Gordon M Cragg1, David J Newman. 1. Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, MD 21702-1201, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nature has been a source of medicinal products for millennia, with many useful drugs developed from plant sources. Following discovery of the penicillins, drug discovery from microbial sources occurred and diving techniques in the 1970s opened the seas. Combinatorial chemistry (late 1980s), shifted the focus of drug discovery efforts from Nature to the laboratory bench. SCOPE OF REVIEW: This review traces natural products drug discovery, outlining important drugs from natural sources that revolutionized treatment of serious diseases. It is clear Nature will continue to be a major source of new structural leads, and effective drug development depends on multidisciplinary collaborations. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The explosion of genetic information led not only to novel screens, but the genetic techniques permitted the implementation of combinatorial biosynthetic technology and genome mining. The knowledge gained has allowed unknown molecules to be identified. These novel bioactive structures can be optimized by using combinatorial chemistry generating new drug candidates for many diseases. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: The advent of genetic techniques that permitted the isolation / expression of biosynthetic cassettes from microbes may well be the new frontier for natural products lead discovery. It is now apparent that biodiversity may be much greater in those organisms. The numbers of potential species involved in the microbial world are many orders of magnitude greater than those of plants and multi-celled animals. Coupling these numbers to the number of currently unexpressed biosynthetic clusters now identified (>10 per species) the potential of microbial diversity remains essentially untapped. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: Nature has been a source of medicinal products for millennia, with many useful drugs developed from plant sources. Following discovery of the penicillins, drug discovery from microbial sources occurred and diving techniques in the 1970s opened the seas. Combinatorial chemistry (late 1980s), shifted the focus of drug discovery efforts from Nature to the laboratory bench. SCOPE OF REVIEW: This review traces natural products drug discovery, outlining important drugs from natural sources that revolutionized treatment of serious diseases. It is clear Nature will continue to be a major source of new structural leads, and effective drug development depends on multidisciplinary collaborations. MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: The explosion of genetic information led not only to novel screens, but the genetic techniques permitted the implementation of combinatorial biosynthetic technology and genome mining. The knowledge gained has allowed unknown molecules to be identified. These novel bioactive structures can be optimized by using combinatorial chemistry generating new drug candidates for many diseases. GENERAL SIGNIFICANCE: The advent of genetic techniques that permitted the isolation / expression of biosynthetic cassettes from microbes may well be the new frontier for natural products lead discovery. It is now apparent that biodiversity may be much greater in those organisms. The numbers of potential species involved in the microbial world are many orders of magnitude greater than those of plants and multi-celled animals. Coupling these numbers to the number of currently unexpressed biosynthetic clusters now identified (>10 per species) the potential of microbial diversity remains essentially untapped. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Grzegorz Bulaj; Olga Buczek; Ian Goodsell; Elsie C Jimenez; Jessica Kranski; Jacob S Nielsen; James E Garrett; Baldomero M Olivera Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-10-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ocky K Radjasa; Yvette M Vaske; Gabriel Navarro; Hélène C Vervoort; Karen Tenney; Roger G Linington; Phillip Crews Journal: Bioorg Med Chem Date: 2011-07-26 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Jonathan L Vennerstrom; Sarah Arbe-Barnes; Reto Brun; Susan A Charman; Francis C K Chiu; Jacques Chollet; Yuxiang Dong; Arnulf Dorn; Daniel Hunziker; Hugues Matile; Kylie McIntosh; Maniyan Padmanilayam; Josefina Santo Tomas; Christian Scheurer; Bernard Scorneaux; Yuanqing Tang; Heinrich Urwyler; Sergio Wittlin; William N Charman Journal: Nature Date: 2004-08-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: S McMeekin; R Patel; C Verschraegen; P Celano; J Burke; S Plaxe; P Ghatage; M Giurescu; C Stredder; Y Wang; T Schmelter Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-11-22 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Nicholas Lorig-Roach; Patrick C Still; David Coppage; Jennifer E Compton; Mitchell S Crews; Gabriel Navarro; Karen Tenney; Phillip Crews Journal: J Nat Prod Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 4.050
Authors: Corena V Shaffer; Shengxin Cai; Jiangnan Peng; Andrew J Robles; Rachel M Hartley; Douglas R Powell; Lin Du; Robert H Cichewicz; Susan L Mooberry Journal: J Nat Prod Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 4.050
Authors: Lucindo J Quintans-Júnior; Renan G Brito; Jullyana S S Quintans; Priscila L Santos; Zaine T Camargo; Péricles A Barreto; Maria F Arrigoni-Blank; Waldecy Lucca-Júnior; Luciana Scotti; Marcus T Scotti; Sandra J Kolker; Kathleen A Sluka Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Jingjing Gong; Jianping Xie; Roble Bedolla; Paul Rivas; Divya Chakravarthy; James W Freeman; Robert Reddick; Scott Kopetz; Amanda Peterson; Huamin Wang; Susan M Fischer; Addanki P Kumar Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Finn P Maloney; Lena Gerwick; William H Gerwick; David H Sherman; Janet L Smith Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 11.205