The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Selection criteria for drug‐like compounds
Open accessAbstract
The fast identification of quality lead compounds in the pharmaceutical industry through a combination of high throughput synthesis and screening has become more challenging in recent years. Although the number of available compounds for high throughput screening (HTS) has dramatically increased, large‐scale random combinatorial libraries have contributed proportionally less to identify novel leads for drug discovery projects. Therefore, the concept of ‘drug‐likeness’ of compound selections has become a focus in recent years. In parallel, the low success rate of converting lead compounds into drugs often due to unfavorable pharmacokinetic parameters has sparked a renewed interest in understanding more clearly what makes a compound drug‐like. Various approaches have been devised to address the drug‐likeness of molecules employing retrospective analyses of known drug collections as well as attempting to capture ‘chemical wisdom’ in algorithms. For example, simple property counting schemes, machine learning methods, regression models, and clustering methods have been employed to distinguish between drugs and non‐drugs. Here we review computational techniques to address the drug‐likeness of compound selections and offer an outlook for the further development of the field. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Med Res Rev, 23, No. 3, 302‐321, 2003
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates
Veber, D. F., Johnson, S. R., Cheng, H.-Y., Smith, B. R., Ward, K. W., & Kopple, K. D. (2002) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm020017n · Cited by 8,420
Can We Learn To Distinguish between “Drug-like” and “Nondrug-like” Molecules?
Ajay, Walters, W. P., & Murcko, M. A. (1998) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm970666c · Cited by 484
A Scoring Scheme for Discriminating between Drugs and Nondrugs
Sadowski, J., & Kubinyi, H. (1998) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm9706776 · Cited by 392
Cited by
Deep learning for molecular design—a review of the state of the art
Elton, D. C., Boukouvalas, Z., Fuge, M. D., & Chung, P. W. (2019) · Molecular Systems Design & Engineering · doi:10.1039/c9me00039a · Cited by 683
Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy
Kellenberger, E., Rodrigo, J., Muller, P., & Rognan, D. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20149 · Cited by 577
Carrier-mediated cellular uptake of pharmaceutical drugs: an exception or the rule?
Dobson, P. D., & Kell, D. B. (2008) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd2438 · Cited by 475
Ursu, O., Rayan, A., Goldblum, A., & Oprea, T. I. (2011) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.52 · Cited by 276
Lu, S.-H., Wu, J. W., Liu, H.-L., Zhao, J.-H., Liu, K.-T., Chuang, C.-K., Lin, H.-Y., Tsai, W.-B., & Ho, Y. (2011) · Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.1186/1423-0127-18-8 · Cited by 204
Metadata
- Authors
- Muegge, I.
- Venue
- Medicinal Research Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-01-30
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 302-321
- ISSN
- 0198-6325 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-1128
- OpenAlex
- W2170492999
- Cited by
- 412
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 19.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.