Registration for a live webinar on 'Precision medicine treatment for anticancer drug resistance' is now open.
See webinar detailsWe noted you are experiencing viewing problems
-
Check with your IT department that JWPlatform, JWPlayer and Amazon AWS & CloudFront are not being blocked by your network. The relevant domains are *.jwplatform.com, *.jwpsrv.com, *.jwpcdn.com, jwpltx.com, jwpsrv.a.ssl.fastly.net, *.amazonaws.com and *.cloudfront.net. The relevant ports are 80 and 443.
-
Check the following talk links to see which ones work correctly:
Auto Mode
HTTP Progressive Download Send us your results from the above test links at access@hstalks.com and we will contact you with further advice on troubleshooting your viewing problems. -
No luck yet? More tips for troubleshooting viewing issues
-
Contact HST Support access@hstalks.com
-
Please review our troubleshooting guide for tips and advice on resolving your viewing problems.
-
For additional help, please don't hesitate to contact HST support access@hstalks.com
We hope you have enjoyed this limited-length demo
This is a limited length demo talk; you may
login or
review methods of
obtaining more access.
- An Overview of Drug Discovery and Development
-
1. Rules and filters and their impact on success in chemical biology and drug discovery
- Dr. Christopher Lipinski
-
2. Where did drugs come from?
- Dr. David Swinney
- Target Selection in Early Stage Drug Discovery
-
3. G-Protein coupled receptors in drug discovery
- Dr. Mark Wigglesworth
-
4. Enzymology in drug discovery 1
- Prof. Robert Copeland
-
5. Enzymology in drug discovery 2
- Prof. Robert Copeland
-
6. Inhibiting protein-protein interactions 1
- Dr. Adrian Whitty
-
7. Inhibiting protein-protein interactions 2
- Dr. Adrian Whitty
- Key Drug Discovery Challenges in Major Therapeutic Areas
-
8. Current trends in antiviral drug development
- Prof. Dr. Erik De Clercq
-
9. The challenge of developing drugs for neglected parasitic diseases
- Prof. James Mckerrow
-
10. Is there a role for academia in drug discovery
- Dr. Adrian J. Ivinson
-
11. Key drug discovery challenges in cardiovascular medicine
- Dr. Dan Swerdlow
- Dr. Michael V. Holmes
- Methods of Hit Identification
-
12. Fragment-based lead discovery
- Dr. Daniel A. Erlanson
- Medicinal Chemistry and SAR
-
13. Hit to lead
- Dr. Michael Rafferty
-
14. Prodrug strategies to overcome problems in drug therapy
- Prof. Jarkko Rautio
-
15. Deep ocean microorganisms yield mechanistically-novel anticancer agents
- Prof. William Fenical
- From Lead to Drug
-
16. Biomarkers in drug development: potential use and challenges
- Dr. Abdel-Bassett Halim
- Case Studies in Drug Discovery
-
17. Current concepts for the management of patients with osteoporosis
- Dr. Michael Lewiecki
-
19. Teixobactin kills pathogens without detectable resistance
- Prof. Kim Lewis
-
20. Discovery of schizophrenia drug targets from DISC1 mechanisms
- Prof. Atsushi Kamiya
- Archived Lectures *These may not cover the latest advances in the field
-
21. CNS-drug design
- Prof. Quentin Smith
-
22. Imatinib as a paradigm of targeted cancer therapies
- Prof. Brian Druker
-
23. New and emerging treatments for osteoporosis
- Dr. Michael Lewiecki
-
24. Prodrugs and drug delivery
- Prof. Jarkko Rautio
Printable Handouts
Navigable Slide Index
- Introduction
- Outline
- Drivers for discovery changes
- Death Valley, California
- Translational valley of death
- Death valley, politically correct causes?
- Death Valley, politically incorrect causes?
- Why the academic target problem
- From NRDD
- Has drug discovery gone wrong? (1)
- Genomics – Chemistry parallel
- Genomics / HTS science madness
- Genomics financial madness
- Typical target-based drug discovery
- The real picture of target-based drug discovery
- 50 years of medicinal chemistry
- Attrition rates by phase
- Nanomolar is not necessary
- Phenotypic screening advantage
- Medicinal chemistry and screens
- Chemistry novelty is harmful
- Academic versus corporate patents
- Medicinal chemistry and IP issues
- Has drug discovery gone wrong? (2)
- Drugs under active development
- Top 15 therapeutic areas by patenting 2012
- Therapeutic areas by active preclinical products
- The usual attrition question
- Changing the attrition question
- Indicators of a successful drug (1)
- Indicators of a successful drug (2)
- Can you beat the “rule of 5”?
- Rules and common sense
- Protein-protein ligand garbage
- BCL-2 inhibitor compound in phase II
- Why is ABT-263 orally active???
- Medchem - Drug Met / Pharmsci
- The worst way to discover a drug
- Sparse activity in chemistry scaffold space
- Sparse oral activity in property space
- Biologically active medicinal chemistry space
- Chemistry space issues
- Literature profile to avoid
- Horrible chemistry
- Incomprehensible chemistry
- Chemistry pattern recognition
- The amygdala and emotional memory
- Drug structure networks & biology networks
- Chemistry drug class network
- Network comparison conclusions
- What is going on?
- Network comparisons – meaning?
- Hit / Lead implications
- Medicinal chemistry annotation
- Medicinal chemistry - Chemical biology dialogue
- Chemical basis of the dialogue
- Ligand efficiency vs. IC50
- Binding comes from two sources
- PP2 non selective c-SRC inhibitor
- Compound 4
- Compd 4 vs. PP2
- Relationship of selectivity and ligand efficiency
- Kinase selectivity database
- Kinase inhibitors sorted by selectivity
- Implications
- Conclusion
Topics Covered
- Academic targets and the translational gap
- Chemistry & attrition (Reductionism, genomics and high throughput screening)
- Screening diverse compounds (advantages and disadvantages)
- Medicinal chemistry (A pattern recognition discipline)
- Biology and chemistry networks analysis
- Ligand efficiency and selectivity
Talk Citation
Lipinski, C. (2014, April 2). Rules and filters and their impact on success in chemical biology and drug discovery [Video file]. In The Biomedical & Life Sciences Collection, Henry Stewart Talks. Retrieved December 27, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.69645/HDHI8690.Export Citation (RIS)
Publication History
Financial Disclosures
- Dr. Christopher Lipinski has not informed HSTalks of any commercial/financial relationship that it is appropriate to disclose.
A selection of talks on Methods
Transcript
Please wait while the transcript is being prepared...
0:00
Hello.
My name is Chris Lipinski.
And I'm currently a scientific
adviser to Melior Discovery.
Melior Discovery is a
little start-up company
that's located in Pennsylvania.
The offices and vivarium
are in Pennsylvania.
I actually work out of my home
office, in Waterford, Connecticut.
And the title of today's talk is,
Rules and Filters and Their Impact
on Success in Chemical
Biology and Drug Discovery.
0:32
The second slide is an
outline of the topics
I'd like to cover in this talk.
It essentially
consists of two parts.
The first part, I'll be
talking about academic targets
and the translational gap.
I'll talk about
chemistry and nutrition,
how it's getting worse with time.
And reductionism, genomics,
HTS, are they to blame?
And in this first
half, some comments
about screening diverse compounds.
And an important point is that
screening diverse compounds
really is the worst
way to discover a drug.
In the second part of the talk, I'll
become a little bit more detailed,
talking about what is
a medicinal chemist?
I'll try to get the point
across that I firmly believe
that medicinal chemistry is a
pattern recognition discipline.
I'll go on to some
discussion of biology
and chemistry networks analysis.
And then I'll finish
up with some comments
about ligand efficiency
and selectivity.
1:34
I'll be talking about drivers
for discovery changes.
So we all know that
there's a problem in terms
of productivity in the
drug discovery process.
And it's helpful to try to
analyze where the problems occur,
especially in the
early discovery phase.
And so one can consider
the issue of attrition.
So the loss of compounds
in sort of three buckets.
So the chemistry bucket, a safety
bucket, and an efficacy bucket.
Now the chemistry bucket is
everything about a compound that
might become a drug
potentially, that
can be predicted just from
the chemistry structure alone.
And that's the bucket
where, a priori,
we have the best success rate at
predicting which are going to be
the good compounds, and which
are going to be the compounds
that we probably want
to stay away from.
And this is the area where rules
and filters come into play.
For example, rules and filters
having to do with physical chemical
properties, or structural
features in a compound
that we might want
to stay away from.
And, overall, we're quite
successful with that.
2/3 of the time,
approximately, we can a priori
predict this is going to
be a good compound, or not
such a good compound.
Now the caveat here is
that the predictivity,
the ADME predictivity-- so
that's absorption, distribution,
metabolism, excretion-- that's
what ADME acronym stands for.
It gets worse as the
compounds lie further
and further outside a RO5 space.
So this 2/3 success rate
is for the-- let's call
it the traditional compounds with
good physical chemical properties.
If you're very, very
high in molecular weight,
or very, very high in
lipophilicity or extremely polar,
then the chemistry
predictivity drops off markedly.
Now in a safety bucket, it's still
reasonable, not quite as good
as the chemistry bucket.
But the safety bucket
is everything that
can go wrong in, say pre-clinical,
in vitro assays or animal toxicity,
and even reaching
into the clinic phase.
And one reason why we're
relatively good at this
is that we have quite a good handle
on the major target organ toxicity.
So for example, we have
a lot of experience,
and we know a lot about
pre-clinical assays and animal
tests for hepatotoxicity
and renal toxicity.
And those would be the two
most common causes of toxicity.
Now where you run into a problem,
is if you have toxicity in some area
where either the experience
internally or the literature
precedent is not very good.
And that's why it's
only at about 50%.
Now the area that really
contributes to loss of compounds
in the discovery
process is efficacy.
And of course, we only
find out about efficacy,
once we get into the clinical
phase, usually Phase 2B.
And this is atrocious.
It's not better than 10%.
And in some areas, it's
a lot of worse than 10%.
And this is where the majority
of compounds are lost.
And this issue of inability
to predict clinical efficacy,
reliably, really is
not getting any better.
And so, it is such a bad situation
that it really has, for example,
senior executives in drug
discovery tearing their hair out.
How are they going to handle it?
And so what has happened is, one
solution that's in play right now
is to tackle efficacy using
academic collaborations.
So the idea is, we probably
will have the greatest success
in clinical efficacy,
if we work in an area
where our biology knowledge
is rich, where we know
as much about the target as
possible, potential target, as much
about the disease as possible.
Well, where are we going
to find those people?
Well, you're going to find them in
academia, because they're supported
in the US by the National
Institutes of Health.
And so, in that sense, having
very close collaborations
with academic, primarily biology
experts, is a real advantage.
And the alternatives, really in
theory, there are alternatives.
But in practice, there aren't.
So for example, many people
believe that systems biology,
the knowledge of how signaling
networks actually exist in a human,
in a disease, if we really
understood that, then we could
rationally, for example,
choose targets and have
a much higher
probability of efficacy.
But despite, you know, now
multiple decades of work,
it's a very, very complex problem.
And we're really not there yet.
So this bottom line of academic
collaborations, many people
believe that target quality is
most likely from rich biology.
And that really means
collaborations, either
with the academics, or potentially
with a small biotech start-up that
has some-- maybe it's a spin
out from an academic profession.
Hide