Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,068

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Knowledge-Based Approach in Designing Combinatorial or Medicinal Chemistry Libraries for Drug Discovery. 1. A Qualitative and Quantitative Characterization of Known Drug Databases

Ghose, Arup K., Viswanadhan, Vellarkad N., Wendoloski, John J.·1999·Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry

Abstract

The discovery of various protein/receptor targets from genomic research is expanding rapidly. Along with the automation of organic synthesis and biochemical screening, this is bringing a major change in the whole field of drug discovery research. In the traditional drug discovery process, the industry tests compounds in the thousands. With automated synthesis, the number of compounds to be tested could be in the millions. This two-dimensional expansion will lead to a major demand for resources, unless the chemical libraries are made wisely. The objective of this work is to provide both quantitative and qualitative characterization of known drugs which will help to generate "drug-like" libraries. In this work we analyzed the Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry (CMC) database and seven different subsets belonging to different classes of drug molecules. These include some central nervous system active drugs and cardiovascular, cancer, inflammation, and infection disease states. A quantitative characterization based on computed physicochemical property profiles such as log P, molar refractivity, molecular weight, and number of atoms as well as a qualitative characterization based on the occurrence of functional groups and important substructures are developed here. For the CMC database, the qualifying range (covering more than 80% of the compounds) of the calculated log P is between -0.4 and 5.6, with an average value of 2.52. For molecular weight, the qualifying range is between 160 and 480, with an average value of 357. For molar refractivity, the qualifying range is between 40 and 130, with an average value of 97. For the total number of atoms, the qualifying range is between 20 and 70, with an average value of 48. Benzene is by far the most abundant substructure in this drug database, slightly more abundant than all the heterocyclic rings combined. Nonaromatic heterocyclic rings are twice as abundant as the aromatic heterocycles. Tertiary aliphatic amines, alcoholic OH and carboxamides are the most abundant functional groups in the drug database. The effective range of physicochemical properties presented here can be used in the design of drug-like combinatorial libraries as well as in developing a more efficient corporate medicinal chemistry library.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/cc9800071

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 3,068

Metadata

Authors
Ghose, A. K., Viswanadhan, V. N., & Wendoloski, J. J.
Venue
Journal of Combinatorial Chemistry
Published
1998-12-18
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
55-68
ISSN
  • 1520-4766 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4774
OpenAlex
W2052907531
Cited by
3,068
References
2
FWCI
20.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.