Best Practices of Computer-Aided Drug Discovery: Lessons Learned from the Development of a Preclinical Candidate for Prostate Cancer with a New Mechanism of Action
Abstract
Small-molecule drug design is a complex and iterative decision-making process relying on pre-existing knowledge and driven by experimental data. Low-molecular-weight chemicals represent an attractive therapeutic option, as they are readily accessible to organic synthesis and can easily be characterized.1 Their potency as well as pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties can be systematically and rationally investigated and ultimately optimized via expert science behind medicinal chemistry and methods of computer-aided drug design (CADD). In recent years, significant advances in molecular modeling techniques have afforded a variety of tools to effectively identify potential binding pockets on prospective targets, to map key interactions between ligands and their binding sites, to construct and assess energetics of the resulting complexes, to predict ADMET properties of candidate compounds, and to systematically analyze experimental and computational data to derive meaningful structure-activity relationships leading to the creation of a drug candidate. This Perspective describes a real case of a drug discovery campaign accomplished in a relatively short time with limited resources. The study integrated an arsenal of available molecular modeling techniques with an array of experimental tools to successfully develop a novel class of potent and selective androgen receptor inhibitors with a novel mode of action. It resulted in the largest academic licensing deal in Canadian history, totaling $142M. This project exemplifies the importance of team science, an integrative approach to drug discovery, and the use of best practices in CADD. We posit that the lessons learned and best practices for executing an effective CADD project can be applied, with similar success, to many drug discovery projects in both academia and industry.
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
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.
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?
QSAR models have become an integral component of the drug discovery process, providing substantial guidance in planning experiments.
“Thus, models have become an integral component of the drug discovery process, providing substantial guidance in planning experiments.3,8”
From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [3]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
QSAR Modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to?
Cherkasov, A., Muratov, E. N., Fourches, D., Varnek, A., Baskin, I. I., Cronin, M., Dearden, J., Gramatica, P., Martin, Y. C., Todeschini, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm4004285 · Cited by 2,164 · see citing works
Self-citationRole of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery
Macalino, S. J. Y., Gosu, V., Hong, S., & Choi, S. (2015) · Archives of Pharmacal Research · doi:10.1007/s12272-015-0640-5 · Cited by 762 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Muratov, E. N., Bajorath, J., Sheridan, R. P., Tetko, I. V., Filimonov, D., Poroikov, V., Oprea, T. I., Baskin, I. I., Varnek, A., Roitberg, A., et al. (2020) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs00098a · Cited by 913 · see citing works
Self-citationGuedes, I. A., Pereira, F. S. S., & Dardenne, L. E. (2018) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2018.01089 · Cited by 331 · see citing works
A critical overview of computational approaches employed for COVID-19 drug discovery
Muratov, E. N., Amaro, R., Andrade, C. H., Brown, N., Ekins, S., Fourches, D., Isayev, O., Kozakov, D., Medina-Franco, J. L., Merz, K. M., et al. (2021) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d0cs01065k · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Self-citationTargeting intrinsically disordered proteins at the edge of chaos
Ruan, H., Sun, Q., Zhang, W., Liu, Y., & Lai, L. (2019) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.09.017 · Cited by 133 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ban, F., Dalal, K., Li, H., LeBlanc, E., Rennie, P. S., & Cherkasov, A.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Cherkasov, Artem
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2017-05-04
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1018-1028
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2609462956
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 8.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (272111, 328186)
- Movember Foundation
- Prostate Cancer Canada (SP2013-02)
- U.S. Department of Defense (11496001)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic Compounds
- Keywords
- computational drug discovery, prostate cancer, androgen receptor antagonists, novel mechanism of action, small-molecule drug design, structure-activity relationship, ADMET prediction, ligand-receptor interactions, team science
- MeSH terms
- Antineoplastic Agents, Binding Sites, Humans, Male, Models, Molecular, Prostatic Neoplasms, Receptors, Androgen, Sequence Alignment, Computational Biology, Small Molecule Libraries, Drug Discovery
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