Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 769

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective

Oprea, Tudor I., Davis, Andrew M., Teague, Simon J., Leeson, Paul D.·2001·Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Abstract

To be considered for further development, lead structures should display the following properties: (1) simple chemical features, amenable for chemistry optimization; (2) membership to an established SAR series; (3) favorable patent situation; and (4) good absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) properties. There are two distinct categories of leads: those that lack any therapeutic use (i.e., "pure" leads), and those that are marketed drugs themselves but have been altered to yield novel drugs. We have previously analyzed the design of leadlike combinatorial libraries starting from 18 lead and drug pairs of structures (S. J. Teague et al. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. Engl. 1999, 38, 3743-3748). Here, we report results based on an extended dataset of 96 lead-drug pairs, of which 62 are lead structures that are not marketed as drugs, and 75 are drugs that are not presumably used as leads. We examined the following properties: MW (molecular weight), CMR (the calculated molecular refractivity), RNG (the number of rings), RTB (the number of rotatable bonds), the number of hydrogen bond donors (HDO) and acceptors (HAC), the calculated logarithm of the n-octanol/water partition (CLogP), the calculated logarithm of the distribution coefficient at pH 7.4 (LogD(74)), the Daylight-fingerprint druglike score (DFPS), and the property and pharmacophore features score (PPFS). The following differences were observed between the medians of drugs and leads: DeltaMW = 69; DeltaCMR = 1.8; DeltaRNG = DeltaHAC =1; DeltaRTB = 2; DeltaCLogP = 0.43; DeltaLogD(74) = 0.97; DeltaHDO = 0; DeltaDFPS = 0.15; DeltaPPFS = 0.12. Lead structures exhibit, on the average, less molecular complexity (less MW, less number of rings and rotatable bonds), are less hydrophobic (lower CLogP and LogD(74)), and less druglike (lower druglike scores). These findings indicate that the process of optimizing a lead into a drug results in more complex structures. This information should be used in the design of novel combinatorial libraries that are aimed at lead discovery.

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/ci010366a

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 769

Metadata

Authors
Oprea, T. I., Davis, A. M., Teague, S. J., & Leeson, P. D.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
Published
2001-07-20
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
1308-1315
ISSN
0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1975293246
Cited by
769
References
3
FWCI
35.07
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.