Rethinking drug design in the artificial intelligence era.
Journal
Nature reviews. Drug discovery
ISSN: 1474-1784
Titre abrégé: Nat Rev Drug Discov
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101124171
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
accepted:
28
10
2019
pubmed:
6
12
2019
medline:
7
7
2020
entrez:
6
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being applied in drug discovery. While some protagonists point to vast opportunities potentially offered by such tools, others remain sceptical, waiting for a clear impact to be shown in drug discovery projects. The reality is probably somewhere in-between these extremes, yet it is clear that AI is providing new challenges not only for the scientists involved but also for the biopharma industry and its established processes for discovering and developing new medicines. This article presents the views of a diverse group of international experts on the 'grand challenges' in small-molecule drug discovery with AI and the approaches to address them.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31801986
doi: 10.1038/s41573-019-0050-3
pii: 10.1038/s41573-019-0050-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
353-364Références
Smietana, K., Siatkowski, M. & Møller, M. Trends in clinical success rates. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 15, 379–380 (2016).
pubmed: 27199245
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.85
Mullard, A. 2018 FDA drug approvals. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 18, 85–89 (2019).
pubmed: 30710142
doi: 10.1038/d41573-019-00014-x
Hopfinger, A. J. Computer-assisted drug design. J. Med. Chem. 28, 1133–1139 (1985).
pubmed: 2993608
doi: 10.1021/jm00147a001
Martin, Y. C. Computer-assisted rational drug design. Methods Enzymol. 203, 587–613 (1991).
pubmed: 1762572
doi: 10.1016/0076-6879(91)03031-B
Yu, W. & MacKerell, A. D. Jr. Computer-aided drug design methods. Methods Mol. Biol. 1520, 85–106 (2017).
pmcid: 5248982
pubmed: 27873247
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6634-9_5
Baig, M. H. et al. Computer aided drug design: success and limitations. Curr. Pharm. Des. 22, 572–581 (2016).
pubmed: 26601966
doi: 10.2174/1381612822666151125000550
Yang, X., Wang, Y., Byrne, R., Schneider, G. & Yang, S. Concepts of artificial intelligence for computer-assisted drug discovery. Chem. Rev. 119, 10520–10594 (2019).
pubmed: 31294972
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00728
Ching, T. et al. Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. J. R. Soc. Interface 15, 20170387 (2018).
pmcid: 5938574
pubmed: 29618526
doi: 10.1098/rsif.2017.0387
Mignani, S., Huber, S., Tomás, H., Rodrigues, J. & Majoral, J. P. Why and how have drug discovery strategies in pharma changed? What are the new mindsets? Drug Discov. Today 21, 239–249 (2016).
pubmed: 26376356
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.09.007
Jordan, A. M. Artificial intelligence in drug design – the storm before the calm? ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 9, 1150–1152 (2018).
pmcid: 6295848
pubmed: 30613315
doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.8b00500
Bender, A. et al. Which aspects of HTS are empirically correlated with downstream success? Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 11, 327–337 (2008).
pubmed: 18428086
Gilad, Y., Nadassy, K. & Senderowitz, H. A reliable computational workflow for the selection of optimal screening libraries. J. Cheminform. 7, 61 (2015).
pmcid: 4676138
pubmed: 26692904
doi: 10.1186/s13321-015-0108-0
Bajorath, J. Extending accessible chemical space for the identification of novel leads. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 11, 825–829 (2016).
pubmed: 27383145
doi: 10.1080/17460441.2016.1210126
Holenz, J. & Stoy, P. Advances in lead generation. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 29, 517–524 (2019).
pubmed: 30606700
doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2018.12.001
Oliveira, A. L. Biotechnology, big data and artificial intelligence. Biotechnol. J. 14, e1800613 (2019).
pubmed: 30927505
doi: 10.1002/biot.201800613
Brown, N. et al. Big data in drug discovery. Prog. Med. Chem. 57, 277–356 (2018).
pubmed: 29680150
doi: 10.1016/bs.pmch.2017.12.003
Esaki, T. et al. Data curation can improve the prediction accuracy of metabolic intrinsic clearance. Mol. Inf. 38, 1800086 (2019).
doi: 10.1002/minf.201800086
Fourches, D., Muratov, E. & Tropsha, A. Trust, but verify II: a practical guide to chemogenomics data curation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 1243–1252 (2016).
pmcid: 5657146
pubmed: 27280890
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00129
Cases, M. et al. The eTOX data-sharing project to advance in silico drug induced toxicity prediction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 15, 21136–21154 (2014).
pmcid: 4264217
pubmed: 25405742
doi: 10.3390/ijms151121136
Huang, R. et al. Modelling the Tox21 10K chemical profiles for in vivo toxicity prediction and mechanism characterization. Nat. Commun. 7, 10425 (2016).
pmcid: 4777217
pubmed: 26811972
doi: 10.1038/ncomms10425
Kirchmair, J. et al. Predicting drug metabolism: experiment and/or computation? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 387–404 (2015).
pubmed: 25907346
doi: 10.1038/nrd4581
Knudsen, T. B. et al. FutureTox II: in vitro data and in silico models for predictive toxicology. Toxicol. Sci. 143, 256–267 (2015).
pmcid: 4318934
pubmed: 25628403
doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu234
Wetmore, B. A. Quantitative in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation in a high-throughput environment. Toxicology 332, 94–101 (2015).
pubmed: 24907440
doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2014.05.012
Gorelick, F. S. & Lerch, M. M. Do animal models of acute pancreatitis reproduce human disease?. Cell Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 4, 251–262 (2017).
pmcid: 5518169
pubmed: 28752114
doi: 10.1016/j.jcmgh.2017.05.007
Haeussler, M. et al. Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR. Genome Biol. 17, 148 (2016).
pmcid: 4934014
pubmed: 27380939
doi: 10.1186/s13059-016-1012-2
Rao, M. et al. Novel computational approach to predict off-target interactions for small molecules. Front. Big Data 2, 25 (2019).
pubmed: 33693348
pmcid: 7931946
doi: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00025
Bittker, J. A. & Ross, N. T. (Eds) High Throughput Screening Methods: Evolution and Refinement (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2017).
Papadatos, G., Gaulton, A., Hersey, A. & Overington, J. P. Activity, assay and target data curation and quality in the ChEMBL database. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 29, 885–896 (2015).
doi: 10.1007/s10822-015-9860-5
Tang, J. et al. Drug target commons: a community effort to build a consensus knowledge base for drug-target interactions. Cell Chem. Biol. 25, 224–229 (2018).
pmcid: 5814751
pubmed: 29276046
doi: 10.1016/j.chembiol.2017.11.009
Mazzolari, A. et al. Prediction of UGT-mediated metabolism using the manually curated MetaQSAR database. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 10, 633–638 (2019).
pmcid: 6466832
pubmed: 30996809
doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.8b00603
Santos, R. et al. A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 19–34 (2017).
pubmed: 27910877
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.230
Lin, Y. et al. Drug target ontology to classify and integrate drug discovery data. J. Biomed. Sem. 8, 50 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s13326-017-0161-x
Halpern, Y., Choi, Y., Horng, S. & Sontag, D. Using anchors to estimate clinical state without labeled data. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2014, 606–615 (2014).
pmcid: 4419996
pubmed: 25954366
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).
pmcid: 4792175
pubmed: 26978244
doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
Food and Drug Administration. Computerized systems used in clinical investigations (FDA, 2007).
Rattan, A. K. Data integrity: history, issues, and remediation of issues. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 72, 105–116 (2018).
pubmed: 29158286
doi: 10.5731/pdajpst.2017.007765
Shockley, K. R. Quantitative high-throughput screening data analysis: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov. Today 20, 296–300 (2015).
pubmed: 25449657
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2014.10.005
Mpindi, J. P. et al. Impact of normalization methods on high-throughput screening data with high hit rates and drug testing with dose–response data. Bioinformatics 31, 3815–3821 (2015).
pmcid: 4653387
pubmed: 26254433
Kalliokoski, T., Kramer, C., Vulpetti, A. & Gedeck, P. Comparability of mixed IC
pmcid: 3628986
pubmed: 23613770
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061007
Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice (Wolters Kluwer, 2012).
Casale, F. P., Dalca, A. V., Saglietti, L., Listgarten, L. & Fusi, M. Gaussian process prior variational autoencoders. in Adv. Neural Inf. Process Syst. (NIPS, 2018).
Goldberg, Y. A primer on neural network models for natural language processing. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 57, 345–420 (2016).
doi: 10.1613/jair.4992
Peck, M., Moffat, A., Latham, B. & Badrick, T. Review of diagnostic error in anatomical pathology and the role and value of second opinions in error prevention. J. Clin. Pathol. 71, 995–1000 (2018).
pubmed: 30068638
doi: 10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205226
Lindsey, R. et al. Deep neural network improves fracture detection by clinicians. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11591–11596 (2018).
pubmed: 30348771
pmcid: 6233134
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1806905115
Miller, D. D. & Brown, E. W. Artificial intelligence in medical practice: the question to the answer? Am. J. Med. 131, 129–133 (2018).
pubmed: 29126825
doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.10.035
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y. & Hinton, G. Deep learning. Nature 521, 436–444 (2015).
pubmed: 26017442
doi: 10.1038/nature14539
Gao, Z., Wang, L., Zhou, L. & Zhang, J. HEp-2 cell image classification with deep convolutional neural networks. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Inf. 21, 416–428 (2017).
doi: 10.1109/JBHI.2016.2526603
Liu, D., Cheng, B., Wang, Z., Zhang, H. & Huang, T. S. Enhance visual recognition under adverse conditions via deep networks. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 28, 4401–4412 (2019).
doi: 10.1109/TIP.2019.2908802
Reker, D. & Brown, J. B. Selection of informative examples in chemogenomic datasets. Methods Mol. Biol. 1825, 369–410 (2018).
pubmed: 30334214
doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-8639-2_13
Korotcov, A., Tkachenko, V., Russo, D. P. & Ekins, S. Comparison of deep learning with multiple machine learning methods and metrics using diverse drug discovery data sets. Mol. Pharm. 14, 4462–4475 (2017).
pmcid: 5741413
pubmed: 29096442
doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.7b00578
Moffat, J. G., Vincent, F., Lee, J. A., Eder, J. & Prunotto, M. Opportunities and challenges in phenotypic drug discovery: an industry perspective. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 531–543 (2017).
pubmed: 28685762
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.111
Aliper, A. et al. Deep learning applications for predicting pharmacological properties of drugs and drug repurposing using transcriptomic data. Mol. Pharm. 13, 2524–2530 (2016).
pmcid: 4965264
pubmed: 27200455
doi: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00248
Schneider, G. & Schneider, P. Macromolecular target prediction by self-organizing feature maps. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 12, 271–277 (2017).
pubmed: 27997811
doi: 10.1080/17460441.2017.1274727
Gaulton, A. et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D945–D954 (2017).
pubmed: 27899562
doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1074
Kim, S. et al. PubChem 2019 update: improved access to chemical data. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D1102–D1109 (2019).
pubmed: 30371825
doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1033
Jagadeesh, K. A., Wu, D. J., Birgmeier, J. A., Boneh, D. & Bejerano, G. Deriving genomic diagnoses without revealing patient genomes. Science 357, 692–695 (2017).
pubmed: 28818945
doi: 10.1126/science.aam9710
Mayr, L. M. & Bojanic, D. Novel trends in high-throughput screening. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 9, 580–588 (2009).
pubmed: 19775937
doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2009.08.004
Gong, Z. et al. Compound libraries: recent advances and their applications in drug discovery. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 14, 216–228 (2017).
pubmed: 28443514
doi: 10.2174/1570163814666170425155154
Franzini, R. M. & Randolph, C. Chemical space of DNA-encoded libraries. J. Med. Chem. 59, 6629–6644 (2016).
pubmed: 26914744
doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01874
Favalli, N., Bassi, G., Scheuermann, J. & Neri, D. DNA-encoded chemical libraries - achievements and remaining challenges. FEBS Lett. 592, 2168–2180 (2018).
pmcid: 6126621
pubmed: 29683493
doi: 10.1002/1873-3468.13068
Lucas, X., Grüning, B. A., Bleher, S. & Günther, S. The purchasable chemical space: a detailed picture. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 915–924 (2015).
pubmed: 25894297
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00116
Lyu, J. et al. Ultra-large library docking for discovering new chemotypes. Nature 566, 224–229 (2019).
pmcid: 6383769
pubmed: 30728502
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-0917-9
Reymond, J. L. et al. Chemical space as a source for new drugs. Med. Chem. Commun. 1, 30–38 (2010).
doi: 10.1039/c0md00020e
Drew, K. L., Baiman, H., Khwaounjoo, P., Yu, B. & Reynisson, J. Size estimation of chemical space: how big is it? J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 64, 490–495 (2012).
pubmed: 22420655
doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.2011.01424.x
Follmann, M. et al. An approach towards enhancement of a screening library: the Next Generation Library Initiative (NGLI) at Bayer – against all odds? Drug Discov. Today 24, 668–672 (2019).
pubmed: 30562586
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2018.12.003
Richter, L. Topliss batchwise schemes reviewed in the era of open data reveal significant differences between enzymes and membrane receptors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57, 2575–2583 (2017).
pubmed: 28934851
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00195
Paul, S. M. et al. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 203–214 (2010).
pubmed: 20168317
doi: 10.1038/nrd3078
Satyanarayanajois, S. D. & Hill, R. A. Medicinal chemistry for 2020. Future Med. Chem. 3, 1765–1786 (2011).
pubmed: 22004084
doi: 10.4155/fmc.11.135
Lusher, S. J., McGuire, R., van Schaik, R. C., Nicholson, C. D. & de Vlieg, J. Data-driven medicinal chemistry in the era of big data. Drug Discov. Today 19, 859–868 (2014).
pubmed: 24361338
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.12.004
Shatsky, M., Shulman-Peleg, A., Nussinov, R. & Wolfson, H. J. The multiple common point set problem and its application to molecule binding pattern detection. J. Comput. Biol. 13, 407–428 (2006).
pubmed: 16597249
doi: 10.1089/cmb.2006.13.407
Wolber, G., Seidel, T., Bendix, F. & Langer, T. Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discov. Today 13, 23–29 (2008).
pubmed: 18190860
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.09.007
Schneider, G. & Fechner, U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 649–663 (2005).
pubmed: 16056391
doi: 10.1038/nrd1799
Schneider, G. & Clark, D. E. Automated de novo drug design – “are we nearly there yet?”. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 58, 10792–10803 (2019).
doi: 10.1002/anie.201814681
Schneider, G. Generative models for artificially-intelligent molecular design. Mol. Inf. 37, 1880131 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/minf.201880131
Merk, D., Friedrich, L., Grisoni, F. & Schneider, G. De novo design of bioactive small molecules by artificial intelligence. Mol. Inf. 37, 1700153 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/minf.201700153
Merk, D., Grisoni, F., Friedrich, L. & Schneider, G. Tuning artificial intelligence on the de novo design of natural-product-inspired retinoid X receptor modulators. Commun. Chem. 1, 68 (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s42004-018-0068-1
Yang, Y., Adelstein, S. J. & Kassis, A. I. Target discovery from data mining approaches. Drug Discov. Today 14, 147–154 (2009).
pubmed: 19135549
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2008.12.005
Frigault, M. M. & Barrett, J. C. Is target validation all we need? Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 17, 81–86 (2014).
pubmed: 25261632
doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2014.09.004
Fisher, J. & Henzinger, T. A. Executable cell biology. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 1239–1249 (2007).
pubmed: 17989686
doi: 10.1038/nbt1356
Moignard, V. et al. Decoding the regulatory network of early blood development from single-cell gene expression measurements. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 269–276 (2015).
pmcid: 4374163
pubmed: 25664528
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3154
Silverbush, D. et al. Cell-specific computational modeling of the PIM pathway in acute myeloid leukemia. Cancer Res. 77, 827–838 (2017).
pubmed: 27965317
doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-1578
Miettinen K. Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization (Springer, 1999).
Lambrinidis, G. & Tsantili-Kakoulidou, A. Challenges with multi-objective QSAR in drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 13, 851–859 (2018).
pubmed: 29996683
doi: 10.1080/17460441.2018.1496079
Nicolaou, C. A. & Brown, N. Multi-objective optimization methods in drug design. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10, e427–e435 (2013).
pubmed: 24050140
doi: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2013.02.001
Nicolotti, O. et al. Strategies of multi-objective optimization in drug discovery and development. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 6, 871–884 (2011).
pubmed: 22646211
doi: 10.1517/17460441.2011.588696
Ekins, S., Honeycutt, J. D. & Metz, J. T. Evolving molecules using multi-objective optimization: applying to ADME/Tox. Drug Discov. Today 15, 451–460 (2010).
pubmed: 20438859
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.04.003
Kutchukian, P. S. & Shakhnovich, E. I. De novo design: balancing novelty and confined chemical space. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5, 789–812 (2010).
pubmed: 22827800
doi: 10.1517/17460441.2010.497534
Grisoni, F., Merk, D., Friedrich, L. & Schneider, G. Design of natural-product-inspired multi-target ligands by machine learning. ChemMedChem 14, 1129–1134 (2019).
pubmed: 30973672
doi: 10.1002/cmdc.201900097
Wong, W. W. & Burkowski, F. J. A constructive approach for discovering new drug leads: using a kernel methodology for the inverse-QSAR problem. J. Cheminform. 1, 4 (2009).
pmcid: 2816860
pubmed: 20142987
doi: 10.1186/1758-2946-1-4
Miyao, T., Kaneko, H. & Funatsu, K. Inverse QSPR/QSAR analysis for chemical structure generation (from y to x). J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 286–299 (2016).
pubmed: 26818135
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00628
Blaschke, T., Olivecrona, M., Engkvist, O., Bajorath, J. & Chen, H. Application of generative autoencoder in de novo molecular design. Mol. Inf. 37, 1700123 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/minf.201700123
Snell, J., Swersky, K. & Zemel, R. Prototypical networks for few-shot learning. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 31 (2017).
Altae-Tran, H., Ramsundar, B., Pappu, A. S. & Pande, V. Low data drug discovery with one-shot learning. ACS Cent. Sci. 3, 283–293 (2017).
pmcid: 5408335
pubmed: 28470045
doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.6b00367
Baskin, I. I. Is one-shot learning a viable option in drug discovery? Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 14, 601–603 (2019).
pubmed: 30882252
doi: 10.1080/17460441.2019.1593368
Duvenaud, D. K. et al. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 28, 2215–2223 (2015).
Gilmer, J., Schoenholz, S. S., Riley, P. F., Vinyals, O. & Dahl, G. E. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 70, 1263–1272 (2017).
Jin, W., Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T. Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 80, 2323–2332 (2018).
Yuan, X., He, P., Zhu, Q. & Li, X. Adversarial examples: attacks and defenses for deep learning. IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst. 30, 2805–2824 (2019).
pubmed: 30640631
doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2018.2886017
Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y. & Weinberger, K. Q. On calibration of modern neural networks. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 70, 1321–1330 (2017).
Kuleshov, V., Fenner, N. & Ermon, S. Accurate uncertainties for deep learning using calibrated regression. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. 80, 2796–2804 (2018).
Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A. & Blundell, C. Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 30, 6402–6413 (2017).
Brookes, D. H., Park, H. & Listgarten, J. Conditioning by adaptive sampling for robust design. Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. 97, 773–782 (2019).
Gillet, V. J. Designing combinatorial libraries optimized on multiple objectives. Methods Mol. Biol. 275, 335–354 (2004).
pubmed: 15141120
doi: 10.1385/1-59259-802-1:335
Shim, V. A., Tan, K. C., Chia, J. Y. & Al Mamun, A. Multi-objective optimization with estimation of distribution algorithm in a noisy environment. Evol. Comput. 21, 149–177 (2013).
pubmed: 22264074
doi: 10.1162/EVCO_a_00066
Kramer, O. Self-Adaptive Heuristic for Evolutionary Computation (Springer-Verlag, 2008).
Hansen, N. The CMA evolution strategy: a tutorial. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.00772 (2016).
Ollivier, Y., Arnold, L., Auger, A. & Hansen, N. Information-geometric optimization algorithms: a unifying picture via invariance principles. J. Mach. Lern. Res. 18, 1–65 (2017).
Brookes, D. H., Busia, A., Fannjiang, C., Murphy K. & Listgarten, J. A view of estimation of distribution algorithms through the lens of expectation-maximization. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10474 (2019).
Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction (MIT Press, 1998).
Schmidhuber, J. Deep learning in neural networks: an overview. Neural Netw. 61, 85–117 (2015).
pubmed: 25462637
doi: 10.1016/j.neunet.2014.09.003
Kingma, D. P. & Welling, M. Auto-encoding variational Bayes. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1312.6114 (2014).
Mikolov, T., Sutskever, I., Chen, K., Corrado, G. & Dean, J. Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. Preprint at arXiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4546 (2013).
Schneider, G. & Wrede, P. Artificial neural networks for computer-based molecular design. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 70, 175–222 (1998).
pubmed: 9830312
doi: 10.1016/S0079-6107(98)00026-1
Schneider, G. Neural networks are useful tools for drug design. Neural Netw. 13, 15–16 (2000).
pubmed: 10935454
doi: 10.1016/S0893-6080(99)00094-5
Zupan, J. & Gasteiger, J. Neural Networks for Chemists (VCH, 1993).
Gómez-Bombarelli, R. et al. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules. ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 268–276 (2018).
pmcid: 5833007
pubmed: 29532027
doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00572
Sattarov, B. et al. De novo molecular design by combining deep autoencoder recurrent neural networks with generative topographic mapping. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 1182–1196 (2019).
pubmed: 30785751
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00751
Hopkins, A. L., Keserü, G. M., Leeson, P. D., Rees, D. C. & Reynolds, C. H. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 13, 105–121 (2014).
pubmed: 24481311
doi: 10.1038/nrd4163
Cavalluzzi, M. M., Mangiatordi, G. F., Nicolotti, O. & Lentini, G. Ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery: the pros and cons from a practical perspective. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 12, 1087–1104 (2017).
pubmed: 28814111
doi: 10.1080/17460441.2017.1365056
Meanwell, N. A. Improving drug design: an update on recent applications of efficiency metrics, strategies for replacing problematic elements, and compounds in nontraditional drug space. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 29, 564–616 (2016).
pubmed: 26974882
doi: 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.6b00043
Kenny, P. W., Leitão., A. & Montanari, C. A. Ligand efficiency metrics considered harmful. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 28, 699–710 (2014).
pubmed: 24899110
doi: 10.1007/s10822-014-9757-8
Plowright, A. T. et al. Hypothesis driven drug design: improving quality and effectiveness of the design-make-test-analyse cycle. Drug Discov. Today 17, 56–62 (2012).
pubmed: 21963616
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2011.09.012
Cumming, J. G., Davis, A. M., Muresan, S., Haeberlein, M. & Chen, H. Chemical predictive modelling to improve compound quality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12, 948–962 (2013).
pubmed: 24287782
doi: 10.1038/nrd4128
Harrison, S. et al. Extending ‘predict first’ to the design-make-test cycle in small-molecule drug discovery. Future Med. Chem. 9, 533–536 (2017).
pubmed: 28402685
doi: 10.4155/fmc-2017-0025
Andersson, S. et al. Making medicinal chemistry more effective – application of Lean Sigma to improve processes, speed and quality. Drug Discov. Today 14, 598–604 (2009).
pubmed: 19508922
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.03.005
Blakemore, D. C. et al. Organic synthesis provides opportunities to transform drug discovery. Nat. Chem. 10, 383–394 (2018).
pubmed: 29568051
doi: 10.1038/s41557-018-0021-z
Schneider, G. Automating drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 97–113 (2018).
pubmed: 29242609
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2017.232
Reker, D., Schneider, P. & Schneider, G. Multi-objective active machine learning rapidly improves structure-activity models and reveals new protein-protein interaction inhibitors. Chem. Sci. 7, 3919–3927 (2016).
pmcid: 6013791
pubmed: 30155037
doi: 10.1039/C5SC04272K
Reker, D., Schneider, P., Schneider, G. & Brown, J. B. Active learning for computational chemogenomics. Future Med. Chem. 9, 381–402 (2017).
pubmed: 28263088
doi: 10.4155/fmc-2016-0197
Steiner, S. et al. Organic synthesis in a modular robotic system driven by a chemical programming language. Science 363, eaav2211 (2019).
pubmed: 30498165
doi: 10.1126/science.aav2211
Nettekoven, M. & Thomas, A. W. Accelerating drug discovery by integrative implementation of laboratory automation in the work flow. Curr. Med. Chem. 9, 2179–2190 (2002).
pubmed: 12470254
doi: 10.2174/0929867023368764
Selekman, J. A. et al. High-throughput automation in chemical process development. Annu. Rev. Chem. Biomol. Eng. 8, 525–547 (2017).
pubmed: 28460183
doi: 10.1146/annurev-chembioeng-060816-101411
King, R. D. et al. Make way for robot scientists. Science 325, 945 (2009).
pubmed: 19696334
doi: 10.1126/science.325_945a
Dimitrov, T., Kreisbeck, C., Becker, J. S., Aspuru-Guzik, A. & Saikin, S. K. Autonomous molecular design: then and now. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 11, 28 (2019).
doi: 10.1021/acsami.9b01226
Jordan, A. M. & Roughley, S. D. Drug discovery chemistry: a primer for the non-specialist. Drug Discov. Today 14, 731–744 (2009).
pubmed: 19416759
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.04.005
Roughley, S. D. & Jordan, A. M. The medicinal chemist’s toolbox: an analysis of reactions used in the pursuit of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 54, 3451–3479 (2011).
pubmed: 21504168
doi: 10.1021/jm200187y
Boström, J. & Brown, D. G. Stuck in a rut with old chemistry. Drug Discov. Today 21, 701–703 (2016).
pubmed: 26945942
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.02.017
Boström, J., Brown, D. G., Young, R. J. & Keserü, G. M. Expanding the medicinal chemistry synthetic toolbox. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 17, 709–727 (2018).
pubmed: 30140018
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2018.116
Segall, M. D. Multi-parameter optimization: identifying high quality compounds with a balance of properties. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18, 1292–1310 (2012).
pubmed: 22316157
doi: 10.2174/138161212799436430
Scott, J. S. & Waring, M. J. Practical application of ligand efficiency metrics in lead optimization. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 26, 3006–3015 (2018).
pubmed: 29655612
doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2018.04.004
Griffen, E., Leach, A. G., Robb, G. R. & Warner, D. J. Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. J. Med. Chem. 54, 7739–7750 (2011).
pubmed: 21936582
doi: 10.1021/jm200452d
King, R. D. et al. The automation of science. Science 324, 85–89 (2009).
pubmed: 19342587
doi: 10.1126/science.1165620
Hessler, G. & Baringhaus, K. H. Artificial intelligence in drug design. Molecules 23, 2520 (2018).
pmcid: 6222615
doi: 10.3390/molecules23102520
Szymkuć, S. et al. Computer-assisted synthetic planning: the end of the beginning. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 5904–5937 (2016).
doi: 10.1002/anie.201506101
Segler, M. H. S., Preuss, M. & Waller, M. P. Planning chemical syntheses with deep neural networks and symbolic AI. Nature 555, 604–610 (2018).
pubmed: 29595767
doi: 10.1038/nature25978
Coley, C. W., Green, W. H. & Jensen, K. F. Machine learning in computer-aided synthesis planning. Acc. Chem. Res. 51, 1281–1289 (2018).
pubmed: 29715002
doi: 10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00087
Bédard, A. C. et al. Reconfigurable system for automated optimization of diverse chemical reactions. Science 361, 1220–1225 (2018).
pubmed: 30237351
doi: 10.1126/science.aat0650
Rohall, S. L., Pancost-Heidebrecht, M., Shirley, B., Bacon, D. & Tarselli, M. A. Recommendations for chemists: a case study. in Proc. 12th ACM Conf. Recom. Syst. 347–351 (ACM, 2018).
Zhavoronkov, A. et al. Deep learning enables rapid identification of potent DDR1 kinase inhibitors. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 1038–1040 (2019).
pubmed: 31477924
doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0224-x
Canning, P. et al. Structural mechanisms determining inhibition of the collagen receptor DDR1 by selective and multi-targeted type II kinase inhibitors. J. Mol. Biol. 426, 2457–2470 (2014).
pmcid: 4058747
pubmed: 24768818
doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2014.04.014
Thrun, S. & Pratt, L. (eds). Learning to Learn (Springer, 2012).
Gupta, A. et al. Generative recurrent networks for de novo drug design. Mol. Inf. 37, 1700111 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/minf.201700111
Bruns, D., Merk, D., Kumar, K. S., Baumgartner, M. & Schneider, G. Synthetic activators of cell migration designed by constructive machine learning. ChemistryOpen 8, 1303–1308 (2019).
pmcid: 6807213
pubmed: 31660283
doi: 10.1002/open.201900222
Sieroka, N., Otto, V. I. & Folkers, G. Critical thinking in education and research – why and how? Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57, 16574–16575 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/anie.201810397
Kut, E., Sieroka, N., Folkers, G., & Otto, V. I. A new course fosters critical thinking on pharmaceutical sciences at ETH Zurich. ChemMedChem News https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/18607187/homepage/archive (2018).
Azzaoui, K. et al. Scientific competency questions as the basis for semantically enriched open pharmacological space development. Drug Discov. Today 18, 843–852 (2013).
pubmed: 23702085
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2013.05.008
Topol, E. J. High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence. Nat. Med. 25, 44–56 (2019).
pubmed: 30617339
doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0300-7
Goldberg, K. Robots and the return to collaborative intelligence. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 2–4 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s42256-018-0008-x
Heuer, L. AI could threaten pharmaceutical patents. Nature 558, 519 (2018).
pubmed: 29950627
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05555-6
King, R. D. & Courtney, P. Dilemma over AI and drug patenting already under debate. Nature 560, 307 (2018).
pubmed: 30108355
doi: 10.1038/d41586-018-05955-8
Olley, D. (ed.) Artificial intelligence: how knowledge is created, transferred, and used (Elsevier, 2019).
Brown, S. P., Muchmore, S. W. & Hajduk, P. J. Healthy skepticism: assessing realistic model performance. Drug Discov. Today 14, 420–427 (2009).
pubmed: 19340931
doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.01.012
McDonagh, J. L., Nath, N., De Ferrari, L., van Mourik, T. & Mitchell, J. B. O. Uniting cheminformatics and chemical theory to predict the intrinsic aqueous solubility of crystalline druglike molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 844–856 (2014).
pmcid: 3965570
pubmed: 24564264
doi: 10.1021/ci4005805
Hartenfeller, M. et al. DOGS: Reaction-driven de novo design of bioactive compounds. PLOS Comput. Biol. 8, e1002380 (2012).
pmcid: 3280956
pubmed: 22359493
doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002380
Schwaller, P., Gaudin, T., Lányi, D., Bekas, C. & Laino, T. “Found in Translation”: predicting outcomes of complex organic chemistry reactions using neural sequence-to-sequence models. Chem. Sci. 9, 6091–6098 (2018).
pmcid: 6053976
pubmed: 30090297
doi: 10.1039/C8SC02339E
Button, A., Merk, D., Hiss, J. A. & Schneider, G. Automated de novo molecular design by hybrid machine intelligence and rule-driven chemical synthesis. Nat. Mach. Intell. 1, 307–315 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s42256-019-0067-7
Yuan, W. et al. Chemical space mimicry for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57, 875–882 (2017).
pmcid: 5802964
pubmed: 28257191
doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00754
Segler, M. H. S., Kogej, T., Tyrchan, C. & Waller, M. P. Generating focused molecule libraries for drug discovery with recurrent neural networks. ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 120–131 (2018).
pubmed: 29392184
doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00512
Popova, M., Isayev, O. & Tropsha, A. Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design. Sci. Adv. 4, eaap7885 (2018).
pmcid: 6059760
pubmed: 30050984
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aap7885
Perron, Q. et al. Deep learning for ligand-based de novo design in lead optimization: a real life case study. Presented at the XXV EFMC International Symposium on Medicinal Chemistry (2018).
Rodriguez, T. et al. Multidimensional de novo design reveals 5-HT
doi: 10.1002/anie.201410201
Reutlinger, M., Rodrigues, T., Schneider, P. & Schneider, G. Multi-objective molecular de novo design by adaptive fragment prioritization. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 53, 4244–4248 (2014).
doi: 10.1002/anie.201310864
Parry, D. M. Closing the loop: developing an integrated design, make, and test platform for discovery. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 10, 848–856 (2019).
pubmed: 31223437
pmcid: 6580368
doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.9b00095
Esch, E. W., Bahinski, A. & Huh, D. Organs–on–chips at the frontiers of drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 248–260 (2015).
pmcid: 4826389
pubmed: 25792263
doi: 10.1038/nrd4539
Eglen, R. M. & Randle, D. H. Drug discovery goes three-dimensional: goodbye to flat high-throughput screening? Assay. Drug Dev. Technol. 13, 262–265 (2015).
pubmed: 26121065
doi: 10.1089/adt.2015.647
Jones, L. H. & Bunnage, M. E. Applications of chemogenomic library screening in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 16, 285–296 (2017).
pubmed: 28104905
doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.244
Trobe, M. & Burke, M. D. The molecular industrial revolution: automated synthesis of small molecules. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 57, 4192–4214 (2018).
doi: 10.1002/anie.201710482
Baranczak, A. et al. Integrated platform for expedited synthesis–purification–testing of small molecule libraries. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 8, 461–465 (2017).
pmcid: 5392760
pubmed: 28435537
doi: 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.7b00054
Vasudevan, A., Bogdan, A. R., Koolman, H. F., Wang, Y. & Djuric, S. W. Enabling chemistry technologies and parallel synthesis–accelerators of drug discovery programmes. Prog. Med. Chem. 56, 1–35 (2017).
pubmed: 28314410
doi: 10.1016/bs.pmch.2016.11.001
Pant, S. M. et al. Design, synthesis, and testing of potent, selective hepsin inhibitors via application of an automated closed-loop opptimization platform. J. Med. Chem. 61, 4335–4347 (2018).
pubmed: 29701962
doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.7b01698
Gesmundo, N. J. et al. Nanoscale synthesis and affinity ranking. Nature 557, 228–232 (2018).
pubmed: 29686415
doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0056-8