Abstract
The application of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs) has significantly impacted the paradigm of drug discovery. Following the successful utilization of linear solvation free-energy relationships (LSERs), numerous 2D- and 3D-QSAR methods have been developed, most of them based on descriptors for hydrophobicity, polarizability, ionic interactions, and hydrogen bonding. QSAR models allow for the calculation of physicochemical properties (e.g., lipophilicity), the prediction of biological activity (or toxicity), as well as the evaluation of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME). In pharmaceutical research, QSAR has a particular interest in the preclinical stages of drug discovery to replace tedious and costly experimentation, to filter large chemical databases, and to select drug candidates. However, to be part of drug discovery and development strategies, QSARs need to meet different criteria (e.g., sufficient predictivity). This chapter describes the foundation of modern QSAR in drug discovery and presents some current challenges and applications for the discovery and optimization of drug candidates
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Selassie CD (2003) History of quantitative structure-activity relationships. In: Abraham DJ (ed) Burger’s medicinal chemistry and drug discovery, 6th edn. Wiley, New York
Drayer JI, Burns JP (1995) From discovery to market: the development of pharmaceuticals. In: Wolff ME (ed) Burger’s medicinal chemistry and drug discovery, 5th edn. Willey, New York
Lesko LJ, Rowland M, Peck CC et al. (2000) Optimizing the science of drug development: Opportunities for better candidate selection and accelerated evaluation in humans. Eur J Pharm Sci 10:9–14
DiMasi JA (1995) Success rates for new drugs entering clinical testing in the United States. Clin Pharmacol Ther 58:1–14
Kennedy T (1997) Managing the drug discovery/development interface. Drug Disc Today 2:436–444
Wenlock MC, Austin RP, Barton P et al. (2003) A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J Med Chem 46:1250–1256
Lin JH, Lu AYH (1997) Role of pharmacokinetics and metabolism in drug discovery and development. Pharmacol Rev 49:403–449
Cruciani G, Crivori P, Carrupt P-A et al. (2000) Molecular fields in quantitative structure permeation relationships: the VolSurf approach. J Mol Struct: THEOCHEM 503:17–30
Lombardo F, Gifford E, Shalaeva MY (2003) In silico ADME prediction: Data, models, facts and myths. Mini Rev Med Chem 8:861–875
Hansch C, Leo A, Mekapati SB et al. (2004) QSAR and ADME. Bioorg Med Chem 12:3391–3400
Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW et al. (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Del Rev 23:3–25
Yamashita F, Hashida M (2003) Mechanistic and empirical modeling of skin permeation of drugs. Adv Drug Del Rev 55:1185–1199
Wang Z, Yan A, Yuan Q et al. (2008) Explorations into modeling human oral bioavailability. Eur J Med Chem 43:2442–2452
Hansch C, Steward AR (1964) The use of substituent constants in the analysis of the structure–activity relationship in penicillin derivatives. J Med Chem 7:691–694
Hansch C, Maloney PP, Fujita T et al. (1962) Correlation of biological activity of phenoxyacetic acids with Hammett substituent constants and partition coefficients. Nature (London, UK) 194:178–180
Hansch C, Lien EJ (1968) An analysis of the structure–activity relationship in the adrenergic blocking activity of the βhaloalkylamines. Biochem Pharmacol 17:709–720
Hansch C, Leo A, Nikaitani D (1972) Additive-constitutive character of partition coefficients. J Org Chem 37:3090–3092
Hammett LP (1970) Physical organic chemistry: Reaction rates, equilibria and mechanism. McGraw-Hill, New York
Kubinyi H (1993) QSAR: Hansch analysis and related approaches. In: Mannhold R, Krogsgaard L, Timmerman H (eds) Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry, vol 1. VCH Publishers, New York
Free SM, Wilson JW (1964) A mathematical contribution to structure–activity studies. J Med Chem 7:395–399
Sciabola S, Stanton RV, Wittkopp S et al. (2008) Predicting kinase selectivity profiles using Free-Wilson QSAR analysis. J Chem Inf Model 48:1851–1867
Fujita T, Ban T (1971) Structure-activity relation. 3. Structure–activity study of phenethylamines as substrates of biosynthetic enzymes of sympathetic transmitters. J Med Chem 14:148–152
Taft RW, Abboud J-LM, Kamlet MJ et al. (1985) Linear solvation energy relations. J Sol Chem 14:153–186
Kamlet MJ, Abboud JLM, Abraham MH et al. (1983) Linear solvation energy relationships. 23. A comprehensive collection of the solvatochromic parameters, π*, α, and β, and some methods for simplifying the generalized solvatochromic equation. J Org Chem 48:2877–2887
Kamlet MJ, Doherty RM, Abboud JLM et al. (1986) Linear solvation energy relationships: 36. Molecular properties governing solubilities of organic nonelectrolytes in water. J Pharm Sci 75:338–349
Murray JS, Politzer P, Famini GR (1998) Theoretical alternatives to linear solvation energy relationships. J Mol Struct: THEOCHEM 454:299–306
Famini GR, Penski CA, Wilson LY (1992) Using theoretical descriptors in quantitative structure activity relationships: Some physicochemical properties. J Phys Org Chem 5:395–408
Kamlet MJ, Doherty RM, Fiserova-Bergerova V et al. (1987) Solubility properties in biological media 9: Prediction of solubility and partition of organic nonelectrolytes in blood and tissues from solvatochromic parameters. J Pharm Sci 76:14–17
Abraham MH, Martins F (2004) Human skin permeation and partition: General linear free-energy relationship analyses. J Pharm Sci 93:1508–1523
Platts JA, Abraham MH, Zhao YH et al. (2001) Correlation and prediction of a large blood–brain distribution data set – an LFER study. Eur J Med Chem 36:719–730
Sangster J (1997) Octanol-water partition coefficients: Fundamentals and physical chemistry. Chichester, England.
