Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Can we really do computer-aided drug design?

  • Perspective
  • Published:
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article, we discuss what we mean by ‘design’ and contrast this with the application of computational methods in drug discovery. We suggest that the predictivity of the computational models currently applied in drug discovery is not yet sufficient to permit a true design paradigm, as demonstrated by the large number of compounds that must currently be synthesised and tested to identify a successful drug. However, despite the uncertainties in predictions, computational methods have enormous potential value in narrowing the range of compounds to consider, by eliminating those that have negligible chance of being a successful drug, while focussing efforts on chemistries with the best likelihood of success. Applied appropriately, computational approaches can support decision-makers in achieving multi-parameter optimisation to guide the selection and design of compounds with the best chance of achieving an appropriate balance of properties for a drug discovery project’s objectives. Finally, we consider some approaches that may contribute over the next 25 years to improve the accuracy and transferability of computational models in drug discovery and move towards a genuine design process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Beresford AP, Selick HE, Tarbit MH (2002) The emerging importance of predictive ADME simulation in drug discovery. Dug Discov Today 7:109–116

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Oprea TI (2002) Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? J Comput Aided Mol Des 16:325–334

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Paul S, Mytelka D, Dunwiddie D, Persinger C, Munos B, Lindborg S, Schacht A (2010) How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:203–214

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ekins S, Mestres J, Testa B (2007) In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling. Br J Pharmacol 152:9–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bender A, Glen RC (2005) A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication. J Chem Inf Model 45:1369–1375

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kroemer RT (2007) Structure-based drug design: docking and scoring. Curr Protein Pept Sci 8:312–328

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Dearden JC (2006) In silico prediction of aqueous solubility. Expt Opin Drug Discov 1:31–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Segall MD (2008) Why is it still drug discovery? Eur Biopharmaceut Rev. May

  9. Weaver S, Gleeson NP (2008) The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graph Model 26:1315–1326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Chadwick AT, Segall MD (2010) Overcoming psychological barriers to good discovery decisions. Drug Discov Today 15:561–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ekins S, Boulanger B, Swaan P, Hupcey M (2001) Towards a new age of virtual ADME/TOX and multidimensional drug discovery. J Comp Aided Mol Design 16:381–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Segall MD (2011) Multi-parameter optimization: identifying high quality compounds with a balance of properties. Curr Pharm Des (in press)

  13. Svetink V, Liaw A, Tong C, Culberson J, Sheridan R, Feutson B (2003) Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43:1947–1958

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Doucet JPBF, Xia H, Panaye A, Fan B (2007) Nonlinear SVM approaches to QSPR/QSAR studies and drug design. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 3:263–289

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Devillers J (1996) Neural networks in QSAR and drug design (Principles of QSAR and drug design). Academic Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Obrezanova O, Csanyi G, Gola JM, Segall MD (2007) Gaussian processes: a method for automatic QSAR modelling of ADME properties. J Chem Inf Model 47:1847–1857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Bolton E, Wang Y, Thiessen P, Bryant S (2008) PubChem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities. In: Annual reports in computational chemistry, vol 4. American Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp 217–241

  18. Warr WA (2009) ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A. Warr. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:195–198

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kenny PW (2009) Hydrogen bonding, electrostatic potential, and molecular design. J Chem Inf Model 49:1234–1244

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones JP, Mysinger M, Korzekwa KR (2002) Computational models for cytochrome P450: a predictive electronic model for aromatic oxidation and hydrogen atom abstraction. Drug Metab Dispos 30:7–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Zaretzki J, Bergeron C, Rydberg P, Huang T, Bennett KP, Breneman CM (2011) RS-predictor: a new tool for predicting sites of cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism applied to CYP 3A4. J Chem Inf Model 51:1667–1689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Skylaris CK, Haynes PD, Mostofi AA, Payne MC (2005) Introducing ONETEP: linear-scaling density functional simulations. J Chem Phys 122:084119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heady L, Fernandez-Serra M, Mancera RL, Joyce S, Venkitaraman A, Artacho E, Skylaris CK, Ciacchi LC, Payne MC (2006) Novel structural features of CDK inhibition revealed by an ab initio computational method. J Med Chem 49:5141–5153

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bartok AP, Payne MC, Kondor R, Csanyi G (2010) Gaussian approximation potentials: the accuracy of quantum mechanics, without the electrons. Phys Rev Lett 104:136403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Moore GE (1965) Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics 38:114–117

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Ed Champness, Chris Leeding, Iskander Yusof and James Chisholm for helpful discussions regarding the topics in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Segall.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Segall, M. Can we really do computer-aided drug design?. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26, 121–124 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-011-9512-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-011-9512-3

Keywords