Cited by 280Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceHistory and advancements in chemistry

Understanding drug‐likeness

Ursu, Oleg, Rayan, Anwar, Goldblum, Amiram, Oprea, Tudor I.·2011·WIREs Computational Molecular Science

Abstract

‘Drug‐likeness’, a qualitative property of chemicals assigned by experts committee vote, is widely integrated into the early stages of lead and drug discovery. Its conceptual evolution paralleled work related to Pfizer's ‘rule of five’ and lead‐likeness, and is placed within this framework. The discrimination between ‘drugs’ (represented by a collection of pharmaceutically relevant small molecules, some of which are marketed drugs) and ‘nondrugs’ (typically, chemical reagents) is possible using a wide variety of statistical tools and chemical descriptor systems. Here we summarize 18 papers focused on drug‐likeness, and provide a comprehensive overview of progress in the field. Tools that estimate drug‐likeness are valuable in the early stages of lead discovery, and can be used to filter out compounds with undesirable properties from screening libraries and to prioritize hits from primary screens. As the goal is, most often, to develop orally available drugs, it is also useful to optimize drug‐like pharmacokinetic properties. We examine tools that evaluate drug‐likeness and some of their shortcomings, challenges facing these tools, and address the following issues: What is the definition of drug‐likeness and how can it be utilized to reduce attrition rate in drug discovery? How difficult is it to distinguish drugs from nondrugs? Are nondrug datasets reliable? Can we estimate oral drug‐likeness? We discuss a drug‐like filter and recent advances in the prediction of oral drug‐likeness. The heuristic aspect of drug‐likeness is also addressed. © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2011 1 760–781 DOI: 10.1002/wcms.52 This article is categorized under: Computer and Information Science > Chemoinformatics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/wcms.52

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most market withdrawals are caused by drug toxicity, but lack of efficacy or economic reasons can also result in withdrawal.

    “While most market withdrawals are caused by drug toxicity (30), lack of efficacy or economic reasons can also result in withdrawal.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ursu, O., Rayan, A., Goldblum, A., & Oprea, T. I.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education (IL)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Oprea, Tudor I.
Venue
WIREs Computational Molecular Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-28
Volume
1
Issue
5
Pages
760-781
ISSN
  • 1759-0876 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-0884
OpenAlex
W2127126040
Cited by
276
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
8.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Molecular Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Physical and Theoretical Chemistry › History and advancements in chemistry
Keywords
drug-likeness, Lipinski's rule of five, lead-likeness, drug-likeness prediction, molecular descriptors, small molecules, pharmacokinetic properties, hit prioritization

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