Mannhold R, Poda GI, Ostermann C et al. (2009) Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: State-of-the-art and comparison of log P methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J Pharm Sci 98:861–893
Lee CK, Uchida T, Kitagawa K et al. (1994) Skin permeability of various drugs with different lipophilicity. J Pharm Sci 83:562–565
Baláž Š(2000) Lipophilicity in trans-bilayer transport and subcellular pharmacokinetics. Persp Drug Disc Des 19:157–177
Testa B, Crivori P, Reist M et al. (2000) The influence of lipophilicity on the pharmacokinetic behavior of drugs: Concepts and examples. Persp Drug Disc Des 19:179–211
Efremov RG, Chugunov AO, Pyrkov TV et al. (2007) Molecular lipophilicity in protein modeling and drug design. Curr Med Chem 14:393–415
Testa B, Caron G, Crivori P et al. (2000) Lipophilicity and related molecular properties as determinants of pharmacokinetic behaviour. Chimia 54:672–677
Stella C, Galland A, Liu X et al. (2005) Novel RPLC stationary phases for lipophilicity measurement: solvatochromic analysis of retention mechanisms for neutral and basic compounds. J Sep Sci 28:2350–2362
Lombardo F, Shalaeva MY, Tupper KA et al. (2000) ElogPoct: A tool for lipophilicity determination in drug discovery. J Med Chem 43:2922–2928
George A (1999) The design and molecular modeling of CNS drugs. Curr Opin Drug Disc Dev 2:286–292
Youdim MBH, Buccafusco JJ (2005) CNS Targets for multi-functional drugs in the treatment of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases. J Neural Transm 112:519–537
Van der Schyf CJ, Geldenhuys J, Youdim MBH (2006) Multifunctional drugs with different CNS targets for neuropsychiatric disorders. J Neurochem 99:1033–1048
Quach TT, Duchemin AM, Rose C et al. (1979) In vivo occupation of cerebral histamine H1-receptors evaluated with 3H-mepyramine may predict sedative properties of psychotropic drugs. Eur J Pharmacol 60:391–392
Bousquet J, Campbell AM, Canonica GW (1996) H1-receptors antagonists: Structure and classification. In: Simons FER, Dekkers M (eds) Histamine and H1-receptor antagonists in allergic diseases. Marcel Dekker, New York
Abraham MH (2004) The factors that influence permeation across the blood–brain barrier. Eur J Med Chem 39:235–240
Wiener H (1947) Structural determination of paraffin boiling points. J Am Chem Soc 69:17–20
Randic M (1975) Characterization of molecular branching. J Am Chem Soc 97:6609–6615
Balaban AT (1998) Topological and stereochemical molecular descriptors for databases useful in QSAR, similarity/dissimilarity and drug design. SAR QSAR Environ Res 8:1–21
Hall LH, Kier LB (1995) Electrotopological state indices for atom types: a novel combination of electronic, topological, and valence state information. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 35:1039–1045
Mezey PG (1992) Shape-similarity measures for molecular bodies: A 3D topological approach to quantitative shape-activity relations. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 32:650–656
Camenisch G, Folkers G, van de Waterbeemd H (1998) Shapes of membrane permeability-lipophilicity curves: Extension of theoretical models with an aqueous pore pathway. Eur J Pharm Sci 6:321–329
Hopfinger AJ (1980) A QSAR investigation of dihydrofolate reductase inhibition by Baker triazines based upon molecular shape analysis. J Am Chem Soc 102:7196–7206
Seri-Levy A, Salter R, West S et al. (1994) Shape similarity as a single independent variable in QSAR. Eur J Med Chem 29:687–694
Bondi A (1964) van der Waals Volumes and Radii. J Phys Chem 68:441–451
Connolly ML (1985) Computation of molecular volume. J Am Chem Soc 107:1118–1124
Arteca GA (1996) Molecular shape descriptors. In: Boyd DB, Lipkowitz KB (eds) Reviews in computational chemistry, vol 9. Wiley-VCH, New York
Verloop A (1987) The STERIMOL approach to drug design. Marcel Dekker, New York
Cruciani G, Pastor M, Guba W (2000) VolSurf: A new tool for the pharmacokinetic optimization of lead compounds. Eur J Pharm Sci 11:S29–S39
Andrews CW, Bennett L, Yu L (2000) Predicting human oral bioavailability of a compound: development of a novel quantitative structure–bioavailability relationship. Pharm Res 17:639–644
Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y et al. (2002) Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem 45:2615–2623
Rekker RF, Mannhold R (1992) Calculation of drug lipophilicity. VCH, Weinheim.
Hansch C, Leo A, Nikaitani D (1972) Additive-constitutive character of partition coefficients. The Journal of Organic Chemistry 37:3090–3092
Austin RP, Davis AM, Manners CN (1995) Partitioning of ionizing molecules between aqueous buffers and phospholipid vesicles. J Pharm Sci 84:1180–1183
Scherrer RA, Howard SM (1977) Use of distribution coefficients in quantitative structure–activity relations. J Med Chem 20:53–58
Carrupt P-A, Testa B, Gaillard P (1997) Computational approaches to lipophilicity: Methods and applications. In: Boyd DB, Lipkowitz KB (eds) Reviews in computational chemistry, vol 11. Wiley-VCH, New York
Cramer RD, Wendt B (2007) Pushing the boundaries of 3D-QSAR. J Comp-Aided Mol Des 21:23–32
Goodford PJ (1985) A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J Med Chem 28:849–857
Cocchi M, Johansson E (1993) Amino acids characterization by GRID and multivariate data analysis. Quant Struct-Act Relat 12:1–8
Davis AM, Gensmantel NP, Johansson E et al. (1994) The use of the GRID program in the 3-D QSAR analysis of a series of calcium-channel agonists. J Med Chem 37:963–972
Pastor M, Cruciani G (1995) A novel strategy for improving ligand selectivity in receptor-based drug design. J Med Chem 38:4637–4647
Mannhold R, Berellini G, Carosati E et al. (2006) Use of MIF-based VolSurf descriptors in physicochemical and pharmacokinetic studies. In: Cruciani G, Mannhold R, Kubinyi H et al. (eds) Molecular interaction fields: Applications in drug discovery and ADME prediction. Wiley, Weinheim
Cianchetta G, Mannhold R, Cruciani G et al. (2004) Chemometric studies on the bactericidal activity of quinolones via an extended VolSurf approach. J Med Chem 47:3193–3201
Bajot F (2006) 3D solvatochromic models to derive pharmacokinetic in silico profiles of new chemical entities. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Geneva
Gaillard P, Carrupt P-A, Testa B et al. (1994) Molecular lipophilicity potential, a tool in 3D-QSAR. Method and applications. J Comp-Aided Mol Des 8:83–96
Rey S, Caron G, Ermondi G et al. (2001) Development of molecular hydrogen-bonding potentials (MHBPs) and their application to structure-permeation relations. J Mol Graphics Model 19:521–535
Weaver S, Gleeson MP (2008) The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. J Mol Graphics Model 26:1315–1326
Netzeva TI, Worth AP, Aldenberg T et al. (2005) Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure–activity relationships. ATLA 33: 155–173
Schultz TW, Hewitt M, Netzeva TI et al. (2007) Assessing applicability domains of toxicological QSARs: Definition, confidence in predicted values, and the role of mechanisms of action. QSAR Comb Sci 26:238–254
Hoffmann P, Warner B (2006) Are hERG channel inhibition and QT interval prolongation all there is in drug-induced torsadogenesis? A review of emerging trends. J Pharmacol Toxicol Meth 53:87–105
Rangno R (1997) Terfenadine therapy: can we justify the risk? Can Med Assoc J 157:37–38
Jamieson C, Moir EM, Rankovic Z et al. (2006) Medicinal chemistry of hERG optimizations: Highlights and hang-ups. J Med Chem 49:5029–5046
Ekins S, Crumb WJ, Sarazan RD et al. (2002) Three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship for inhibition of human ether-a-go-go-related gene potassium channel. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 301:427–434
Aptula AO, Cronin MTD (2004) Prediction of hERG K+ blocking potency: Application of structural knowledge. SAR QSAR Environ Res 15:399–411
Bradbury MWB (1984) The structure and function of the blood–brain barrier. Fed Proc 43: 186–190
Bodor N, Brewster ME (1983) Problems of delivery of drugs to the brain. Pharmacol Ther 19: 337–386
Rose K, Hall LH, Kier LB (2002) Modeling blood–brain barrier partitioning using the electrotopological state. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 42:651–666
Crivori P, Cruciani G, Carrupt PA et al. (2000) Predicting blood–brain barrier permeation from three-dimensional molecular structure. J Med Chem 43:2204–2216
Ooms F, Weber P, Carrupt P-A et al. (2002) A simple model to predict blood–brain barrier permeation from 3D molecular fields. Biochimi Biophys Acta – Mol Basis Disease 1587:118–125
Gerebtzoff G, Seelig A (2006) In silico prediction of blood–brain barrier permeation using the calculated molecular cross-sectional area as main parameter. J Chem Inf Model 46:2638–2650
Young RC, Mitchell RC, Brown TH et al. (1988) Development of a new physicochemical model for brain penetration and its application to the design of centrally acting H2 receptor histamine antagonists. J Med Chem 31:656–671
Clark DE (2003) In silico prediction of blood–brain barrier permeation. Drug Disc Today 8: 927–933
Reddy RN, Mutyala R, Aparoy P et al. (2007) Computer aided drug design approaches to develop cyclooxygenase based novel anti-inflammatory and anti-cancer drugs. Curr Pharm Des 13: 3505–3517
Fujimura T, Ohta T, Oyama K et al. (2007) Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) in carcinogenesis and selective COX-2 inhibitors for chemoprevention in gastrointestinal cancers. J Gastrointest Canc 38:78–82
Esposito E, Di Matteo V, Benigno A et al. (2007) Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in Parkinson’s disease. Exper Neurol 205:295–312
Hoozemans JJ, Rozemuller JM, van Haastert ES et al. (2008) Cyclooxygenase-1 and -2 in the different stages of Alzheimer’s disease pathology. Curr Pharm Des 14:1419–1427
Kurumbail RG, Stevens AM, Gierse JK et al. (1996) Structural basis for selective inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2 by anti-inflammatory agents. Nature 384:644
Picot D, Loll PJ, Garavito RM (1994) The X-ray crystal structure of the membrane protein prostaglandin H2 synthase-1. Nature 367:243–249
Marshall GR, Taylor CM (2007) Introduction to computer-assisted drug design – Overview and perspective for the future. In: John BT, David JT (eds) Comprehensive medicinal chemistry II, vol 4. Elsevier, Oxford
Good A, John BT, David JT (2007) Virtual screening. In: John BT, David JT (eds) Comprehensive medicinal chemistry II, vol 4. Elsevier, Oxford
Garg R, Kurup A, Mekapati SB et al. (2003) Cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors: A comparative QSAR study. Chem Rev 103:703–732
Lee K-O, Park H-J, Kim Y-H et al. (2004) CoMFA and CoMSIA 3D QSAR studies on pimarane cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors. Arch Pharm Res 27:467–470
Selinsky BS, Gupta K, Sharkey CT et al. (2001) Structural analysis of NSAID binding by prostaglandin H2 synthase: Time-dependent and time-independent inhibitors elicit identical enzyme conformations. Biochem 40:5172–5180
Gepp MM, Hutter MC (2006) Determination of hERG channel blockers using a decision tree. Bioorg Med Chem 14:5325–5332
Thai K-M, Ecker GF (2008) A binary QSAR model for classification of hERG potassium channel blockers. Bioorg Med Chem 16:4107–4119
Cianchetta G, Li Y, Kang J et al. (2005) Predictive models for hERG potassium channel blockers. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 15:3637–3642
Song M, Clark M (2006) Development and evaluation of an in silico model for hERG binding. J Chem Inf Model 46:392–400
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bajot, F. (2010). The Use of Qsar and Computational Methods in Drug Design. In: Puzyn, T., Leszczynski, J., Cronin, M. (eds) Recent Advances in QSAR Studies. Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9783-6_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9783-6_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9782-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9783-6
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)