| Literature DB >> 29642417 |
Anna Pawełczyk1, Katarzyna Sowa-Kasprzak2, Dorota Olender3, Lucjusz Zaprutko4.
Abstract
The design and discovery of novel drug candidates are the initial and most probably the crucial steps in the drug development process. One of the tasks of medicinal chemistry is to produce new molecules that have a desired biological effect. However, even today the search for new pharmaceuticals is a very complicated process that is hard to rationalize. Literature provides many scientific reports on future prospects of design of potentially useful drugs. Many trends have been proposed for the design of new drugs containing different structures (dimers, heterodimers, heteromers, adducts, associates, complexes, biooligomers, dendrimers, dual-, bivalent-, multifunction drugs and codrugs, identical or non-identical twin drugs, mixed or combo drugs, supramolecular particles and various nanoindividuals. Recently much attention has been paid to different strategies of molecular hybridization. In this paper, various molecular combinations were described e.g., drug-drug or drug-non-drug combinations which are expressed in a schematic multi-factor form called a molecular matrix, consisting of four factors: association mode, connection method, and the number of elements and linkers. One of the most popular trends is to create small-small molecule combinations such as different hybrids, codrugs, drug-drug conjugates (DDCs) and small-large molecule combinations such as antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), polymer-drug conjugates (PDCs) or different prodrugs and macromolecular therapeutics. A review of the structural possibilities of active framework combinations indicates that a wide range of potentially effective novel-type compounds can be formed. What is particularly important is that new therapeutics can be obtained in fast, efficient, and selective methods using current trends in chemical synthesis and the design of drugs such as the "Lego" concept or rational green approach.Entities:
Keywords: antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs); codrugs; conjugates; drug–drug conjugates (DDCs); green synthesis; hybrids; linker; polymer–drug conjugates (PDCs); prodrugs; “Lego” chemistry
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29642417 PMCID: PMC5979569 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19041104
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
The most common types of hybridized compounds.
| ASSOCIATION MODE | |||
| intermediate | direct | ||
| linker mode | no-linker mode | overlap mode | |
| cleavage linked | stable linked | fused | merged |
| conjugate cleavage | conjugate | fused hybrid/codrugs | merged hybrid (chimera) |
The most common terms for hybridized compounds.
| ASSOCIATION FORMS | |
|---|---|
| Association | Duplication/Dimerization |
| non-identical twin drugs | identical twin drugs |
| two-pharmacophore drugs | one-pharmacophore twin drugs |
| non-symetrical twin drugs | symmetrical drugs |
| dual acting drugs | |
| hybrid drugs | |
| codrugs | |
| mutual prodrugs | |
| prodrugs | |
| drug-drug conjugates (DDCs) | |
| antybody-drug conjugates (ADCs) | |
| polymer-drug conjugates (PDCs) | |
| heterodimers | homodimers |
Figure 1Molecular matrix for “Lego” chemistry approach.
Figure 2NO-donor aspirin-like linked compounds.
Figure 3Oxazolidine-quinolone hybrid (Cadazolid).
Figure 4Tacrine homo- and heterodimer.
Figure 5Aspirin—homodimer.
Figure 6Direct hybrids/codrugs.
Figure 7Azidothymidine-dihydroartemizine hybrid/codrug.
Figure 8Thalidomide-curcumin and coumarin-chalcone hybrids.
Figure 9Rivastigmine-fluoxetine hybrid.
Figure 10Structure of BRD96-doxorubicin ADC.
Figure 11General model of bioconjugate.
Figure 12Polymer-drug conjugates (PDCs); (a) no-linker mode, (b) linker mode.
Comparative characteristics the main type of hybridized compounds.
| Molecular Consortia Descriptors | Hybrid Drugs | Conjugates | Codrugs | Prodrugs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elements number | two (or more) distinct pharmacophore | two (or more) elements (DDCs, ADCs, PDCs) | two (or more) therapeutic compounds | two (or more) elements, only one is bioactive drug, carrier: inactivepolymer, antibody, gene, virus, enzyme |
| Association mode | direct a | direct a | direct a | direct a |
| indirect b | indirect b | indirect b | indirect b | |
| merged c | ||||
| Transformation (In vivo) | no-enzymatic cleavage | linker dependent selected | enzymatic cleavage | enzymatic cleavage |
| Activity | dual effects, different targets | dual effects, different targets | dual effects from both drugs | single effect (carrier is inactive) |
| Safety | enhancing efficacy, improving safety | improved therapeutic index | improved therapeutic index | additional toxicity depends on carrier |
| Design options | based on non-labile linker | based on labile or non-labile linker | based on specific chemical function | unlimited approach |
a direct—no-linker concept, b indirect—linker concept, c merged—overlap concept.
Ultrasounds versus microwave.
| Reaction Characteristics | Ultrasounds (US) | Microwaves (MW) |
|---|---|---|
| Reaction media | aqueous and organic solvents | MW-absorbing liquids; solvent-free protocols |
| Acceleration | variable (from min to h) | high (min, even seconds!) |
| Activation | cavitation (thermal effects) | thermal effects, (specific non-thermal) |
| Scaling up | possible but still a challenge | Possible |
| Chemical effects | selectivity changes | selectivity changes |
| Other effects | light emission, cleaning, microstreaming | heating above boiling points, change in solvent properties |
Hydrazinolysis of methyl salicylate.
| Method | Time | Yield (%) |
|---|---|---|
| reflux | 9 h | 73 |
| US (50 W) | 1.5 h | 79 |
| MW (200 W) | 18 min | 80 |
| MW + US | 40 s | 84 |