Receptor-Based Discovery Strategies for Insecticides and Parasiticides: A Review

  • Debra WoodsEmail author
  • Cheryl Butler
  • Tracey Williams
  • Karen Greenwood
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 692)


Drug discovery is an iterative process with high risks and low chance of success. New genomics technologies allow veterinary medicine and agrochemical companies to validate and functionally screen new receptor-based targets, including neuropeptide G-protein coupled receptors, which were previously not amenable to high throughput screening. However this is just the first step in a long process to translate a mechanistic assay hit into a drug on the market. In addition to effectively eradicating pests on crops and parasites on their host, the molecules must also be safe, cheap to synthesise, formulatable and patentable. This is a costly process in which early attrition of unsuitable molecules is key to any successful program. Although first principle discovery is risky the ultimate benefits are considerable and future genomics resources will help to generate higher quality hits to strengthen the discovery pipeline.


Drug Discovery Structure Activity Relationship Mechanistic Screen Pheromone Response Pathway Chemical Lead 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nwaka S, Hudson A. Innovative lead discovery strategies for tropical diseases. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5:941–955.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maule A, Geary T, Bowman J et al. Inhibitory effects of nematode fmrfamide-related peptides (farps) on muscle strips from Ascaris suum. Inv Neurosci 1995; 1(3):255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenwood K, Williams T, Geary T. Nematode neuropeptide receptors and their development as anthelmintic screens. Parasitology 2005; 131:S169–S177.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ward E, Bernasconi P. Target-based discovery of crop protection chemicals. Nat Biotech 1999; 7:618–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee B, Dutton F, Clothier M et al. Synthesis and biological activity of anthelmintic thiadiazoles using an AF-2 receptor binding assay. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 1999; 9:1727–1732.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hauser F, Williamson M, Cazzamali G et al. Identifying neuropeptide and protein hormone receptors in Drosophila melanogaster by exploiting genomic data. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2006; 4(4):321–330.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lowery D, Geary T, Kubiak T et al. G-protein coupled receptors and modulators thereof. International Patent 2003; WO 01/38533 A2.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Larsen M, Burton K, Zantello M et al. Type A allatostatins from Drosophila melanogaster and Diplotera puncata activate two Drosophila allatostatin receptors, DAR-1 and DAR-2, expressed in CHO cells. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 2001; 286: 895–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kubiak T, Larsen M, Nulf S et al. Differential activation of “social” and “solitary” variants of the Caenorhabditis elegans G-protein coupled receptor NPR-1 by its cognate ligand AF9. J Biol Chem 2003; 278(36): 33724–33729.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kubiak T, Larsen M, Zantell M et al. Functional annotation of the putative orphan Caenorhabditis elegans G-protein coupled receptor C10C6.2 as a FLP15 peptide receptor. J Biol Chem 2003; 278(43); 42115–42120.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Minic J, Sautel M, Salesse R et al. Yeast system as a screening tool for pharmacological assessment of G-protein coupled receptors. Curr Med Chem 2005; 12: 961–969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomsen W, Frazer J, Unett D. Functional assays for screening GPCR targets. Curr Opin Biotech 2005; 16:655–665.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mertens I, Vandingeen A, Meeuen T et al. Functional characterization of the putative orphan neuropeptide G-protein coupled receptor C26F1.6 in Caenorhabditis elegans. FEBS Lett 2004; 573:55–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birse R, Johnson E, Taghert P et al. Widely distributed Drosophila G-protein coupled receptor (CG7887) is activated by endogenous tachykinin-related peptides. J Neurobiol 2005; 66:33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cismowski M, Takesono A, Ma C et al. Genetic screens in yeast to identify mammalian nonreceptor modulators of G-protein signalling. Nat Biotech 1999; 17(9):878–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang Z, Broach J, Peiper S. Functional expression of CXCR4 in Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the development of powerful tools for the pharmacological characterization of CXCR4. Meth Mol Biol 2006; 332:115–127.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wolcke J, Ullmann D. Miniaturized HTS technologies—uHTS. Drug Discov Today 2001; 6(12):637–646.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sittampalam G, Kahl S, Janzen W. High-throughput screening: advances in assay technologies. Curr Opin Chem Biol 1997; 1:384–391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kenny B, Bushfield M, Parry-Smith D et al. The application of high-throughput screening to novel lead discovery. Prog Drug Res 1998; 51:245–269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macarron R, Hertzberg R. Design and implementation of high throughput screening assays. Meth Mol Biol 2002; 190:1–29.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gribbon P, Lyons R, Laflin P et al. Evaluating real-life high-throughput screening data. J Biomol Screen 2005; 10(2):99–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Terrett NK, Gardner M, Gordon DW et al. Combinatorial synthesis—the design of compound libraries and their application to drug discovery. Tetrahedron 1995; 51(30):8135–8173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Feher M, Schmidt JM. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003; 43:218–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Becker OM, Shacham S, Marantz Y et al. Modeling the 3D structure of GPCRs: advances and applications to drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2003; 6(3):353–361.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Becker OM, Marantz Y, Shacham S et al. G-protein coupled receptors: in silico drug discovery in 3D. PNAS 2004; 101(31): 11304–11309.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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 Delivery Rev 1997; 23(1–3):3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hopkins AL, Groom CR. The druggable genome. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1(9):727–730.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walter M. From serendipity to design—making agrochemicals to order. Pesticide Outlook 2003; 14:27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gilleard JS, Woods DJ, Dow JAT. Model organism genomics in veterinary parasite drug discovery. Trends Parasitol 2005; 21(7):302–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Debra Woods
    • 1
    Email author
  • Cheryl Butler
    • 2
  • Tracey Williams
    • 3
  • Karen Greenwood
    • 3
  1. 1.Pfizer Animal Health, Pfizer IncKalamazooUSA
  2. 2.Pfizer Global Research & Development, Pfizer Ltd.SandwichUK
  3. 3.Pfizer Animal HealthKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations