Strategy of Drug-Design

  • William P. Purcell
Conference paper
Part of the Topics in Infectious Diseases book series (TIDIS, volume 1)


Beginnings in quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) studies were made about twenty years ago (Bruice et al., 1956) but only in the last ten years (Hansch and Fujita, 1964; Free and Wilson, 1964) has this powerful methodology been widely applied. The realization that long waiting periods necessary for pharmacological and clinical testing along with the tremendous costs associated with synthesis have “forced” the discovery of techniques that would increase the probability of selecting useful compounds for synthesis and evaluation. When one considers that it costs about $2,000 per compound for synthesis and about $10,000,000 and 10 years to bring a new drug to the market, one must search for more effective ways to select molecules for synthesis and evaluation. QSAR techniques, while not a panacea, are now being used successfully to reach target molecules faster and at less expense. Those using QSAR thoughtfully recognize them as another tool in our background of knowledge much the way an organic chemist uses the tools of infrared and nmr in addition to elemental analysis in compound identification. QSAR should not replace existing experiences in drug design, but it should be added to them (Purcell, 1973).


Partition Coefficient Electric Dipole Moment Antimalarial Activity Inhibitory Potency Molecular Orbital Calculation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bass, G. E., D. R. Hudson, J. E. Parker, and W. P. Purcell: Inter-pretation of antimalarial activity in terms of regression analyses, molecular orbital calculations, and theory of DNA-drug binding.In: Prog. Molecular and Subscellular Biol. 2, pp. 126–133 (Hahn, F. E., Ed.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag 1971.Google Scholar
  2. Beasley, J. G., A. C. York, S. T. Christian, and W. A. Frase: Technical note. A digital readout attachment for the radiometer syringe burette unit. Med. Biol. Eng. 6, 181–183 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beasley,J. G., and W. P. Purcell: An example of successful prediction of cholinesterase inhibitory potency from regression analysis. Biochim. et Biophys. Acta 178, 175–176 (1969).Google Scholar
  4. Bergmann, F., and R. Segal: TIe relationship of quaternary ammonium salts to the anionic sites of true and pseudo cholinesterase. Biochem. J. 58, 692–698 (1954).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Billman, J.—R., A. Radike, and B. W. Mundy: Alkylation of amines. I. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 64, 2977–2978 (1942).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruice, T. C., N. KharascS7 and R. J. Winzler: A correlation of thyroxine-like activity and chemical structure. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 62, 305–317 (1956).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clayton, J. M.: Application of quantitative structure-activity relationships to selected biochemical systems. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Tennessee 1971.Google Scholar
  8. Clayton, J. M., G. E. Bass, W. P. Purcell, and C. C. Thompson: Comparison between theoretical and experimental electric dipole moments of selected N,N-dimethylaniline derivatives. J. Pharm. Sci. 2, 230–234 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Del Re, G.: A simple MO-LCAO method for the calculation of charge distribution in saturated organic molecules. J. Chem. Soc. 1958, 4031.Google Scholar
  10. Free, S. M., Jr., and J. W. Wilson: A mathematical contribution to structure-activity studies. J. Med. Chem. 7, 395–399 (1964).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fujita, T., J. Iwasa, and C. Hansch: A new substituent constant, 7, derived from partition coefficients. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 86, 5175–5180 (1964).Google Scholar
  12. Guggenheim, E. A.: A proposed simplification in the procedure for computing electric dipole moments. Trans. Faraday Soc. 45, 714–720 (1949).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansch, C., and T. Fujita: p-a-7 Analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 86, 1616–1626 (1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansch, C., and F. Helmer: Extrathermodynamic approach to the study of the adsorption of organic compounds by macromolecules. J. Polymer Sci., Part A-1 6, 3295–3302 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansch, C., J. E. Quinlan, and G. L. Lawrence: The linear free-energy relationship between partition coefficients and the aqueous solubility of organic liquids. J. Organ. Chem. 33, 347–350 (1968).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helmer, F., K. Kiehs, and C. Hansch: The linear free-energy relationship between partition coefficients and the binding and conformational perturbation of macromolecules by small organic compounds. Biochemistry 7, 2858–2863 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iwasa, J., T. Fujita, ana C. Hansch: Substituent constants for aliphatic functions obtained from partition coefficients. J. Med. Chem. 8, 150–153 (1965).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Larizza, Â., and G. Brancaccio: Aniline derivatives with pharmaco-logic activity. Gazz. Chim. Ital. 89, 2402–2420 (1959).Google Scholar
  19. Leffler, J. E., and E. Grunwald: Rates and Equilibria of Organic Reactions. New York: John Wiley 1963.Google Scholar
  20. Leo, A„ C. Hansch, and C. Church: Comparison of parameters currently used in the study of structure-activity relationships. J. Med. Chem. 12, 766–771 (1969).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leo, A., C. Hansch, and D. Elkins: Partition coefficients and their uses. Chem. Rev. 71, 525–616 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Brien, R. L., and F. E. Hahn: Chloroquine structural requirements for binding to deoxyribonucleic acid and antimalarial activity. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 1965 315–320 (1966).Google Scholar
  23. Pariser, R.: An improvement in the electronic approximation in LCAO MO theory. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 568–569 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parr, R. G.: Quantum theory 6 molecular electronic structure. New York: W. A. Benjamin, Inc. 1966.Google Scholar
  25. Pople, J. A., and G. A. Segal: Approximate self-consistent molecular orbital theory. II. Calculations with complete neglect of differential overlap. J. Chem. Phys. 43, S136 - S151 (1965).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pople, J. A., and G. A. Segal: Approximate self-consistent molecular orbital theory. III. CNDO Results for AB2 and AB3 systems. J. Chem. Phys. 44, 3289–3296 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Purcell, W. P.: Cholinesterase inhibitory prognoses of thirty-six alkyl substituted 3-carbamoylpiperidines. Biochem. et Biophys. Acta 105 201–204 (1965).Google Scholar
  28. Purcell, W. P., G. E. Bass, and J. M. Clayton: Strategy of drug design: A molecular guide to biological activity. New York: John Wiley 1973.Google Scholar
  29. Purcell, W. P., and J. M. Clayton: An example of the application of quantitative structure-activity relationship models. Third International Symposium on Medicinal Chemistry under the sponsorship of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, Milan, Italy: 1972.Google Scholar
  30. Salem, L.: The molecular orbital theory of conjugated systems. New York: W. A. Benjamin, Inc. 1966.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, J. W.: Some developments of Guggenheim’s simplified procedure for computing electric dipole moments. Trans. Faraday Soc. 46, 394–399 (1950).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SnFdecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran: Statistical Methods, pp. 386–402. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press 1967.Google Scholar
  33. Thomas, D. G., J. H. Billman, and C. E. Davis: Alkylation of amines. II. N, N-dialkylation of nuclear substituted anilines. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 68, 895–896 (1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1975

Authors and Affiliations

  • William P. Purcell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations