Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T03:29:49.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Computational phenotypic assessment of small molecules in drug discovery

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2016

William T. Loging
Affiliation:
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Thomas B. Freeman
Affiliation:
Capella Biosciences, Inc
William T. Loging
Affiliation:
Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York
Get access

Summary

The need for computational methods to characterize a new therapeutic compound's potential secondary pharmacology early in the drug development process is becoming increasingly important. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acceptance rate of new chemical entities (NCE) used in the treatment of human diseases has been unchanged over the past 60 years despite dramatically increasing investment in the past two decades (Munos, 2009). Multiple factors have contributed to this decrease in NCE approvals per unit investment including increased FDA standards, therapeutic approaches addressing more complex diseases, as well as issues with patient pharmacogenomic diversity.

As more small molecules are designed using combinatorial libraries and computational/structural biology methods, new and disparate forms of chemical matter are being produced for NCE consideration. These novel compounds do not have a history of associated side-effect profiles that established chemical matter have (e.g., penicillin analog). A retrospective analysis shows that nearly 30% of all new NCE failures in the year 2000 were attributed to problems with clinical toxicology, far more than any other single reason (DataMonitor, pharmaceutical report). From 2008 to 2010 there were 108 reported Phase II failures; of those reporting reasons for failure, 19% were reported due to clinical or preclinical safety issues (Arrowsmith, 2011a). At later stages in the development pipeline, combined successes in Phase III and submission have fallen to approximately 50%, with 83 failures between 2007 and 2010. Twenty-one percent of the failures across all therapeutic areas are due to safety issues (Arrowsmith, 2011b). Accordingly, while some progress has been made, it is critical that compound safety issues be addressed as early in the discovery pipeline as possible to reduce costly late-stage attrition.

The basic premise of drug toxicology is simple, but is complicated by the sheer size and complexity of the human proteome (Waring et al., 2015). Compounds, or their metabolites, that interact with the desired target protein can also bind to and alter the activity of other “off-target” proteins. Many times, these proteins can have their activity altered without significantly affecting normal human physiology. However, a protein's altered activity can lead to a change in a metabolic or signaling pathway critical to normal physiological function and hence to toxicological effects. Thus, identification of these “off-target” proteins and understanding the role they play in the human body is important.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arrowsmith, J.Trial watch: Phase II failures: 2008–2010. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2011a;10:328–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arrowsmith, J.Trial watch: Phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2011b;10:87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, N. C. and Hemminger, B. M.Mining connections between chemicals, proteins and diseases extracted from Medline annotations. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 2010;43:510–519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Birrell, M., Crispino, N., Hele, D. J., et al. Effect of dopamine receptor agonists on sensory nerve activity: Possible therapeutic targets for the treatment of asthma and COPD. British Journal of Pharmacology. 2002;136:620–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buchheit, K. H., Engel, G., Mutschler, E. and Richardson, B.Study of the contractile effect of 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) in the isolated longitudinal muscle strip from guinea-pig ileum. Evidence for two distinct release mechanisms. Naunyn Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology. 1985;329(1):36–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, S. J., Gaulton, A., Marshall, J., et al. Visualizing the drug target landscape. Drug Discovery Today. 2010;15(1–2):3–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y. and Ung, C.Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand–protein inverse docking approach. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modeling. 2001:20:199–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DataMonitor – Pharmaceutical Benchmark Report. www.datamonitor.com.
Dearden, J. C.In silico prediction of drug toxicity. Journal of Computer Aided Molecular Design. 2003;17:119–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fliri, A., Loging, W., Thadeio, P. and Volkmann, R.Biological spectra analysis: Linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 2005;102:261–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, N.Computer systems for the prediction of toxicity: An update. Advances in Drug Delivery Review. 2002;31:417–431.Google Scholar
Hillebrecht, A., Muster, W., Brigo, A., et al. Comparative evaluation of in silico systems for Ames test mutagenicity prediction: scope and limitations. Chemical Research in Toxicology. 2011;24:843–854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krejsa, C. M., Horvath, D., Rogalski, S. L., et al.Predicting ADME properties and side effects: The BioPrint approach. Current Opinion in Drug Discovery Development. 2003;6:470–480.Google ScholarPubMed
Krishna, K. A., Saryu, G. and Krishna, G.SAR genotoxicity and tumorigenicity predictions for 2-MI and 4-MI using multiple SAR software. Toxicological Mechanisms and Methods. 2014;24:284–293.Google ScholarPubMed
Leishman, D. J. and Rankovic, Z.Drug discovery vs hERG. In Tactics in Contemporary Drug Discovery (pp. 225–260), ed. Meanwell, N. A.. Berlin, Springer, 2014.Google Scholar
Lipinski, C. A. and Hopkins, A.Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature Insight. 2004;432:855–861.Google ScholarPubMed
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. and Feeney, P. J.Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 1996;23:3–25.Google Scholar
Loging, W. L., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., Hill, J., Freeman, T. and Miglietta, J.Chemoinformatic/bioinformatics analysis of large corporate databases: application to drug repurposing. Drug Discovery Today: Therapeutic Strategies. 2011;8:109–116.Google Scholar
Munos, B.Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2009; 8:959–968.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mushal, S. M., Jha, S. K., Kishore, M. P. and Tyagi, P.A simple and readily integratable approach to toxicity prediction. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. 2003;43:1673–1678.Google Scholar
Niculescu, S. P., Atkinson, A., Hammond, G. and Lewis, M. Using fragment chemistry data mining and probabilistic neural networks in screening chemicals for acute toxicity to the fathead minnow. SAR QSAR Environmental Research. 2004;15:293–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patlewicz, G. Y., Rodford, R. and Walker, J. D. Quantitative structure–activity relationships for predicting mutagenicity and carcinogenicity. Environmental and Toxicological Chemistry. 2003;22:1885–1893.Google ScholarPubMed
Patlewicz, G. Y., Basketter, D. A., Pease, C. K., et al. Further evaluation of quantitative structure–activity relationship models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potency of selected fragrance allergens. Contact Dermatitis. 2004;50:91–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanderson, D. and Earnshaw, C.Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; The DEREK system. Human Experimental Toxicology. 1991;10:261–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schuffenhauer, A. and Jacoby, E.Annotating and mining the ligand–target chemogenomics knowledge space. Drug Discovery Today: BioSilico. 2004;2:190–200.Google Scholar
Senese, C. L., Duca, J., Pan, D., Hopfinger, A. J. and Tseng, Y. J.4D-Fingerprints, universal QSAR and QSPR descriptors. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. 2004;27:1526–1539.Google Scholar
Snyder, R. D., Pearl, G. S., Mandakas, G., et al. Assessment of the sensitivity of the computational programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the prediction of the genotoxicity of pharmaceutical molecules. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis. 2004;43:143–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomas, D., Karle, C. A. and Kiehn, J.Modulation of HERG potassium channel function by drug action. Annals of Medicine. 2004;36: 41–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Consolidated List of Products Whose Consumption and/or Sale Have Been Banned, Withdrawn, Severely Restricted or not Approved by Governments 8th Issue (2003).
Villoutreix, B. O. and Taboureau, O.Computational investigations of hERG channel blockers: new insights and current predictive models. Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews. 2015;68:72–82.Google Scholar
Waring, M. J., Arrowsmith, J., Leach, A. R., et al. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2015;14:475–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weinstein, J. N.Linking drugs and genes: Pharmacogenomics, pharmacoproteomics, bioinformatics, and the NCI-60. In Oncogenomics: Molecular Approaches to Cancer, ed. Brenner, C. and Duggan, D.. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005.Google Scholar
White, A. C., Mueller, R. A., Gallavan, R. H., Aaron, S. and Wilson, A. G.A multiple in silico program approach for the prediction of mutagenicity from chemical structure. Mutation Research. 2003;5:77–89.Google Scholar
Willett, P., Barnard, J. and Downs, G.Chemical similarity searching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computing Science. 1998;38:983–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×