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
ated computed descriptors (R2 > 0.90). One can attempt to determine if a molecule
would be orally accessible or possibly troublesome using FAF-Drugs4 [63].
3.7.9.1 Input and output file details
.smi, .sdf files can be fed as input file.
.csv, .txt file is available as output file.
3.7.9.2 How to use?
Initially information related to the compound is fed as .sdf or .smi; later filters such as
Lipinski are included. Finally the results are displayed as .txt, which can also be saved
as .csv as displayed in Figure 3.12.
3.7.10 Drug-likeness filter (DLF)
One may find a drug-likeness filter (DLF), another drug-likeness prediction service, at
http://pasilla.health.unm.edu/tomcat/drug-likeness/. Based on chemical fragment oc-
currence frequencies in the DRUGS and the Available Chemicals Directory (ACD, non-
drugs) data sets, this platform calculates drug-likeness probability. DRUG or ACD
classifications of molecules are swiftly predicted using molecular structures as input.
This server is less helpf ul for differenti ating between drugs and nondrugs because
Figure 3.12: Options available for molecules screening for Lipinski’s rule of five.
3 The utilization of descriptors in convoluted Lipinski’s rule of five 63
https://t.me/med1917
40% of ACDs pass the drug-likeness filter, but it is more likely to get rid of compounds
that include a lot of nondrug-like fragments [64].
3.8 Online resources for drug-likeness of natural
products and special drugs
NPs or their derivatives make up around half of all currently used drugs. As a result,
bioactive NPs that provide a more varied chemical environment for new drug devel-
opment have attracted a lot of attention. These substances have intriguing drug me-
tabolism and PK characteristics, indicating that they are a reliable source for a pool of
Table 3.4: Databases offering the computations of drug-like attributes for NPs.
Database Features References
NP databases
NPASS
– For more than 35,000 NPs, NPASS offers information on
molecular structures, physicochemical characteristics,
biological activity data, and targets.
– Offers each chemical with comparable structures for clinical
or authorized medications.
[]
Super Natural II – Includes more than 325,500 natural chemicals in Super
Natural II.
– Offers a search feature for the mechanism of action
beginning with the molecular structure or target in addition
to molecular structures, drug-likeness-associated
physicochemical attributes, and predicted toxicity classes.
[]
NP-Scout – Includes 265,000 and 322,000 NPs and synthesized
compounds.
– Models built based on 2D molecular descriptors, MACCS
keys, and Morgan2 fingerprints.
[]
TCMID . – Built for traditional Chinese medicines.
– Includes more than 25,000 herb components and associated
targets.
– Connects herb constituents to ailments and medications to
link conventional Western medicine and traditional Chinese
medicine.
[]
IMPPAT – Includes 9,596 compounds from 1,742 Indian medicinal
plants.
– Calculates the physicochemical, ADMET, and drug-likeness
(such as Lipinski’s Ro5 violations and QED scores) attributes
for phytochemicals using FAF-Drugs4, FAF-QED, and
admetSAR.
[]
64 Mohit Motiwale et al.
https://t.me/med1917
drugs. Additionally, compared to conventional pharmaceuticals, some specific drugs,
such as traditional medicines and drugs used in agriculture may have distinct physi-
cochemical property distributions [65, 66]. Therefore, it makes sense to precisely re-
search how much these molecules resemble drugs. The databases associated with NPs
have been displayed in Table 3.4.
Additionally, the idea of drug-likeness has been included into the research of pesti-
cides. For instance, the publicly accessible web portals InsectiPAD [72] and FungiPAD [73]
are used to assess the insecticide- and fungicide-likeness of compounds, respectively.
Chemoinformatics has made it possible for NP and special drug databases to be
enhanced to include more details, including as structures, experimental activity data,
and mechanistic data. They have developed into helpful instruments for researching
the drug-like qualities of compounds with innovative scaffolds as well as the drug-
likeness of NPs and specialty medications.
3.9 Conclusions
Currently, most of the industrial efforts are being invested in discovering small mole-
cules, which are orally bioavailable and comply with the “Ro5,” thanks to the research
efforts made by Lipinski and associates. However, only half of all orally FDA-approved
drugs obey the “Ro5.” This led to additional efforts to search for more rules, which may
better authenticate the drug-likeness of a small molecule such as Ghose, Veber, Egan,
Muegge, and QED. Various databases and search tools have been fed in a public do-
main, which is accessible to all the academicians/scientists/industrial R & D and has
made the drug discovery process smoother and shorter. This book chapter briefed
about these tools and databases, which can be used to screen the new chemical entities
for prediction of their ADMET properties or drug-likeness. More concerted efforts are
needed, which will one day reduce the rate of failure of a small molecule at clinical
stages to minimal.
References
[1] Bleicher, K. H., Böhm, H. J., Müller, K., & Alanine, A. I. Hit and lead generation: Beyond
high-throughput screening. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2003, 2(5), 369–378.
[2] Liu, R., Li, X., & Lam, K. S. Combinatorial chemistry in drug discovery. Current Opinion in Chemical
Biology, 2017, 38, 117–126.
[3] Orth, A. P., Batalov, S., Perrone, M., & Chanda, S. K. The promise of genomics to identify novel
therapeutic targets. Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets, 2004, 8(6), 587–596.
[4] Schmid, E. F., & Smith, D. A. R&D technology investments: Misguided and expensive or a better way
to discover medicines? Drug Discovery Today, 2006, 11(17–18), 775–784.
3 The utilization of descriptors in convoluted Lipinski’s rule of five 65
https://t.me/med1917
[5] Darrow, J. J., Avorn, J., & Kesselheim, A. S. FDA approval and regulation of pharmaceuticals,
1983–2018. Jama, 2020, 323(2), 164–176.
[6] Sun, D., Gao, W., Hu, H., & Zhou, S. Why 90% of clinical drug development fails and how to improve
it?. Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica B, 2022, 12(7), 3049–3062.
[7] Takebe, T., Imai, R., & Ono, S. The current status of drug discovery and development as originated
in United States academia: The influence of industrial and academic collaboration on drug discovery
and development. Clinical and Translational Science, 2018, 11(6), 597–606.
[8] Tian, S., Wang, J., Li, Y., Li, D., Xu, L., & Hou, T. The application of in silico drug-likeness predictions in
pharmaceutical research. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2015, 86, 2– 10.
[9] Lee, K., Jang, J., Seo, S., Lim, J., & Kim, W. Y. Drug-likeness scoring based on unsupervised learning.
Chemical Science, 2021, 13(2), 554–565.
[10] Jia, C. Y., Li, J. Y., Hao, G. F., & Yang, G. F. A drug-likeness toolbox facilitates ADMET study in drug
discovery. Drug Discovery Today, 2020, 25(1), 248–258.
[11] Bickerton, G. R., Paolini, G. V., Besnard, J., Muresan, S., & Hopkins, A. L. Quantifying the chemical
beauty of drugs. Nature Chemistry, 2012, 4(2), 90–98.
[12] Hughes, J. P., Rees, S., Kalindjian, S. B., & Philpott, K. L. Principles of early drug discovery. British
Journal of Pharmacology, 2011, 162(6), 1239–1249.
[13] Agoni, C., Olotu, F. A., Ramharack, P., & Soliman, M. E. Druggability and drug-likeness concepts in
drug design: Are biomodelling and predictive tools having their say? Journal of Molecular Modeling,
2020, 26(6), 120.
[14] Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational
approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings.
Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, 2001, 46(1–3), 3– 26.
[15] Lipinski, C. A. Lead- and drug-like compounds: The rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discovery Today:
Technologies, 2004, 1(4), 337–341.
[16] Ghose, A. K., Viswanadhan, V. N., & Wendoloski, J. J. A knowledge-based approach in designing
combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative
characterization of known drug databases. Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry, 1999, 1(1), 55–68.
[17] Egan, W. J., Merz, K. M., Jr, & Baldwin, J. J. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics.
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2000, 43(21), 3867–3877.
[18] Muegge, I., Heald, S. L., & Brittelli, D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. Journal
of Medicinal Chemistry, 2001, 44(12), 1841–1846.
[19] Muegge, I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Medicinal Research Reviews, 2003, 23(3),
302–321.
[20] Veber, D. F., Johnson, S. R., Cheng, H. Y., Smith, B. R., Ward, K. W., & Kopple, K. D. Molecular
properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry,
2002, 45(12), 2615–2623.
[21] Jhoti, H., Williams, G., Rees, D. C., & Murray, C. W. The ‘rule of three’ for fragment-based drug
discovery: Where are we now? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2013, 12(8), 644–645.
[22] Oprea, T. I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. Journal of Computer-Aided
Molecular Design, 2000, 14(3), 251–264.
[23] Walters, W. P., & Namchuk, M. Designing screens: How to make your hits a hit. Nature Reviews
Drug Discovery, 2003, 2(4), 259–266.
[24] Garcia-Sosa, A. T., Maran, U., & Hetenyi, C. Molecular property filters describing pharmacokinetics
and drug binding. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2012, 19(11), 1646– 1662.
[25] Van de Waterbeemd, H., Smith, D. A., & Jones, B. C. Lipophilicity in PK design: Methyl, ethyl, futile.
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2001, 15(3), 273–286.
[26] Pollastri, M. P. Overview on the Rule of Five. Current Protocols in Pharmacology, 2010, 49,
9.12.1–9.12.8.
66 Mohit Motiwale et al.
https://t.me/med1917
[27] Ivanović, V., Rančić, M., Arsić, B., & Pavlović, A. Lipinski’s rule of five, famous extensions and famous
exceptions. Popular Scientific Article, 2020, 3(1), 171–177.
[28] Moriguchi, I., Hirono, S., Liu, Q., Nakagome, I., & Matsushita, Y. Simple method of calculating
octanol/water partition coefficient. Chemical and Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 1992, 40, 127–130.
[29] Rafi, S. B., Hearn, B. R., Vedantham, P., Jacobson, M. P., & Renslo, A. R. Predicting and improving the
membrane permeability of peptidic small molecules. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2012, 55(7),
3163–3169.
[30] Over, B., McCarren, P., Artursson, P., Foley, M., Giordanetto, F., Grönberg, G., Hilgendorf, C., Lee,
M. D., 4th, Matsson, P., Muncipinto, G., Pellisson, M., Perry, M. W., Svensson, R., Duvall, J. R., &
Kihlberg, J. Impact of stereospecific intramolecular hydrogen bonding on cell permeability and
physicochemical properties. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2014, 57(6), 2746– 2754.
[31] Pajouhesh, H., & Lenz, G. R. Medicinal chemical properties of successful central nervous system
drugs. NeuroRx, 2005, 2(4), 541–553.
[32] Manallack, D. T., Prankerd, R. J., Yuriev, E., Oprea, T. I., & Chalmers, D. K. The significance of acid/
base properties in drug discovery. Chemical Society Reviews, 2013, 42(2), 485– 496.
[33] Prasanna, S., & Doerksen, R. J. Topological polar surface area: A useful descriptor in 2D-QSAR.
Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2009, 16(1), 21–41.
[34] Khanna, V., & Ranganathan, S. Physiochemical property space distribution among human
metabolites, drugs and toxins. BMC Bioinformatics, 2009, 10 Suppl 15(Suppl 15), S10.
[35] Ritchie, T. J., & Macdonald, S. J. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability–are
too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design?. Drug Discovery Today, 2009, 14(21–22),
1011–1020.
[36] Wei, W., Cherukupalli, S., Jing, L., Liu, X., & Zhan, P. Fsp3: A new parameter for drug-likeness. Drug
Discovery Today, 2020, 25(10), 1839–1845.
[37] Leeson, P. D., & Young, R. J. Molecular property design: Does everyone get it?. ACS Medicinal
Chemistry Letters, 2015, 6(7), 722–725.
[38] Stegemann, S., Moreton, C., Svanbäck, S., Box, K., Motte, G., & Paudel, A. Trends in oral small-
molecule drug discovery and product development based on product launches before and after the
Rule of Five. Drug Discovery Today, 2023, 28(2), 103344.
[39] Alzyoud, L., Bryce, R. A., Al Sorkhy, M., Atatreh, N., & Ghattas, M. A. Structure-based assessment and
druggability classification of protein-protein interaction sites. Science Reports, 2022, 12(1), 7975.
[40] Protti, Í. F., Rodrigues, D. R., Fonseca, S. K., Alves, R. J., De Oliveira, R. B., & Maltarollo, V. G. Do
drug-likeness rules apply to oral prodrugs?. ChemMedChem, 2021, 16(9), 1446–1456.
[41] Garcia Jimenez, D., Poongavanam, V., & Kihlberg, J. Macrocycles in drug discovery─learning from
the past for the future. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2023, 66(8), 5377–5396.
[42] Karami, T. K., Hailu, S., Feng, S., Graham, R., & Gukasyan, H. J. Eyes on Lipinski’ s rule of five: A new
“Rule of thumb” for physicochemical design space of ophthalmic drugs. Journal of Ocular
Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 2022, 38(1), 43–55.
[43] Fernandes, T. B., Segretti, M. C., Polli, M. C., & Parise-Filho, R. Analysis of the applicability and use of
Lipinski`s rule for central nervous system drugs. Letters in Drug Design and Discovery, 2016, 13,
999–1006.
[44] Ahmad, I., Khan, H., & Serdaroğlu, G. Physicochemical properties, drug likeness, ADMET, DFT
studies, and in vitro antioxidant activity of oxindole derivatives. Computational Biology and
Chemistry, 2023, 104, 107861.
[45] Wishart, D. S., Knox, C., Guo, A. C., Shrivastava, S., Hassanali, M., Stothard, P., Chang, Z., & Woolsey,
J. DrugBank: A comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids
Research, 2006, 34(Database issue), D668 – D672.
[46] Sterling, T., & Irwin, J. J. ZINC 15–ligand discovery for everyone. Journal of Chemical Information and
Modeling, 2015, 55(11), 2324–2337.
3 The utilization of descriptors in convoluted Lipinski’s rule of five 67
https://t.me/med1917
[47] Gaulton, A., Bellis, L. J., Bento, A. P., Chambers, J., Davies, M., Hersey, A., Light, Y., McGlinchey, S.,
Michalovich, D., Al-Lazikani, B., & Overington, J. P. ChEMBL: A large-scale bioactivity database for
drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Research, 2012, 40(Database issue), D1100– D1107.
[48] Cao, D., Wang, J., Zhou, R., Li, Y., Yu, H., & Hou, T. ADMET evaluation in drug discovery. 11.
PharmacoKinetics Knowledge Base (PKKB): A comprehensive database of pharmacokinetic and toxic
properties for drugs. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2012, 52(5), 1132–1137.
[49] Williams, A. J., Grulke, C. M., Edwards, J., McEachran, A. D., Mansouri, K., Baker, N. C., Patlewicz, G.,
Shah, I., Wambaugh, J. F., Judson, R. S., & Richard, A. M. The comptox chemistry dashboard: A
community data resource for environmental chemistry. Journal of Cheminformatics, 2017, 9(1), 61.
[50] Nicola, G., Liu, T., Hwang, L., & Gilson, M. BindingDB: A protein-ligand database for drug discovery.
Biophysical Journal, 2012, 102(3), 61a.
[51] Degen, J., Wegscheid-Gerlach, C., Zaliani, A., & Rarey, M. On the art of compiling and using
‘drug-like’ chemical fragment spaces. ChemMedChem, 2008, 3(10), 1503–1507.
[52] Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. ZINC–a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual
screening. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2005, 45(1), 177–182.
[53] Xiong, G., Wu, Z., Yi, J., Fu, L., Yang, Z., Hsieh, C., Yin, M., Zeng, X., Wu, C., Lu, A., Chen, X., Hou, T., &
Cao, D. ADMETlab 2.0: An integrated online platform for accurate and comprehensive predictions of
ADMET properties. Nucleic Acids Research, 2021, 49(W1), W5–W14.
[54] Guan, L., Yang, H., Cai, Y., Sun, L., Di, P., Li, W., Liu, G., & Tang, Y. ADMET-score – A comprehensive
scoring function for evaluation of chemical drug-likeness. Medchemcomm, 2018, 10(1), 148–157.
[55] Cai, C., Lin, H., Wang, H., Xu, Y., Ouyang, Q., Lai, L., & Pei, J. Mi Druglikeness: Subdivisional drug-
likeness prediction models using active ensemble learning strategies. Biomolecules, 2022, 13(1), 29.
[56] Jayaram, B., Singh, T., Mukherjee, G., Mathur, A., Shekhar, S., & Shekhar, V. Sanjeevini: A freely
accessible web-server for target directed lead molecule discovery. BMC Bioinformatics, 2012, 13
Suppl 17(Suppl 17), S7.
[57] https://niper.gov.in/pi_dev_tools/DruLiToWeb/DruLiTo_index.html#:~:text=DruLiTo%20is%20an%
20open%20source,Drug%2Dlikeness%20(QED) (Accessed on 08 May 2023)
[58] Daina, A., Michielin, O., & Zoete, V. SwissADME: A free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics,
drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Scientific Reports, 2017, 7,
42717.
[59] Cheng, F., Li, W., Zhou, Y., Shen, J., Wu, Z., Liu, G., Lee, P. W., & Tang, Y. AdmetSAR: A comprehensive
source and free tool for assessment of chemical ADMET properties. Journal of Chemical Information
and Modeling, 2012, 52(11), 3099–3105.
[60] Schrödinger Release 2019–2: QikProp, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY, 2019.
[61] Pathak, D., Chadha, N., & Silakari, O. Identification of non-resistant ROS-1 inhibitors using structure
based pharmacophore analysis. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, 2016, 70, 85–93.
[62] Dhanda, S. K., Singla, D., Mondal, A. K., & Raghava, G. P. DrugMint: A webserver for predicting and
designing of drug-like molecules. Biology Direct, 2013, 8, 28.
[63] Lagorce, D., Bouslama, L., Becot, J., Miteva, M. A., & Villoutreix, B. O. FAF-Drugs4: Free ADME-tox
filtering computations for chemical biology and early stages drug discovery. Bioinformatics, 2017,
33(22), 3658–3660.
[64] Ursu, O., & Oprea, T. I. Model-free drug-likeness from fragments. Journal of Chemical Information
and Modeling, 2010, 50(8), 1387–1394.
[65] Atanasov, A. G., Zotchev, S. B., & Dirsch, V. M. International Natural Product Sciences Taskforce,
Supuran CT. Natural products in drug discovery: Advances and opportunities. Nature Reviews Drug
Discovery, 2021, 20(3), 200–216.
[66] Dias, D. A., Urban, S., & Roessner, U. A historical overview of natural products in drug discovery.
Metabolites, 2012, 2(2), 303–336.
68 Mohit Motiwale et al.
https://t.me/med1917
[67] Zeng, X., Zhang, P., He, W., Qin, C., Chen, S., Tao, L., Wang, Y., Tan, Y., Gao, D., Wang, B., Chen, Z.,
Chen, W., Jiang, Y. Y., & Chen, Y. Z. NPASS: Natural product activity and species source database for
natural product research, discovery and tool development. Nucleic Acids Research, 2018, 46(D1),
D1217–D1222.
[68] Banerjee, P., Erehman, J., Gohlke, B. O., Wilhelm, T., Preissner, R., & Dunkel, M. Super Natural II–a
database of natural products. Nucleic Acids Research, 2015, 43(Database issue), D935–D939.
[69] Chen, Y., Stork, C., Hirte, S., & Kirchmair, J. NP-Scout: machine learning approach for the
quantification and visualization of the natural product-likeness of small molecules. Biomolecules,
2019, 9(2), 43.
[70] Huang, L., Xie, D., Yu, Y., Liu, H., Shi, Y., Shi, T., & Wen, C. TCMID 2.0: A comprehensive resource for
TCM. Nucleic Acids Research, 2018, 46(D1), D1117–D1120.
[71] Mohanraj, K., Karthikeyan, B. S., Vivek-Ananth, R. P., Chand, R. P. B., Aparna, S. R., Mangalapandi, P.,
& Samal, A. IMPPAT: A curated database of Indian Medicinal Plants, Phytochemistry And
Therapeutics. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8(1), 4329.
[72] Jia, C. Y., Wang, F., Hao, G. F., & Yang, G. F. InsectiPAD: A web tool dedicated to exploring
physicochemical properties and evaluating insecticide-likeness of small molecules. Journal of
Chemical Information and Modeling, 2019, 59(2), 630–635.
[73] Wang, M. Y., Wang, F., Hao, G. F., & Yang, G. F. FungiPAD: A free web tool for compound property
evaluation and fungicide-likeness analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2019, 67(7),
1823–1830.
3 The utilization of descriptors in convoluted Lipinski’s rule of five 69
https://t.me/med1917
https://t.me/med1917
Sunil Kumar Kadiri
✶
, Dhritija Sathavalli, and Prashant Tiwari
4 Computer-aided pharmacokinetic functions
for extravascular route for oral drug
delivery system
Abstract: Computer -aided simulations are based on various software and modeling
techniques that influence the pharmacokinetics of the oral drug delivery systems. It
also offers alternatives for comprehending chemical systems in various methods, pro-
ducing data that is difficult to collect in laboratory study. The fact that computer-
aided drug design (CADD) requires less time and money than laboratory studies is
one of its main benefits. CADD is a cutting-edge in silico strategy for creating effective
bio-formulations and makes it possible to thoroughly examine compounds in relation
to their receptors or target sites at the molecular level in the oral drug delivery sys-
tem. The process of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion in oral drug
delivery systems can be characterized and enhanced by computer-aided simulations.
Keywords: Computer-aided simulations, CADD, pharmacokinetics, oral drug delivery
system, software and modeling techniques
4.1 Introduction
Computer-aided pharmacokinetic (PK) approaches are frequently used to analyze ex-
posure-response correlations, quantify drug disposition and pharmacological effects,
and forecast safety and efficacy results [1, 2]. The use of modeling can provide valu-
able support in enhancing the design and interpretation of preclinical and clinical
studies, hence increasing their effectiveness. Mechanism-based techniques are highly
valuable in situations where a robust understanding of biology exists, since they en-
able meaningful quantitative comparisons across many options and are actively
sought to provide scientific findings with support [3–7].
Historically, the primary focus of drug development has been on prioritizing thera-
peutic efficacy and target specificity [8]. Consequently, a significant proportion of poten-
tial pharmaceutical compounds experience failure throughout the phase 2 and phase 3
✶
Corresponding author: Sunil Kumar Kadiri, Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmaceutical
Sciences, Dayananda Sagar University, K.S Layout, Bengaluru 560111, Karnataka, India, e-mail:
sunilkumar-sps@dsu.edu.in
Dhritija Sathavalli, JSS College of Pharmacy, Mysuru 570015, Karnataka
Prashant Tiwari, Department of Pharmacology, College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Dayananda Sagar
University, K.S Layout, Bengaluru 560111, Karnataka, India
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111208671-004
https://t.me/med1917
clinical trials due to unfavorable PK characteristics [9]. The frequent utilization of
in vitro assessment of ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and tox-
icity) characteristics throughout the initial stages of drug discovery has been imple-
mented as a means to decrease attrition rates in later, more costly stages. Computer-
aided drug discovery and design approaches have played a crucial role in facilitating
the production of therapeutically relevant small compounds for over three decades
[10–12]. The approaches discussed may be classified into two major categories: struc-
ture-based techniques and ligand-based strategies. Theoretically, both high-throughput
screening and structure-based techniques have the common characteristic of consider-
ing the relevance of target and ligand structural information [13]. Pharmacophore iden-
tification, ligand design, and ligand docking represent prominent instances of structure-
based methodologies [14]. The article provides coverage of the theoretical foundations
of the most prominent approaches and currently effective implementations. Ligand-
based techniques only rely on ligand information to predict activity, taking into consid-
eration the degree of similarity or dissimilarity between a given ligand and known ac-
tive ligands [15–18]. In addition, this discussion encompasses essential technologies such
as target/ligand databases, homology modeling, and ligand fingerprint approaches.
These technologies are crucial for the successful implementation of several computer-
aided drug discovery/design strategies within a drug discovery campaign [19]. Ulti-
mately, this study employs successful instances from the existing body of research to
examine computational approaches for predicting toxicity and optimizing physiological
characteristics for desirable outcomes [20].
4.1.1 Principle of CADD in pharmacokinetics
The computer-aided drug design (CADD) approach involves a series of steps. Firstly, a vir-
tual screening (VS) protocol is employed to screen a small molecule library against a tar-
get, aiming to identify hits or leads. Secondly, the specificity of the selected hits from the
VS is assessed by conducting molecular docking in the active site of other known targets
[21–25]. Thirdly, in silico techniques are utilized to predict the ADMET properties of the
selected hits. Finally, the hits that show promise are referred to as leads. Ultimately, the
improvement of molecule design for the purpose of synthesis and testing serves to en-
hance the optimization of leads. There are two distinct categories within CADD methodol-
ogies, namely ligand-based drug design (Figure 4.1) and structure-based drug design [26].
4.1.2 Modeling methods
The two primary methods of drug modeling are as follows:
1. A quantitative approach
2. A qualitative approach
72 Sunil Kumar Kadiri, Dhritija Sathavalli, and Prashant Tiwari
https://t.me/med1917
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана