Abstract
Computer-aided drug discovery and design involve the use of information technologies to identify and develop, on a rational ground, chemical compounds that align a set of desired physicochemical and biological properties. In its most common form, it involves the identification and/or modification of an active scaffold (or the combination of known active scaffolds), although de novo drug design from scratch is also possible. Traditionally, the drug discovery and design processes have focused on the molecular determinants of the interactions between drug candidates and their known or intended pharmacological target(s). Nevertheless, in modern times, drug discovery and design are conceived as a particularly complex multiparameter optimization task, due to the complicated, often conflicting, property requirements.
This chapter provides an updated overview of in silico approaches for identifying active scaffolds and guiding the subsequent optimization process. Recent groundbreaking advances in the field have also analyzed the integration of state-of-the-art machine learning approaches in every step of the drug discovery process (from prediction of target structure to customized molecular docking scoring functions), integration of multilevel omics data, and the use of a diversity of computational approaches to assist target validation and assess plausible binding pockets.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Klabunde T, Everts A (2005) GPCR antitarget modeling: pharmacophore models for biogenic amine binding GPCRs to avoid GPCR-mediated side effects. Chembiochem 6:876–889
Raschi E, Vasina V, Poluzzi E et al (2008) The hERG K+ channel: target and antitarget strategies in drug development. Pharmacol Res 57:181–195
Crivori P (2008) Computational models for P-glycoprotein substrates and inhibitors. In: Vaz RJ, Klabunde T (eds) Anti-atrgets: prediction and prevention of drug side effects. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Zamora I (2008) Site of metabolism predictions: facts and experiences. In: Vaz RJ, Klabunde T (eds) Anti-targets: prediction and prevention of drug side effects. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim
Fallico M, Alberca LN, Prada Gori DN et al (2022) Machine learning search of novel selective NaV1.2 and NaV1.6 inhibitors as potential treatment against Dravet syndrome. In: Ribeiro PRDA, Cota VR, Barone DAC, de Oliveira ACM (eds) Computational neuroscience. LAWCN 2021. Communications in computer and information science, vol 1519. Springer, Cham
Fatoba AJ, Okpeku M, Adeleke MA (2021) Subtractive genomics approach for identification of novel therapeutic drug targets in Mycoplasma genitalium. Pathogens 10:921
Süntar I (2020) Importance of ethnopharmacological studies in drug discovery: role of medicinal plants. Phytochem Rev 19:1199–1209
Entzeroth M, Flotow H, Condron P (2009) Overview of high-throughput screening. Curr Protoc Pharmacol Chapter 9:Unit 9.4
Maia EHB, Assis LC, de Oliveira TA et al (2020) Structure-based virtual screening: from classical to artificial intelligence. Front Chem 8:343
Mouchlis VD, Afantitis A, Serra A et al (2021) Advances in de novo drug design: from conventional to machine learning methods. Int J Mol Sci 22:1676
Kirsch P, Hartman AM, Hirsch AKH et al (2019) Concepts and core principles of fragment-based drug design. Molecules 24:4309
Romano P, Giugno R, Pulvirenti A (2011) Tools and collaborative environments for bioinformatics research. Brief Bioinform 12:549–561
Gorgulla C, Boeszoermenyi A, Wang ZF et al (2020) An open-source drug discovery platform enables ultra-large virtual screens. Nature 580:663–668
Cox PB, Gupta R (2022) Contemporary computational applications and tools in drug discovery. ACS Med Chem Lett 13:1016–1029
Prada Gori DN, Alberca LN, Rodriguez S et al (2022) LIDeB Tools: a Latin American resource of freely available, open-source cheminformatics apps. Artif Intell Life Sci 2:10049
Hartenfeller M, Schneider G (2011) De novo drug design. Methods Mol Biol 672:299–323
Kuttruff CA, Eastgate MD, Baran PS (2014) Natural product synthesis in the age of scalability. Nat Prod Rep 31:419–432
Nicolaou CA, Brown N (2013) Multi-objective optimization methods in drug design. Drug Discov Today Technol 10:e427–e435
Talevi A (2016) Tailored multi-target agents. Applications and design considerations. Curr Pharm Des 22:3164–3170
Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:3–25
Pajouhesh H, Lenz GR (2005) Medicinal chemical properties of successful central nervous system drugs. NeuroRx 2:542–553
Gupta S, Kesarla R, Omri A (2013) Formulation strategies to improve the bioavailability of poorly absorbed drugs with special emphasis on self-emulsifying systems. ISRN Pharm 2013:848043
Miller DC, Klute W, Calabrese A et al (2009) Optimising metabolic stability in lipophilic chemical space: the identification of a metabolic stable pyrazolopyrimidine CRF-1 receptor antagonist. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 19:6144–6147
Wager TT, Hou X, Verhoest PR et al (2016) Central nervous system multiparameter optimization desirability: application in drug discovery. ACS Chem Neurosci 7:767–775
Glen RC, Galloway WR, Spring DR et al (2016) Multiple-parameter optimization in drug discovery: example of the 5-HT1B GPCR. Mol Inform 35:599–605
Ghose AK, Ott GR, Hudkins RL (2017) Technically Extended MultiParameter Optimization (TEMPO): an advanced robust scoring scheme to calculate central nervous system druggability and monitor lead optimization. ACS Chem Neurosci 8:147–154
Winter R, Montanari F, Steffen A et al (2019) Efficient multi-objective molecular optimization in a continuous latent space. Chem Sci 10:8016–8024
Pennington LD, Muegge I (2021) Holistic drug design for multiparameter optimization in modern small molecule drug discovery. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 41:128003
He X (2009) Integration of physical, chemical, mechanical and biopharmaceutical properties in solid dosage oral form development. In: Solid dosage oral forms: pharmaceutical theory and practice. Academic Press, Burlington
Csermely P, Korcsmáros T, Kiss HJ et al (2013) Structure and dynamics of molecular networks: a novel paradigm of drug discovery: a comprehensive review. Pharmacol Ther 138:333–408
Wang J, Guo Z, Fu Y et al (2017) Weak-binding molecules are not drugs?-toward a systematic strategy for finding effective weak-binding drugs. Brief Bioinform 18:321–332
Talevi A (2022) Antiseizure medication discovery: recent and future paradigm shifts. Epilepsia Open 7(Suppl 1):S133–S141
Gashaw I, Ellinghaus P, Sommer A et al (2011) What makes a good drug target. Drug Discov Today 16:1037–1043
Knowles J, Gromo G (2003) Target selection in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:63–69
Schmidtke P, Barril X (2010) Understanding and predicting druggability. A high-throughput method for detection of drug binding sites. J Med Chem 53:5858–5867
Yuan Y, Pei J, Lai L (2013) Binding site detection and druggability prediction of protein targets for structure-based drug design. Curr Pharm Des 19:2326–2333
Barril X (2013) Druggability predictions: methods, limitations and applications. Wires Comput Mol Sci 3:327–338
Talevi A, Carrillo C, Comini M (2019) The thiol-polyamine metabolism of Trypanosoma cruzi: molecular targets and drug repurposing strategies. Curr Med Chem 26:6614–6635
Tonge PJ (2018) Drug-target kinetics in drug discovery. ACS Chem Neurosci 9:29–39
Feng Y, Wang Q, Wang T (2017) Drug target protein-protein interaction networks: a systematic perspective. Biomed Res Int 2017:1289259
Viacava Follis A (2021) Centrality of drug targets in protein networks. BMC Bioinf 22:527
Sabetian S, Shamsir MS (2019) Computer aided analysis of disease linked protein networks. Bioinformation 15:513–522
Casas AI, Hassan AA, Larsen SJ et al (2019) From single drug targets to synergistic network pharmacology in ischemic stroke. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 116:7129–7136
Schidlitzki A, Bascuñana P, Srivastava PK et al (2020) Proof-of-concept that network pharmacology is effective to modify development of acquired temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurobiol Dis 134:104664
Kim B, Jo J, Han J et al (2017) In silico re-identification of properties of drug target proteins. BMC Bioinf 18:248
Dezső Z, Ceccarelli M (2020) Machine learning prediction of oncology drug targets based on protein and network properties. BMC Bioinf 21:104
Chen S, Jiang H, Cao Y et al (2016) Drug target identification using network analysis: taking active components in Sini decoction as an example. Sci Rep 6:24245
Ji X, Freudenberg JM, Agarwal P (2019) Integrating biological networks for drug target prediction and prioritization. Methods Mol Biol 1903:203–218
Capra JA, Singh M (2007) Predicting functionally important residues from sequence conservation. Bioinformatics 23:1875–1882
Yang J, Roy A, Zhang Y (2013) Protein-ligand binding site recognition using complementary binding-specific substructure comparison and sequence profile alignment. Bioinformatics 29:2588–2595
Han B, Salituro FG, Blanco MJ (2020) Impact of allosteric modulation in drug discovery: innovation in emerging chemical modalities. ACS Med Chem Lett 11:1810–1819
Liu T, Ish-Shalom S, Torng W et al (2018) Biological and functional relevance of CASP predictions. Proteins 86(Suppl 1):374–386
Clark JJ, Orban ZJ, Carlson HA (2020) Predicting binding sites from unbound versus bound protein structures. Sci Rep 10:15856
Kuzmanic A, Bowman GR, Juarez-Jimenez J et al (2020) Investigating cryptic binding sites by molecular dynamics simulations. Acc Chem Res 53:654–661
Smith RD, Carlson HA (2021) Identification of cryptic binding sites using MixMD with standard and accelerated molecular dynamics. J Chem Inf Model 61:1287–1299
Paul F, Weikl TR (2016) How to distinguish conformational selection and induced fit based on chemical relaxation rates. PLoS Comput Biol 12:e1005067
Vajda S, Beglov D, Wakefield AE et al (2018) Cryptic binding sites on proteins: definition, detection, and druggability. Curr Opin Chem Biol 44:1–8
Martinez-Rosell G, Lovera S, Sands ZA et al (2020) PlayMolecule CrypticScout: predicting protein cryptic sites using mixed-solvent molecular simulations. J Chem Inf Model 60:2314–2324
Zheng W (2021) Predicting cryptic ligand binding sites based on normal modes guided conformational sampling. Proteins 89:416–426
Aromolaran O, Aromolaran D, Isewon I et al (2021) Machine learning approach to gene essentiality prediction: a review. Brief Bioinform 22(5):bbab128
Basler G (2015) Computational prediction of essential metabolic genes using constraint-based approaches. Gene Essentiality 1279:183–204
Pushpakom S, Iorio F, Eyers PA et al (2019) Drug repurposing: progress, challenges and recommendations. Nat Rev Drug Discov 18:41–58
Talevi A, Bellera CL (2020) Challenges and opportunities with drug repurposing: finding strategies to find alternative uses of therapeutics. Expert Opin Drug Discov 15:397–401
Szymanski P, Markowicz M, Mikiciuk-Olasik E (2012) Adaptation of high-throughput screening in drug discovery – toxicological screening. Int J Mol Sci 13:427–452
Harris CJ, Hill RD, Sheppard DW, Slater MJ, Stouten PF (2011) The design and application of target-focused compound libraries. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 14(6):521–531
Welsch ME, Snyder SA, Stockwell BR (2010) Privileged scaffolds for library design and drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 14:347–361
Jumper J, Evans R, Pritzel A et al (2021) Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596:583–589
Baek M, DiMaio F, Anishchenko I et al (2021) Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science 373:871–876
Lin Z, Akin H, Rao R et al (2022) Language models of protein sequences at the scale of evolution enable accurate structure prediction. bioRxiv 2022.07.20.500902
Mirdita M, Schütze K, Moriwaki Y et al (2022) ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nat Methods 19:679–682
Varadi M, Anyango S, Deshpande M et al (2022) AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucleic Acids Res 50:D439–D444
Procacci P (2016) Reformulating the entropic contribution of molecular docking scoring functions. J Comput Chem 37(19):1819–1827
Gilson MK, Zhou HX (2007) Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 36:21–42
Bello M, Martínez-Archundia M, Correa-Basurto J (2013) Automated docking for novel drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 8:821–834
Bodnarchuck MS (2016) Water, water, everywhere… It’s time to stop and think. Drug Discov Today 21:1139–1146
Mysinger MM, Schoichet BK (2010) Rapid context-dependent ligand desolvation in molecular docking. J Chem Inf Model 50:1561–1573
Li H, Sze KH, Lu G et al (2020) Machine-learning scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening. Wires Comput Mol Sci 11:e1478
Zhang X, Shen C, Guo X et al (2021) ASFP (Artificial Intelligence based Scoring Function Platform): a web server for the development of customized scoring functions. J Cheminform 13:6
Yang C, Chen EA, Zhang Y (2022) Protein-ligand docking in the machine-learning era. Molecules 27:4568
Ge H, Wang Y, Li C et al (2013) Molecular dynamics-based virtual screening: accelerating the drug discovery process by high-performance computing. J Chem Inf Model 53:2757–2764
Wang L, Wu Y, Deng Y et al (2015) Accurate and reliable prediction of relative ligand binding potency in prospective drug discovery by way of a modern free-energy calculation protocol and force field. J Am Chem Soc 137:2695–2703
Llanos MA, Alberca LN, Larrea SCV et al (2022) Homology modeling and molecular dynamics simulations of Trypanosoma cruzi phosphodiesterase b1. Chem Biodivers 19:e202100712
Lavechia A (2015) Machine-learning approaches in drug discovery: methods and applications. Drug Discov Today 20:318–331
Lemmen C, Zimmermann M, Lengauer T (2002) Multiple molecular superpositioning as an effective tool for virtual database screening. In: Virtual screening: an alternative or complement to high-throughput screening? 1st edn. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Marburg
Kristensen TG, Nielsen J, Pedersen CNS (2013) Methods for similarity-based virtual screening. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 5:e201302009
Talevi A, Bruno-Blanch LE (2016) Virtual screening applications in the search of novel antiepileptic drug candidates. In: Antiepileptic drug discovery. Novel approaches. Humana Press, New York
Schneidman-Duhovny D, Dror O, Inbar Y et al (2008) Deterministic pharmacophore detection via multiple flexible alignment of drug-like molecules. J Comput Biol 15:737–754
Cottrell SJ, Gillet VJ, Taylor R et al (2004) Generation of multiple pharmacophore hypothesis using multiobjective optimization techniques. J Comput Aided Mol Des 18:665–682
Pirhadi S, Shiri F, Ghasemi JB (2013) Methods and applications of structure based pharmacophores in drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 13:1036–1047
Zhang Q, Muegge I (2006) Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. J Med Chem 9:1536–1548
Krüger DM, Evers A (2010) Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors. ChemMedChem 5:148–158
Talevi A, Gavernet L, Bruno-Blanch LE (2009) Combined virtual screening strategies. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 5:23–37
Pouliot M, Jeanmart S (2016) Pan Assay Interference Compounds (PAINS) and other promiscuous compounds in antifungal research. J Med Chem 59:497–503
Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA (1998) Virtual screening – an overview. Drug Discov Today 3:160–178
Zhu T, Cao S, Su PC et al (2013) Hit identification and optimization in virtual screening: practical recommendations based upon a critical literature analysis. J Med Chem 56:6560–6572
Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Pletason L et al (2010) Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. J Med Chem 53:8461–8467
Neetoo-Isseliee Z, MacKenzie AE, Southern C et al (2013) High-throughput identification and characterization of novel, species-selective GPR35 agonists. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 344:568–578
Kola I, Landis J (2004) Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:711–716
Schuster D, Laggner C, Langer T (2005) Why drugs fail – a study on side effects in new chemical entities. Curr Pharm Des 11:3545–3559
Talevi A (2016) Computational approaches for innovative antiepileptic drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 11:1001–1016
Wang S, Dong G, Sheng C (2019) Structural simplification of natural products. Chem Rev 119:4180–4220
Brown N, Lewis RA (2006) Exploiting QSAR methods in lead optimization. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 9:419–424
Wong WWL, Burkowski FJ (2009) A constructive approach for discovering new drug leads: using a kernel methodology for the inverse-QSAR problem. J Cheminform 1:4
Miyako T, Kaneko H, Funatsu K (2016) Inverse QSPR/QSAR analysis for chemical structure generation (from y to x). J Chem Inf Model 56:286–299
Waring MJ, Arrowsmith J, Leach AR et al (2015) An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat Rev Drug Discov 14:475–486
Cook D, Brown D, Alexander R et al (2014) Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca’s drug pipeline: a five-dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov 13:419–431
Roberts RA, Kavanagh SL, Mellor HR et al (2014) Reducing attrition in drug development: smart loading preclinical safety assessment. Drug Discov Today 19:341–347
Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY et al (2002) Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem 45:2615–2623
Price DA, Blagg J, Jones L et al (2009) Physicochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes: a review. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 5:921–931
Sutherland JJ, Raymond JW, Stevens JL et al (2012) Relating molecular properties and in vitro assay results to in vivo drug disposition and toxicity outcomes. J Med Chem 55:6455–6466
Doak BC, Zheng J, Dobritzsch D et al (2016) How beyond rule of 5 drugs and clinical candidates bind to their targets. J Med Chem 59:2312–2327
Doak BC, Over B, Giordanetto F et al (2014) Oral druggable space beyond the rule of 5: insights from drugs and clinical candidates. Chem Biol 21:1115–1142
Lipinski CA (2016) Rule of five in 2015 and beyond: target and ligand structural limitations, ligand chemistry structure and drug discovery project decisions. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 101:34–41
Bergström CAS, Charman WN, Porter CJH (2016) Computational prediction of formulation strategies for beyond-rule-of-5 compounds. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 101:6–21
Acknowledgments
The author thanks CONICET and University of La Plata, where he holds permanent positions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Talevi, A. (2024). Computer-Aided Drug Discovery and Design: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. In: Gore, M., Jagtap, U.B. (eds) Computational Drug Discovery and Design. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2714. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3441-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-3441-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-3440-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-3441-7
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols