Sharangdhar S Phatak1, Clifford C Stephan, Claudio N Cavasotto. 1. The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Health Information Sciences, 7000 Fannin, Suite 860B, Houston, TX 77030, USA +1 713 500 3934 ; +1 713 500 3907 ; Claudio.N.Cavasotto@uth.tmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the current situation of weak drug pipelines, impending patent expiration of several blockbuster drugs, industry consolidation and changing business models that target special diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and obesity, the pharmaceutical industry is under intense pressure to generate a strong drug pipeline distinguished by better productivity, diversity and cost effectiveness. The goal is discovering high-quality leads in the initial stages of the development cycle, to minimize the costs associated with failures at later ones. OBJECTIVE: Thus, there is a great amount of interest in further developing and optimizing high-throughput screening and in silico screening, the two methods responsible for generating most of the lead compounds. Although high-throughput screening is the predominant starting point for discovery programs, in silico methods have gradually made inroads by their more rational approach, to expedite the drug discovery and development process. CONCLUSION: Modern drug discovery strategies include both methods in tandem or in an iterative way. This review primarily provides a succinct overview and comparison of experimental and in silico screening techniques, selected case studies where both methods were used in concert to investigate their performance and complementary nature and a statement on the developments in experimental and in silico approaches in the near future.
BACKGROUND: In the current situation of weak drug pipelines, impending patent expiration of several blockbuster drugs, industry consolidation and changing business models that target special diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and obesity, the pharmaceutical industry is under intense pressure to generate a strong drug pipeline distinguished by better productivity, diversity and cost effectiveness. The goal is discovering high-quality leads in the initial stages of the development cycle, to minimize the costs associated with failures at later ones. OBJECTIVE: Thus, there is a great amount of interest in further developing and optimizing high-throughput screening and in silico screening, the two methods responsible for generating most of the lead compounds. Although high-throughput screening is the predominant starting point for discovery programs, in silico methods have gradually made inroads by their more rational approach, to expedite the drug discovery and development process. CONCLUSION: Modern drug discovery strategies include both methods in tandem or in an iterative way. This review primarily provides a succinct overview and comparison of experimental and in silico screening techniques, selected case studies where both methods were used in concert to investigate their performance and complementary nature and a statement on the developments in experimental and in silico approaches in the near future.
Authors: Kristin Engels; Carsten Beyer; Maria L Suárez Fernández; Frank Bender; Michael Gassel; Gottfried Unden; Richard J Marhöfer; Jeremy C Mottram; Paul M Selzer Journal: ChemMedChem Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Grasiella Andriani; Anne-Danielle C Chessler; Gilles Courtemanche; Barbara A Burleigh; Ana Rodriguez Journal: PLoS Negl Trop Dis Date: 2011-08-30
Authors: Bruno O Villoutreix; Melaine A Kuenemann; Jean-Luc Poyet; Heriberto Bruzzoni-Giovanelli; Céline Labbé; David Lagorce; Olivier Sperandio; Maria A Miteva Journal: Mol Inform Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 3.353
Authors: Shardul Paricharak; Oscar Méndez-Lucio; Aakash Chavan Ravindranath; Andreas Bender; Adriaan P IJzerman; Gerard J P van Westen Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 11.622
Authors: Ying C Henderson; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Anastasios Maniakas; Yunyun Chen; Reid T Powell; Shaohua Peng; Maria Cardenas; Michelle D Williams; Diana Bell; Mark E Zafereo; Rui Jennifer Wang; Steve E Scherer; David A Wheeler; Maria E Cabanillas; Marie-Claude Hofmann; Faye M Johnson; Clifford C Stephan; Vlad Sandulache; Stephen Y Lai Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-09-27 Impact factor: 6.134