Ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery: the pros and cons from a practical perspective

References

• DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avorn J. The $2.6 billion pill — methodologic and policy considerations. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1877–1879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. The cost of drug development. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1972.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lendrem DW, Lendrem BC. The development speed paradox: can increasing development speed reduce R&D productivity? Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:209–214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pammolli F, Magazzini L, Riccaboni M. The productivity crisis in pharmaceutical R&D. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:428–438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, et al. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotech. 2006;24:805–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nissink JWM, Degorce S, Page K. Lead quality. In: Holenz J, editor. Lead generation. Weinheim, Germany:Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA; 2016. p. 451–486.
   Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Montanari D, et al. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:197–208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plowright AT, Johnstone C, Kihlberg J, et al. Hypothesis driven drug design: improving quality and effectiveness of the design-make-test-analyse cycle. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17:56–62.
   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;15:451–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang S-Y. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15:444–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider G, Fechner U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:649–663.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wermuth CG, Grisoni S, Villoutreix B, et al. Application strategies for the primary structure-activity relationship exploration. In: Wermuth CG, Aldous D, Raboisson P, et al., editors. The practice of medicinal chemistry. London, Great Britain:Academic Press; 2015. p. 301–318.
   Google Scholar
• Leeson PD, St-Gallay SA. The influence of the “organizational factor” on compound quality in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:749–765.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bryan MC, Dillon B, Hamann LG, et al. Sustainable practices in medicinal chemistry: current state and future directions. J Med Chem. 2013;56:6007–6021.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lajiness MS, Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V. Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J Med Chem. 2004;47:4891–4896.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeson PD, Davis AM, Steele J. Drug-like properties: guiding principles for design – or chemical prejudice? Drug Discov Today Technol. 2004;1:189–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Abad-Zapatero C, Metz JT. Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2005;10:464–469.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shultz MD. Setting expectations in molecular optimizations: strengths and limitations of commonly used composite parameters. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2013;23:5980–5991.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;23:3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny PW, Montanari CA. Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2013;27:1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Westheimer FH. Mechanisms related to enzyme catalysis. Advances Enzymol. 1962;24:441–482.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Page MI. Entropy, binding energy, and enzymic catalysis. Angew Chem Int Edit. 1977;16:449–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews PR, Craik DJ, Martin JL. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J Med Chem. 1984;27:1648–1657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rejto PA, Verkhivker GM. Unraveling principles of lead discovery: from unfrustrated energy landscapes to novel molecular anchors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1996;93:8945–8950.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuntz I, Chen K, Sharp KA, et al. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:9997–10002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, et al. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem. 2002;45:2615–2623.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, et al. A “Rule of Three” for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov Today. 2003;8:876–877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan A, Gasteiger J. Prediction of aqueous solubility of organic compounds based on a 3D structure representation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:429–434.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hopkins AL, Groom CR, Alex A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today. 2004;9:430–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickman D, Vasavanonda S, Nequist G, et al. Estimation of serum-free 50-percent inhibitory concentrations for human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors lopinavir and ritonavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:2911–2917.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert JS, Blomberg N, Breeze AL, et al. An integrated approach to fragment-based lead generation: philosophy, strategy and case studies from Astra Zeneca’s drug discovery programmes. Curr Top Med Chem. 2007;7:1600–1629.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeson PD, Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:881–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saxty G, Woodhead SJ, Berdini V, et al. Identification of inhibitors of protein kinase B using fragment-based lead discovery. J Med Chem. 2007;50:2293–2296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladbury JE. Enthalpic efficiency and the role of thermodynamic data in drug development: possibility or a pipeline dream. Eur Pharm Rev. 2007;12:59–62.
   Google Scholar
• Gleeson MP. Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb. J Med Chem. 2008;51:817–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes JD, Blagg J, Price DA, et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2008;18:4872–4875.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds CH, Tounge BA, Bembenek SD. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J Med Chem. 2008;51:2432–2438.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J Med Chem. 2009;52:6752–6756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie TJ, Macdonald SJF. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability – are too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design? Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:1011–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orita M, Ohno K, Niimi N. Two “golden ratio” indices in fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:321–328.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis ML, Cucurull-Sanchez L. Structural pairwise comparisons of HLM stability of phenyl derivatives: introduction of the Pfizer metabolism index (PMI) and metabolism-lipophilicity efficiency (MLE). J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2009;23:97–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keserü GM, Makara GM. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:203–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nissink JWM. Simple size-independent measure of ligand efficiency. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:1617–1622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wager TT, Hou X, Verhoest PR, et al. Moving beyond rules: the development of a central nervous system multiparameter optimization (CNS MPO) approach to enable alignment of druglike properties. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2010;1:435–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braggio S, Montanari D, Rossi T, et al. Drug efficiency: a new concept to guide lead optimization programs towards the selection of better clinical candidates. Exp Op Drug Discov. 2010;5:609–618.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferenczy GG, Keserű GM. Enthalpic efficiency of ligand binding. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50:1536–1541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abad-Zapatero C, Perišić O, Wass J, et al. Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemico-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15:804–811.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young RJ, Green DVS, Luscombe CN, et al. Getting physical in drug discovery II: the impact of chromatographic hydrophobicity measurements and aromaticity. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:822–830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeson PD, St-Gallay SA, Wenlock MC. Impact of ion class and time on oral drug molecular properties. Med Chem Commun. 2011;2:91–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds CH, Holloway MK. Thermodynamics of ligand binding and efficiency. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2011;2:433–437.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mortenson PN, Murray CW. Assessing the lipophilicity of fragments and early hits. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2011;25:663–667.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holdgate GA, Gill AL. Kinetic efficiency: the missing metric for enhancing compound quality? Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:910–913.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, et al. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat Chem. 2012;4:90–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yusof I, Segall MD. Considering the impact drug-like properties have on the chance of success. Drug Discov Today. 2013;18:659–666.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stepan AF, Kauffman GW, Keefer CE, et al. Evaluating the differences in cycloalkyl ether metabolism using the design parameter “lipophilic metabolism efficiency” (LipMetE) and a matched molecular pairs analysis. J Med Chem. 2013;56:6985–6990.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yusof I, Shah F, Hashimoto T, et al. Finding the rules for successful drug optimisation. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:680–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins AL, Keserü GM, Leeson PD, et al. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:105–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pettersson M, Hou X, Kuhn M, et al. Quantitative assessment of the impact of fluorine substitution on P-glycoprotein (P-Gp) mediated efflux, permeability, lipophilicity, and metabolic stability. J Med Chem. 2016;59:5284–5296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton P, Riley RJ. A new paradigm for navigating compound property related drug attrition. Drug Discov Today. 2016;21:72–81.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Auberson YP, Briard E, Sykes D, et al. Ligand specific efficiency (LSE) index for PET tracer optimization. ChemMedChem. 2016;11:1415–1427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page MI, Jencks WP. Entropic contributions to rate accelerations in enzymic and intramolecular reactions and the chelate effect. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1971;68:1678–1683.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jencks WP. On the attribution and additivity of binding energies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1981;78:4046–4050.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murray CW, Verdonk ML. The consequences of translational and rotational entropy lost by small molecules on binding to proteins. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2002;16:741–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrews P. Functional groups, drug-receptor interactions and drug design. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 1986;7:148–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, et al. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001;41:1308–1315.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lamanna C, Bellini M, Padova A, et al. Straightforward recursive partitioning model for discarding insoluble compounds in the drug discovery process. J Med Chem. 2008;51:2891–2897.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Wright M, Hop CECA. Rational use of plasma protein and tissue binding data in drug design. J Med Chem. 2014;57:8238–8248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palm K, Stenberg P, Luthman K, et al. Polar molecular surface properties predict the intestinal absorption of drugs in humans. Pharma Res. 1997;14:568–571.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meanwell NA. Improving drug candidates by design: a focus on physicochemical properties as a means of improving compound disposition and safety. Chem Res Toxicol. 2011;24:1420–1456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny PW, Leitão A, Montanari CA. Ligand efficiency metrics considered harmful. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2014;28:699–710.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abad-Zapatero C, Champness EJ, Segall MD. Alternative variables in drug discovery: promises and challenges. Future Med Chem. 2014;6:577–593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valko K, Chiarparin E, Nunhuck S, et al. In vitro measurement of drug efficiency index to aid early lead optimization. J Phar Sci. 2012;101:4155–4169.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geschwindner S, Ulander J, Johansson P. Ligand binding thermodynamics in drug discovery: still a hot tip? J Med Chem. 2015;58:6321–6335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shultz MD. The thermodynamic basis for the use of lipophilic efficiency (LipE) in enthalpic optimizations. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2013;23:5992–6000.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bissantz C, Kuhn B, Stahl M. A medicinal chemist’s guide to molecular interactions. J Med Chem. 2010;53:5061–5084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meanwell NA. Improving drug design: an update on recent applications of efficiency metrics, strategies for replacing problematic elements, and compounds in nontraditional drug space. Chem Res Toxicol. 2016;29:564–616.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Sosa AT, Maran U, Hetényi C. Molecular property filters describing pharmacokinetics and drug binding. Curr Med Chem. 2012;19:1646–1662.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie TJ, Ertl P, Lewis R. The graphical representation of ADME-related molecule properties for medicinal chemists. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:65–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson AT. A prospective method to guide small molecule drug design. J Chem Educ. 2015;92:836–842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gualdani R, Cavalluzzi MM, Lentini G. Recent trends in the discovery of small molecule blockers of sodium channels. Curr Med Chem. 2016;23:2289–2332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin EJ, Blaney JM, Siani MA, et al. Measuring diversity: experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Med Chem. 1995;38:1431–1436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolpak J, Connolly PJ, Lobanov VS, et al. Enhanced SAR maps: expanding the data rendering capabilities of a popular medicinal chemistry tool. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:2221–2230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandagere AK, Thompson TN, Hwang K-K. Graphical model for estimating oral bioavailability of drugs in humans and other species from their Caco-2 permeability and in vitro liver enzyme metabolic stability rates. J Med Chem. 2002;45:304–311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson TW, Dress KR, Edwards M. Using the golden triangle to optimize clearance and oral absorption. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2009;19:5560–5564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan WJ, Merz KM, Baldwin JJ. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J Med Chem. 2000;43:3867–3877.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lobell M, Hendrix M, Hinzen B, et al. In silico ADMET traffic lights as a tool for the prioritization of HTS hits. ChemMedChem. 2006;1:1229–1236.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen RD. FACES (features associated with chemical entities): II. Hydrocarbon isomers and their graphs. J Chem Educ. 1986;63:1067–1068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeson PD, Davis AM. Time-related differences in the physical property profiles of oral drugs. J Med Chem. 2004;47:6338–6348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lounkine E, Wawer M, Wassermann AM, et al. SARANEA: a freely available program to mine structure–activity and structure–selectivity relationship information in compound data sets. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50:68–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gualdani R, Cavalluzzi MM, Lentini G, et al. The chemistry and pharmacology of citrus limonoids. Molecules. 2016;21:11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oprea TI, Chemography: GJ. The art of navigating in chemical space. J Comb Chem. 2001;3:157–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bembenek SD, Tounge BA, Reynolds CH. Ligand efficiency and fragment-based drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:278–283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb P, Kipouros CB, Huang D, et al. Structure-based tailoring of compound libraries for high-throughput screening: discovery of novel EphB4 kinase inhibitors. Proteins. 2008;73:11–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao H, Dong J, Lafleur K, et al. Discovery of a novel chemotype of tyrosine kinase inhibitors by fragment-based docking and molecular dynamics. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2012;3:834–838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xu M, Unzue A, Dong J, et al. Discovery of CREBBP bromodomain inhibitors by high-throughput docking and hit optimization guided by molecular dynamics. J Med Chem. 2016;59:1340–1349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung AW, Silvestre HL, Wen S, et al. Optimization of inhibitors of Mycobacterium tberculosis pantothenate synthetase based on group efficiency analysis. ChemMedChem. 2016;11:38–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hung AW, Silvestre HL, Wen S, et al. Application of fragment growing and fragment linking to the discovery of inhibitors of Mycobacterium tuberculosis pantothenate synthetase. Angew Chem Int Ed Eng. 2009;48:8452–8456.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lovering F. Escape from flatland 2: complexity and promiscuity. Med Chem Commun. 2013;4:515–519.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao Z, Harrison ST, Schubert JW, et al. Synthesis and optimization of N-heterocyclic pyridinones as catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2016;26:2952–2956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tunbridge EM, Bannerman DM, Sharp T, et al. Catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibition improves set-shifting performance and elevates stimulated dopamine release in the rat prefrontal cortex. J Neurosci. 2004;24:5331–5335.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie TJ, Macdonald SJF, Young RJ, et al. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability: further insights by examining carbo- and hetero-aromatic and -aliphatic ring types. Drug Discov Today. 2011;16:164–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patil ST, Zhang L, Lowe SL, et al. Activation of mGlu2/3 receptors as a new approach to treat schizophrenia: a randomized phase 2 clinical trial. Nat Med. 2007;9:1102–1107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pero JE, Rossi MA, Kelly MJ, et al. Optimization of novel aza-benzimidazolone mGluR2 PAMs with Respect to LLE and PK properties and mitigation of CYP TDI. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2016;7:312–317.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garbaccio RM, Brnardic EJ, Fraley ME, et al. Discovery of oxazolobenzimidazoles as positive modulators of the mGluR2 receptor. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2010;1:406−410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rorick-Kehn LM, Johnson BG, Knitowski KM, et al. In vivo pharmacological characterization of the structurally novel, potent, selective mGlu2/3 receptor agonist LY404039 in animal models of psychiatric disorders. Psychopharmacology. 2007;193:121−136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Izumiya Y, Kim S, Izumi Y, et al. Apoptosis signal-regulating kinase 1 plays a pivotal role in angiotensin II–induced cardiac hypertrophy and remodeling. Circ Res. 2003;93:874−883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lanier M, Pickens J, Bigi SV, et al. Structure-based design of ASK1 inhibitors as potential agents for heart failure. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2017;8:316–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraglia M, Franchini C, Corbo F, et al. Synthesis of beta-proline like derivatives and their evaluation as sodium channel blockers. J Heterocyclic Chem. 2007;44:1099–1103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Luca A, De Bellis M, Corbo F, et al. Searching for novel anti-myotonic agents: pharmacophore requirement for use-dependent block of skeletal muscle sodium channels by N-benzylated cyclic derivatives of tocainide. Neuromuscolar Disord. 2012;22:56–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muraglia M, De Bellis M, Catalano A, et al. N-Aryl-2,6-dimethylbenzamides, a new generation of tocainide analogues as blockers of skeletal muscle voltage-gated sodium channels. J Med Chem. 2014;57:2589−2600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Bellis M, Carbonara R, Roussel J, et al. Increased sodium channel use-dependent inhibition by a new potent analogue of tocainide greatly enhances in vivo antimyotonic activity. Neuropharmacology. 2017;113(Part A):206–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolotti O, Giangreco I, Miscioscia TF, et al. Improving quantitative structure-activity relationships through multiobjective optimization. J Chem Inf Mod. 2009;49:2290–2302.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolotti O, Miscioscia TF, Carotti A, et al. An integrated approach to ligand- and structure-based drug design: development and application to a series of serine protease inhibitors. J Chem Inf Mod. 2008;48:1211–1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trisciuzzi D, Alberga D, Mansouri K, et al. Docking-based classification models for exploratory toxicology studies on high-quality estrogenic experimental data. Fut Med Chem. 2015;7:1921–1936.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansouri K, Abdelaziz A, Rybacka A, et al. CERAPP: collaborative estrogen receptor activity prediction project. Env Health Persp. 2016;124:1023–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolotti O, Benfenati E, Carotti A, et al. REACH and in silico methods: an attractive opportunity for medicinal chemists. Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:1757–1768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewing TJA, Kuntz ID. Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. J Comput Chem. 1997;18:1175–1189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006;49:6789–6801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Sosa AT, Hetényi C, Maran U. Drug efficiency indices for improvement of molecular docking scoring functions. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:174–184.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• García-Sosa AT, Sild S, Takkis K, et al. Combined approach using ligand efficiency, cross-docking, and antitarget hits for wild-type and drug-resistant Y181C HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51:2595–2611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chollet A, Mori G, Menendez C, et al. Design, synthesis and evaluation of new GEQ derivatives as inhibitors of InhA enzyme and Mycobacterium tuberculosis growth. Eur J Med Chem. 2015;101:218–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viira B, Selyutina A, García-Sosa A, et al. Design, discovery, modelling, synthesis, and biological evaluation of novel and small, low toxicity s-triazine derivatives as HIV-1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem. 2016;24:2519–2529.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abad-Zapatero CA. Sorcerer’s apprentice and the rule of five: from rule-of-thumb to commandment and beyond. Drug Discov Today. 2007;12:995–997.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wipke WT, Rogers D. Artificial intelligence in organic synthesis. SST: starting material selection strategies. An application of superstructure search. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1984;24:71–81.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lipinski CA. Molecular informatics: confronting complexity. Bozen, Italy: Beilstein-Institut; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Lipinski CA. Overview of hit to lead: the medicinal chemist’s role from HTS retest to lead optimisation hand off. Top Med Chem. 2009;5:1–24.
   Google Scholar
• Al-Nadaf A, Sheikha GA, Taha MO. Elaborate ligand-based pharmacophore exploration and QSAR analysis guide the synthesis of novel pyridinium-based potent β-secretase inhibitory leads. Bioorg Med Chem. 2010;18:3088–3115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortes-Ciriano I. Benchmarking the predictive power of ligand efficiency indices in QSAR. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56:1576–1587.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zalloum H, Tayyem R, Irmaileh BA, et al. Discovery of new human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) inhibitors for potential use as anticancer agents via ligand-based pharmacophore modeling. J Mol Graph Model. 2015;61:61–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugaya N. Training based on ligand efficiency improves prediction of bioactivities of ligands and drug target proteins in a machine learning approach. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53:2525–2537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugaya N. Ligand efficiency-based support vector regression models for predicting bioactivities of ligands to drug target proteins. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54:2751–2763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mannhold R, Poda GI, Ostermann C, et al. Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: state-of-the-art and comparison of logP methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J Pharmac Sci. 2009;98:861–893.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink T, Bruggesser H, Reymond J-L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2005;44:1504–1508.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fink T, Reymond J-L. Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C, N, O, F: assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ring systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47:342–353.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shultz MD. Improving the plausibility of success with inefficient metrics. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2014;5:2–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schultes S, De Graaf C, Haaksma EEJ, et al. Ligand efficiency as a guide in fragment hit selection and optimization. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2010;7:e157–e162.
   Google Scholar
• Hajduk PJ. Fragment-based drug design: how big is too big? J Med Chem. 2006;49:6972–6976.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung CS, Leung SSF, Tirado-Rives J, et al. Methyl effects on protein–ligand binding. J Med Chem. 2012;55:4489–4500.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgs C, Beuming T, Sherman W. Hydration site thermodynamics explain SARs for triazolylpurines analogues binding to the A2A receptor. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2010;1:160–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Degennaro L, Zenzola M, Laurino A, et al. 2-Arylazetidines as ligands for nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Chem Heterocycl Comp. 2017;53:329–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kell DB. Finding novel pharmaceuticals in the systems biology era using multiple effective drug targets, phenotypic screening and knowledge of transporters: where drug discovery went wrong and how to fix it. Febs J. 2013;280:5957–5980.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung RT, Baumert TF. Curing chronic hepatitis C - the arc of a medical triumph. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1576−1578.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guo W, Wisniewski JA, Ji H. Hot spot-based design of small-molecule inhibitors for protein–protein interactions. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014;24:2546–2554.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolotti O, Gillet VJ, Fleming PJ, et al. Multiobjective optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationships: deriving accurate and interpretable QSARs. J Med Chem. 2002;45:5069–5080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicolotti O, Giangreco I, Introcaso A, et al. Strategies of multi-objective optimization in drug discovery and development. Exp Opin Drug Discov. 2011;6:871–884.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4:682–690.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atanasov AG, Waltenberger B, Pferschy-Wenzig E-M, et al. Discovery and resupply of pharmacologically active plant-derived natural products: a review. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33:1582–1614.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tropsha A. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inf. 2010;29:476–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan RP. Debunking the idea that ligand efficiency indices are superior to pIC50 as QSAR activities. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56:2253–2262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar