13(2), 141. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13020141,. PMID 33499130, PMCID PMC7912381.
[22] Batool, S., Sohail, S., ud Din, F., Alamri, A. H., Alqahtani, A. S., Alshahrani, M. A., Alshehri, M. A., &
Choi, H. G. A detailed insight of the tumor targeting using nanocarrier drug delivery system. Drug
Delivery, 2023 Dec 31, 30(1), 2183815.
[23] Dastjerdi, Z., Cranston, E. D., Berry, R., Fraschini, C., & Dubé, M. A. Polymer nanocomposites for
emulsion‐based coatings and adhesives. Macromolecular Reaction Engineering, 2019 Apr, 13(2),
1800050. doi: 10.1002/mren.201800050.
[24] Pulingam, T., Foroozandeh, P., Chuah, J. A., & Sudesh, K. Exploring various techniques for the
chemical and biological synthesis of polymeric nanoparticles. Nanomaterials (Basel), 2022 Feb 8,
12(3), 576. doi: 10.3390/nano12030576,, PMID 35159921.
[25] Wang, D., Du, C., Wang, S., Li, L., Liu, T., Song, J., et al. Probing the role of connecting bonds and
modifying chains in the rational design of prodrug nanoassemblies. ACS Applied Materials and
Interfaces, 2022 Nov 3, 14(45), 51200–51211. doi: 10.1021/acsami.2c14523,. PMID 36397309.
[26] Mullis, A. S., Broderick, S. R., Phadke, K. S., Peroutka-Bigus, N., Bellaire, B. H., Rajan, K., et al. Data
analytics-guided rational design of antimicrobial nanomedicines against opportunistic, resistant
pathogens. Nanomedicine, 2023 Feb 1, 48, 102647. 10.1016/j.nano.2022.102647,PMID 36581257.
[27] Felici, A., Schlich, M., Di Mascolo, D., Goldoni, L., Lisa Palange, A. L., & Decuzzi, P. Boosting the
therapeutic efficacy of discoidal nanoconstructs against glioblastoma with rationally designed PEG-
docetaxel conjugates. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2022 May 1, 174,
90–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ejpb.2022.03.011,. PMID 35358697.
[28] Florensa, M., Llenas, M., Medina-Gutiérrez, E., Sandoval, S., & Tobías-Rossell, G. Key parameters for
the rational design, synthesis, and functionalization of biocompatible mesoporous silica
nanoparticles. Pharmaceutics, 2022 Dec 2, 14(12), 2703. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14122703,. PMID
36559195.
[29] Sutter, P. W., & Sutter, E. A. Bottom-up assembly of complex nanostructures: From single atoms to
designer nanostructures. Chemical Reviews, 2017, 117(9), 4944 – 4967. doi: 10.1021/acs.
chemrev.6b00812.
[30] Williams, R. S. Nanotechnology: Small steps to large advances. Nature, 2008, 454(7200), 709–710.
doi: 10.1038/454709a.
[31] Whitesides, G. M., & Grzybowski, B. Self-assembly at all scales. Science, 2002, 295(5564), 2418–2421.
doi: 10.1126/science.1070821,. PMID 11923529.
[32] Xia, Y., Xiong, Y., Lim, B., & Skrabalak, S. E. Shape-controlled synthesis of metal nanocrystals: Simple
chemistry meets complex physics? Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 2009, 48(1),
60–103. doi: 10.1002/anie.200802248,. PMID 19053095.
[33] George, S. M. Atomic layer deposition: An overview. Chemical Reviews, 2010, 110(1), 111–131. doi:
10.1021/cr900056b,. PMID 19947596.
2 The role of multiscale approaches for the rational design 37
https://t.me/med1917
[34] Zeiri, O. Metallic-nanoparticle-based sensing: Utilization of mixed-ligand monolayers. ACS Sensors,
2020 Nov 26, 5(12), 3806–3820. doi: 10.1021/acssensors.0c02124,. PMID 33241680.
[35] Dahiya, A., & Sharma, R. B. Biomaterial role and application in polymer science. AIP Conference
Proceedings, 2023 Feb 3, 2558(1), 020065. doi: 10.1063/5.0130466.
[36] Maeda, H., Nakamura, H., & Fang, J. The EPR effect for macromolecular drug delivery to solid
tumors: Improvement of tumor uptake, lowering of systemic toxicity, and distinct tumor imaging
in vivo. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2013, 65(1), 71–79. doi: 10.1016/j.addr.2012.10.002,. PMID
23088862.
[37] Torchilin, V. P. Multifunctional, stimuli-sensitive nanoparticulate systems for drug delivery. Nature
Reviews Drug Discovery, 2011, 10(9), 1–19.
[38] Bae, Y., Fukushima, S., Harada, A., & Kataoka, K. Design of environment-sensitive supramolecular
assemblies for intracellular drug delivery: Polymeric micelles that are responsive to intracellular pH
change. Angewandte Chemie International Edition in English, 2003, 42(38), 4640–4643. doi: 10.1002/
anie.200250653,. PMID 14533151.
[39] Jain, A., Thakur, K., Sharma, G., Kush, P., Jain, U. K., & Katare, O. P. Stimuli-responsive hydrogels in
drug delivery and tissue engineering. Drug Delivery, 2018, 25(1), 1–11.
[40] Peer, D., Karp, J. M., Hong, S., Farokhzad, O. C., Margalit, R., & Langer, R. Nanocarriers as an
emerging platform for cancer therapy. Nature Nanotechnology, 2007, 2(12), 751–760. doi: 10.1038/
nnano.2007.387,. PMID 18654426.
[41] Park, J. S., et al. Multi-scale approaches in nanoparticulate drug delivery systems: Implications for
cancer therapy. Journal of Controlled Release, 2017, October 15; 12:7291–7309.
[42] Chen, X., et al. Multi-scale design of nanoparticles for cancer diagnosis and therapy. Nanoscale,
2018, July; 16(15):5354.
[43] Grafmüller, A., et al. Multi-scale modeling and simulation of nanoparticle-membrane interactions.
Chemical Society Reviews, 2013; 2(1):1800105.
[44] Xia, Y., et al. Multi-scale approaches in the design of functional nanocarriers. Nano Today, 2016;
4:1362660.
[45] Zhu, C., et al. Multi-scale design of nanoparticle-based drug delivery systems: A review of current
approaches. Journal of Controlled Release, 2018; 15:100134.
[46] Farjadian, F., Ghasemi, A., Gohari, O., Roointan, A., Karimi, M., & Hamblin,
M. R. Nanopharmaceuticals and nanomedicines currently on the market: Challenges and
opportunities. Nanomedicine (London), 2019 Jan, 14(1), 93– 126. doi: 10.2217/nnm-2018-0120. PMID
30451076, PMCID PMC6391637.
[47] Nel, A. E., Mädler, L., Velegol, D., Xia, T., Hoek, E. M., Somasundaran, P., et al. Understanding
biophysicochemical interactions at the nano–bio interface. Nature Materials, 2009 Jul, 8(7), 543–557.
doi: 10.1038/nmat2442,. PMID 19525947.
[48] Halamoda-Kenzaoui, B., Box, H., van Elk, M., Gaitan, S., Geertsma, R. E., Gainza Lafuente, E. G., et al.
Launching stakeholder discussions on identified regulatory needs for nanotechnology-enabled
health products. Precision Nanomedicine, 2020 Jun 27, 3(2), 608– 621. doi: 10.33218/001c.13521.
[49] Ventola, C. L. Progress in nanomedicine: Approved and investigational nanodrugs. P T Peer-
Reviewed Journal Formula Management, 2017, 42(12), 742–755. PMID 29234213.
[50] Gioria, S., Caputo, F., Urbán, P., Maguire, C. M., Bremer-Hoffmann, S., Prina-Mello, A., et al. Are
existing standard methods suitable for the evaluation of nanomedicines: Some case studies.
Nanomedicine (Lond), 2018 Mar, 13(5), 539–554. doi: 10.2217/nnm-2017-0338,. PMID 29381129.
38 Ram Babu Sharma et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Mohit Motiwale, Himanshu Verma, Om Silakari, and Bharti Sapra
✶
3 The utilization of descriptors in convoluted
Lipinski’s rule of five
Abstract: Despite the enormous efforts made by pharmaceutical and academic re-
search organizations, the development of novel drugs traditionally has primarily
been a cut-and-try meth od. In preclinical research activities , it is believed that just
one in 5,000 molecules ever becomes a clinical lead, while only one in 10 drug candi-
dates ever go through the time- and money-consuming process of clinical trials. In the
early stages of drug development, drug-likeness has been extensively employed to
screen out undesirable molecules. Various rules such as Lipinski (also known as rule
of five), Ghose, Veber, Egan, Muegge, quantitative estimate of drug-likeness, etc. have
been laid out to predict whether the new chemical entity possesses drug-like proper-
ties or not. However, rule of five has been overemphasized for decades. Around 51%
of all FDA-approved small-molecule drugs are used orally which complies with the
“rule of five.” This rule was developed at Pfizer by Lipinski and colleagues, who con-
sidered around 2,200 drugs for setting criteria of orally bioavailable drugs. They de-
velopedasetofcriteriaconsideringlogP > 5, molecular weight >500, number of
hydrogen donor groups >5, and number of hydrogen acceptor groups >10 that seem to
work well for most of the molecules. Lipinski’s rule should be kept in mind when a
pharmacologically active lead structure is gradually improved during the drug devel-
opment process. Candidate molecules that follow the rule of five typically experience
less attrition during clinical trials, increasing their likelihood of being approved for
use.
Keywords: Lipinski’s rule, drug-likeness, molecular descriptors, bioavailability, drug
development
3.1 Introduction
Early in the 1990s, combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening (HTS)
were recognized to have the ability to completely transform the drug development
process [1]. Substantial amounts of small molecules become accessible through combi-
natorial chemistry, and HTS could enable quick screening of these molecules against
an increasing number of novel targets that arise from genomics [2, 3].
✶
Corresponding author: Bharti Sapra, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Research,
Punjabi University, Patiala 147002, Punjab, India, e-mail: bhartijatin2000@yahoo.co.in
Mohit Motiwale, Himanshu Verma, Om Silakari, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug
Research, Punjabi University, Patiala 147002, Punjab, India
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111208671-003
https://t.me/med1917
However, the initial output quality of thes e technologies was far lower than the
anticipated quality. Pfizer’s efforts in HTS and combinatorial chemistry in the mid-
1990s forwarded a number of compounds that proved unsuitable for further develop-
ment into potential drug candidates because of their low solubility and permeability
issues [4].
The number of novel chemical entities (NCEs) that the US Food and Drug Admin-
istration (FDA) approved between 1990 and 2013 did not substantially rise, and in re-
cent years, it may have even dropped somewhat [5]. Inefficiency and unfavorable
ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity) profiles are the
main reasons why drug candidates fail to become drugs in substantial numbers [6].
The attrition rate of clinical trials failing to launch new drugs in the market has
increased to 90% during the last 10 years. Over a 5-year period, the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) authorized 26.8 small molecules on average. Only 12 innovative
small-molecule medicines were authorized by the FDA in 2016, which was the lowest
approval rate in the previous 50 years. Pharmaceutical firms invest millions of dollars
in advancing a novel treatment through clinical trials; as a result, failure in the later
phases of drug development often results in large financial losses. Drug candidates
fail in clinical trials for a variety of reasons, but the two primary ones are undesirable
pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics and unacceptable toxicity [6, 7].
There are now thought to be ~1.2 × 10
9
actual small molecules in existence. Un-
doubtedly, only a small subset of the chemical compounds now in existence is either
drugs or drug candidates. Medicinal and computational chemists introduced the idea
of “drug-likeness” to exclude compounds with unwanted features from screening li-
braries and lower the risk of attrition at the latter phases of drug discovery [8].
In order to increase the likelihood that a chemical would enter and succeed in
clinical trials, the idea of drug-likeness was offered as valuable guidance during the
early phases of drug research. It may be summed up as the physicochemical and mo-
lecular characteristics of compounds that are used as medications . In fact, the term
“drug-likeness” is frequently used to refer to PK and safety, and it may also be used to
refer to substances that have good ADMET qualities.
Property-based filters/rules, which set acceptable limits forcertainmolecular
physicochemical properties for medications and/or drug candidates, are a frequent
and straightforward method to quantify drug-likeness [9]. Christopher Lipinski, a me-
dicinal chemist, and colleagues investigated the characteristics of a large database of
drugs and late-stage clinical candidates in an effort to understand their acceptance as
drugs/drug candidates. They finally established a set of rules known as the “ rule of
five” (Ro5) for determining if a compound has a high probability of having poor ab-
sorption or permeability based only on its basic physicochemical features [10–12].
Drug-like compounds are also defined as chemical molecu les that have similar
physical characteristics and/ or functional groups with the majority of already used
drugs, leading to the assumption that they may have similar biological activity or
therapeutic potential. Considering the small range of approved drugs, it can be ob-
40 Mohit Motiwale et al.
https://t.me/med1917
served that they generally fall within important physicochemical criteria laid down
by Lipinski based on molecular mass, hydrophobicity, and polarity parameters. Nev-
ertheless, there is no apparent structural similarity between any approved drugs and
drug-like compounds [13]. Such a criterion has raised the chances of forwarding those
chemical entities for clinical trial that will not fail in later stages in terms of PK and
bioavailability profiles. This book chapter sheds light on the criterion set by Lipinski
for predicting drug-likeness. The tools/databases/web-servers designed to screen for
such a prediction have also been discussed. This write-up will be very useful for read-
ers who are beginners in the field of drug design and development as they can imple-
ment the discussed tools for prior prediction, saving a drug candidate from failing in
clinical trials.
3.2 Various rules of drug-likeness
According to the principles used within that idea, the meaning of drug-likeness dif-
fers. One of the first sets of regulations to define the term “drug-likeness” was Lipin-
ski’s “Ro5” (Pfizer), which was created in 1997. This Pfizer group examined in-depth
the orally active medications that were either in phase II clinical studies or had al-
ready been approved to be launched in market. They computed a number of physico-
chemical features and observed a common pattern among five physicochemical
descriptors: molecular weight (<500), hydrogen bond acceptor group s (HBA, sum of
single bonds, O and N, <10), hydrogen bond donor groups (HBD, sum of single bonds
OH and NH groups, <5), and finally, calculated log P (C log P < 5). Thereby, this was set
as a standard limit to screen NCEs in order to predict drug- likeness. This launched
now-famous “Lipinski’s Ro5” after assuming that the solubility and permeability pa-
rameters of the selected drug candidates were appropriate. When it comes to oral bio-
availability, a compound is considered high-risk if it breaks many of these criteria.
Even though Ro5 is one of the most well-known filters in virtual screening, it is impor-
tant to see them as recommendations rather than as a set of rigid rules that must be
always followed while developing drugs [14, 15]. In Figure 3.1, some examples of drugs
that follow Lipinski’s rule are shown.
Following this, several other rules were also proposed by various research
groups. Based on a study performed by Ghose and his associates (Amgen), a new set
of rules emerged in 1998. They set out to characterize the features of known medica-
tions by studying the Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry (CMC) database and seven
additional datasets belonging to various structural classes in an effort to drive the
production of libraries into the “drug-like” chemical space. They concluded that >80%
of the medicinal compounds under investigation met the following criteria: estimated
log P between −0.4 and 5.6, molar refractivity between 40 and 130, molecular weight
between 160 and 480, and total atom number between 20 and 70 [16].
3 The utilization of descriptors in convoluted Lipinski’s rule of five 41
https://t.me/med1917
Although the preceding models are simple to use and comprehend, Egan et al. pointed
out some of their shortcomings. They pointed out that the earlier models did not ex-
plain how these variables interacted and affected the overall image of drug-likeness.
These models also relied on medications with acceptable absorption that were sup-
posed to exist without any statistical association. In order to create a passive intestinal
absorption model, Egan et al. studied medications with good and bad absorption pat-
terns. The interrelationships between the previously discovered descriptors and the
physical mechanisms influencing membrane permeability were carefully taken into
consideration to propose remedy to the shortcomings of the previous two models. As
a result, their eyes spo tted two of the physicochemical properties, that is, polar sur-
face area (PSA) and log P. For further authentication, this research crew also tested
the permeability of licensed medications, “drug-like” molecules, and other pharmaco-
peia-listed substances in order to validate the model. For the permeability assessment,
they employed Caco-2 cells, and the outcomes showed rather good success prediction
rates of up to 92%. Egan drug-like guidelines were eventually constrained to two key
parameters: A log P ≤ 5.88 and PSA ≤ 131.6 [17].
Muegge’s (Bayer) drug-like guidelines, which were published more recently, were
developed as a result of several shortcomings in the earlier models. Muegge and asso-
ciates observed that these guidelines lack specificity since they are not particularly
successful in differentiating pharmaceuticals (true positives) from non-drug substan-
ces (true negatives), despite the fact that the previously stated models correlate well
and can predict the compounds’ absorption. This prompted the development of a
pharmacophore-based filter to distinguish between compounds that are drug-like and
those that are not, which ultimately resulted in the following set of rules: 200 ≤ molecu-
lar weight ≤ 600, −2 ≤ log P ≤ 5, TPSA ≤ 150, number of rings≤ 7, number of carbons > 4,
number of heteroatoms > 1, number of rotatable bonds ≤ 15, HBA ≤ 10, and HBD ≤ 5
[18, 19].
Figure 3.1: Some examples of drugs that follow Lipinski’s rule.
42 Mohit Motiwale et al.
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана