Strategies for the generation, validation and application of in silico ADMET models in lead generation and optimization

Bibliography

• Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3(8):711-16
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010;9(3):203-14
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ChEMBL. Available from: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/
   Google Scholar
• Pubchem. Available from: http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
   Google Scholar
• Aureus. Available from: http://www.aureus-sciences.com
   Google Scholar
• WOMBAT-PK. Available from: http://www.sunsetmolecular.com/
   Google Scholar
• Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001;41(5):1308-15
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001;46(1-3):3-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lajiness MS, Vieth M, Erickson J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr Opin Drug Disc 2004;7:470-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu H, Adedoyin A. ADME–Tox in drug discovery: integration of experimental and computational technologies. Drug Discov Today 2003;8(18):852-61
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahl M, Guba W, Kansy M. Integrating molecular design resources within modern drug discovery research: the Roche experience. Drug Discov Today 2006;11(7–8):326-33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hop CE, Cole MJ, Davidson RE, High throughput ADME screening: practical considerations, impact on the portfolio and enabler of in silico ADME models. Curr Drug Metab 2008;9(9):847-53
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segall M, Chadwick A. Making priors a priority. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2010;24(12):957-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan RP, Feuston BP, Maiorov VN, Kearsley SK. Similarity to Molecules in the training set is a good discriminator for prediction accuracy in QSAR. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44(6):1912-28
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weaver S, Gleeson MP. The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graph Model 2008;26(8):1315-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetko IV, Bruneau P, Mewes H-W, Can we estimate the accuracy of ADME-Tox predictions?. Drug Discovery Today 2006;11(15-16):700-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorne N, Auld DS, Inglese J. Apparent activity in high-throughput screening: origins of compound-dependent assay interference. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2010;14(3):315-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbert M R. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov Today 1997;2(9):382-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kajbaf M, Longhi R, Montanari D, A comparative study of the CYP450 inhibition potential of marketed drugs using two fluorescence based assay platforms routinely used in the pharmaceutical industry. Drug Metab Lett 2011;5(1):1872-3128
   Google Scholar
• Lau YY, Sapidou E, Cui X, Development of a novel in vitro model to predict hepatic clearance using fresh, cryopreserved, and sandwich-cultured hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 2002;30(12):1446-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• He K, Qian M, Wong H, N-in-1 dosing pharmacokinetics in drug discovery: experience, theoretical and practical considerations. J Pharm Sci 2008;97(7):2568-80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagilla R, Nord M, McAtee JJ, Jolivette LJ. Cassette dosing for pharmacokinetic screening in drug discovery: comparison of clearance, volume of distribution, half-life, mean residence time, and oral bioavailability obtained by cassette and discrete dosing in rats. J Pharm Sci 2011;100(9):3862-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazius J, McGuire R, Bursi R. Derivation and validation of toxicophores for mutagenicity prediction. J Med Chem 2005;48(1):312-20
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortelmans K, Zeiger E. The AMES salmonella/microsome mutagenicity assay. Mutat Res 2000;455(1-2):29-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C, Tcheremenskaia O, Giuliani A. Alternatives to the carcinogenicity bioassay: in silico methods, and the in vitro and in vivo mutagenicity assays. Expert Opin Drug Met 2010;6(7):809-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benigni R, Bossa C. Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: a review with implications for predictive toxicology. Chem Rev 2011;111(4):2507-36
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lane SJ, Eggleston DS, Brinded KA, Defining and maintaining a high quality screening collection: the GSK experience. Drug Discov Today 2006;11(5-6):267-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young D, Martin T, Venkatapathy R, Harten P. Are the chemical structures in your QSAR correct?. QSAR Comb Sci 2008;27(11-12):1337-45
   Google Scholar
• Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A. Trust, But verify: on the importance of chemical structure curation in cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50(7):1189-204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Westen GJP, Wegner JK, Ijzerman AP, Proteochemometric modeling as a tool to design selective compounds and for extrapolating to novel targets. Med Chem Comm 2011;2(1):16-30
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP, Modi S, Bender A, The Challenges involved in modeling toxicity data in silico: a review. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18(9):1266-91
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikolova N, Jaworska J. Approaches to measure chemical similarity – a review. QSAR Comb Sci 2003;22(9-10):1006-26
   Google Scholar
• Maggiora GM. On outliers and activity cliffs–why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model 2006;46(4):1535
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wassermann AM, Bajorath JR. Chemical substitutions that introduce activity cliffs across different compound classes and biological targets. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50(7):1248-56
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung CS, Leung SSF, Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL. Methyl effects on protein–ligand binding. J Med Chem 2012;55(9):4489-500
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stepan AF, Walker DP, Bauman J, Structural alert/reactive metabolite concept as applied in medicinal chemistry to mitigate the risk of idiosyncratic drug toxicity: a perspective based on the critical examination of trends in the top 200 drugs marketed in the united states. Chem Res Toxicol 2011;24(9):1345-410
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson P, Bravi G, Modi S, Lowe D. ADMET rules of thumb II: a comparison of the effects of common substituents on a range of ADMET parameters. Bioorgan Med Chem 2009;17(16):5906-19
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J Med Chem 2008;51(4):817-34
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy K, Mitra I. On various metrics used for validation of predictive QSAR models with applications in virtual screening and focused library design. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2011;14(6):450-74
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tropsha A. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inform 2010;29(6-7):476-88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feher M, Ewing T. Global or local QSAR: is there a way out?. QSAR Comb Sci 2009;28(8):850-5
   Google Scholar
• Wood DJ, Buttar D, Cumming JG, Automated QSAR with a hierarchy of global and local models. Mol Inform 2011;30(11-12):960-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stouch TR, Kenyon JR, Johnson SR, In silico ADME/Tox: why models fail. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2003;17(2-4):83-92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seifert MHJ, Wolf K, Vitt D. Virtual high-throughput in silico screening. BIOSILICO 2003;1(4):143-9
   Google Scholar
• Kirchmair J, Williamson MJ, Tyzack JD, Computational prediction of metabolism: sites, products, SAR, P450 enzyme dynamics, and mechanisms. J Chem Inf Model 2012;52(3):617-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue L, Bajorath J. Molecular descriptors in chemoinformatics, computational combinatorial chemistry, and virtual screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2000;3:363-72
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leach AR. Molecular modelling. Principles and applications. Longman limited; Harlow: 1996
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone DJ. The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. a survey. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999;40(2):195-209
   Google Scholar
• Senese CL, Duca J, Pan D, 4D-fingerprints, universal QSAR and QSPR descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44(5):1526-39
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Clark DE. Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood-brain barrier penetration. J Pharm Sci 1999;88(8):815-21
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem 2002;45(12):2615-23
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seelig A. A general pattern for substrate recognition by P-glycoprotein. Eur J Biochem 1998;251(1-2):252-61
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lewis D. Structural determinants of cytochrome P450 substrate specificity, binding affinity and catalytic rate. Chem Biol Interact 1998;115:175-99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Fujita T. p-σ-π Analysis. A Method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc 1964;86(8):1616-26
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo F, Gifford E, Shalaeva MY. In silico ADME prediction: data, models, facts and myths. Mini Rev Med Chem 2003;3(8):861-75
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansch C, Leo A, Mekapati SB, Kurup A. QSAR and ADME. Bioorg Med Chem 2004;12(12):3391-400
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chohan KK, Paine SW, Waters NJ. Advancements in predictive in silico models for ADME. Curr Chem Biol 2008;2(3):215-28
   Google Scholar
• Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK. The Importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb Sci 2003;22:69-77
   Google Scholar
• Gramatica P. Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb Sci 2007;26:694-701
   Google Scholar
• Roy K, Mitra I, Kar S, Comparative studies on some metrics for external validation of QSPR models. J Chem Inf Model 2012;52(2):396-408
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodgers SL, Davis AM, van de Waterbeemd H. Time-series QSAR analysis of human plasma protein binding data. QSAR Comb Sci 2007;26(4):511-21
   Google Scholar
• Baldi P, Brunak S, Chauvin Y, Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 2000;16(5):412-24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis AM, Keeling DJ, Steele J, Components of successful lead generation. Curr Top Med Chem 2005;5(4):421-39
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagorce D, Sperandio O, Galons H, FAF-Drugs2: free ADME/tox filtering tool to assist drug discovery and chemical biology projects. BMC Bioinformatics 2008;9(1):396
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van de Waterbeemd H, Gifford E. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2(3):192-204
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norinder U, Bergstrom CA. Prediction of ADMET Properties. ChemMedChem 2006;1(9):920-37
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gola J, Obrezanova O, Champness E, Segall M. ADMET Property prediction: the state of the art and current challenges. QSAR Comb Sci 2006;25(12):1172-80
   Google Scholar
• Wang J, Hou T. Chapter 5 recent advances on in silico ADME modeling. In: Ralph AW. editor Annual reports in computational chemistry. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Volume 5 Elsevier; 2009. p. 101-27
   Google Scholar
• Madden JC. In silico approaches for predicting ADME properties. In: Puzyn T, Leszczynski J, Cronin MT. editors Recent advances in QSAR studies. 8. Springer; Netherlands: 2010. p. 283-304
   Google Scholar
• Enoch SJ, Cronin MT. A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent DNA binding. Crit Rev Toxicol 2010;40(8):728-48
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Hannongbua S. In-silico ADME models: a general assessment of their utility in drug discovery applications. Curr Top Med Chem 2011;11(4):358-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson RA, Isin EM, Li Y, Risk assessment and mitigation strategies for reactive metabolites in drug discovery and development. Chem Biol Interact 2011;192(1-2):65-71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarcsay Á, Keseru GM. In silico site of metabolism prediction of cytochrome P450-mediated biotransformations. Expert Opin Drug Met 2011;7:299-312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piparo L, Worth AP. Review of QSAR Models and Software Tools for predicting Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity. JRC Report 2011
   Google Scholar
• Dow RL, Carpino PA, Gautreau D, Design of a potent CB1 Receptor antagonist series: potential scaffold for peripherally-targeted agents. Acs Med Chem Lett 2012;3(5):397-401
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss MM, Williamson T, Babu-Khan S, Design and preparation of a potent series of hydroxyethylamine containing β-secretase inhibitors that demonstrate robust reduction of. central β-amyloid. J Med Chem 2012. DOI: 10.1021/jm300119p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davenport AJ, Möller C, Heifetz A, Using electrophysiology and in silico three-dimensional modeling to reduce human ether-à-go-go related gene k+ channel inhibition in a histamine h3 receptor antagonist program. Assay Drug Dev Technol 2010;8(6):781-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Montanari D, Overington J. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011;10(3):197-208
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bajorath J. Progress in computational medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 2012;55(8):3593-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase?. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2010;9(4):273-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hann MM. Molecular obesity, potency and other addictions in drug discovery. Med Chem Comm 2011;2(5):349-55
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hann MM, Oprea TI. Pursuing the lead-likeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004;8(3):255-63
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, Jhoti H. A ‘Rule of Three' for fragment-based lead discovery?. Drug Discov Today 2003;8(19):876-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat Chem 2012;4(2):90-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP, Davis AM, Chohan KK, Generation of in-silico cytochrome P450 1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4 inhibition QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007;21(10-11):559-73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin YC. A bioavailability score. J Med Chem 2005;48(9):3164-70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norinder U, Haeberlein M. Computational approaches to the prediction of the blood-brain distribution. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002;54(3):291-313
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Di L, Kerns EH, Carter GT. Strategies to assess blood–brain barrier penetration. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2008;3(6):677-87
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins D. Use and value of metabolism databases. Drug Discov Today 1999;4:466-71
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Testa B, Balmat AL, Long A, Judson P. Predicting drug metabolism–an evaluation of the expert system METEOR. Chem Biodivers 2005;2(7):872-85
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalgutkar AS, Gardner I, Obach RS, A comprehensive listing of bioactivation pathways of organic functional groups. Curr Drug Metab 2005;6(3):161-225
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Cronin MT. Identification of mechanisms of toxic action for skin sensitisation using a SMARTS pattern based approach. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2008;19(5-6):555-78
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segall MD. Multi-parameter optimization: identifying high quality compounds with a balance of properties. Curr Pharm Des 2012;18(9):1292-310
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berellini G, Springer C, Waters NJ. Lombardo F. In Silico Prediction of volume of distribution in human using linear and nonlinear models on a 669 compound data set. J Med Chem 2009;52(14):4488-95
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP. Plasma protein binding affinity and its relationship to molecular structure: an in-silico analysis. J Med Chem 2007;50(1):101-12
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huuskonen J. Estimation of aqueous solubility for a diverse set of organic compounds based on molecular topology. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40(3):773-7
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hopfinger AJ, Esposito EX, Llinas A, Findings of the challenge to predict aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49(1):1-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Che J, King FJ, Zhou B, Zhou Y. Chemical and biological properties of frequent screening hits. J Chem Inf Model 2012;52(4):913-26
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scior T, Bender A, Tresadern G, Recognizing pitfalls in virtual screening: a critical review. J Chem Inf Model 2012;52(4):867-81
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekins S, Honeycutt JD, Metz JT. Evolving molecules using multi-objective optimization: applying to ADME/Tox. Drug Discov Today 2010;15(11-12):451-60
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar