Hubbry Logo
Drug designDrug designMain
Open search
Drug design
Community hub
Drug design
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Drug design
Drug design
Drug design
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Drug discovery cycle schematic

Drug design, often referred to as rational drug design or simply rational design, is the inventive process of finding new medications based on the knowledge of a biological target.[1] The drug is most commonly an organic small molecule that activates or inhibits the function of a biomolecule such as a protein, which in turn results in a therapeutic benefit to the patient. In the most basic sense, drug design involves the design of molecules that are complementary in shape and charge to the biomolecular target with which they interact and therefore will bind to it. Drug design frequently but not necessarily relies on computer modeling techniques.[2] This type of modeling is sometimes referred to as computer-aided drug design. Finally, drug design that relies on the knowledge of the three-dimensional structure of the biomolecular target is known as structure-based drug design.[2] In addition to small molecules, biopharmaceuticals including peptides[3][4] and especially therapeutic antibodies are an increasingly important class of drugs and computational methods for improving the affinity, selectivity, and stability of these protein-based therapeutics have also been developed.[5]

Definition

[edit]

The phrase "drug design" is similar to ligand design (i.e., design of a molecule that will bind tightly to its target).[6] Although design techniques for prediction of binding affinity are reasonably successful, there are many other properties, such as bioavailability, metabolic half-life, and side effects, that first must be optimized before a ligand can become a safe and effective drug. These other characteristics are often difficult to predict with rational design techniques.

Due to high attrition rates, especially during clinical phases of drug development, more attention is being focused early in the drug design process on selecting candidate drugs whose physicochemical properties are predicted to result in fewer complications during development and hence more likely to lead to an approved, marketed drug.[7] Furthermore, in vitro experiments complemented with computation methods are increasingly used in early drug discovery to select compounds with more favorable ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion) and toxicological profiles.[8]

Drug targets

[edit]

A biomolecular target (most commonly a protein or a nucleic acid) is a key molecule involved in a particular metabolic or signaling pathway that is associated with a specific disease condition or pathology or to the infectivity or survival of a microbial pathogen. Potential drug targets are not necessarily disease causing but must by definition be disease modifying.[9] In some cases, small molecules will be designed to enhance or inhibit the target function in the specific disease modifying pathway. Small molecules (for example receptor agonists, antagonists, inverse agonists, or modulators; enzyme activators or inhibitors; or ion channel openers or blockers)[10] will be designed that are complementary to the binding site of target.[11] Small molecules (drugs) can be designed so as not to affect any other important "off-target" molecules (often referred to as antitargets) since drug interactions with off-target molecules may lead to undesirable side effects.[12] Due to similarities in binding sites, closely related targets identified through sequence homology have the highest chance of cross reactivity and hence highest side effect potential.

Most commonly, drugs are organic small molecules produced through chemical synthesis, but biopolymer-based drugs (also known as biopharmaceuticals) produced through biological processes are becoming increasingly more common.[13] In addition, mRNA-based gene silencing technologies may have therapeutic applications.[14] For example, nanomedicines based on mRNA can streamline and expedite the drug development process, enabling transient and localized expression of immunostimulatory molecules.[15] In vitro transcribed (IVT) mRNA allows for delivery to various accessible cell types via the blood or alternative pathways. The use of IVT mRNA serves to convey specific genetic information into a person's cells, with the primary objective of preventing or altering a particular disease.[16]

Drug discovery

[edit]

Phenotypic drug discovery

[edit]

Phenotypic drug discovery is a traditional drug discovery method, also known as forward pharmacology or classical pharmacology. It uses the process of phenotypic screening on collections of synthetic small molecules, natural products, or extracts within chemical libraries to pinpoint substances exhibiting beneficial therapeutic effects. This method is to first discover the in vivo or in vitro functional activity of drugs (such as extract drugs or natural products), and then perform target identification. Phenotypic discovery uses a practical and target-independent approach to generate initial leads, aiming to discover pharmacologically active compounds and therapeutics that operate through novel drug mechanisms.[17] This method allows the exploration of disease phenotypes to find potential treatments for conditions with unknown, complex, or multifactorial origins, where the understanding of molecular targets is insufficient for effective intervention.[18]

Rational drug discovery

[edit]

Rational drug design (also called reverse pharmacology) begins with a hypothesis that modulation of a specific biological target may have therapeutic value. In order for a biomolecule to be selected as a drug target, two essential pieces of information are required. The first is evidence that modulation of the target will be disease modifying. This knowledge may come from, for example, disease linkage studies that show an association between mutations in the biological target and certain disease states.[19] The second is that the target is capable of binding to a small molecule and that its activity can be modulated by the small molecule.[20]

Once a suitable target has been identified, the target is normally cloned and produced and purified. The purified protein is then used to establish a screening assay. In addition, the three-dimensional structure of the target may be determined.

The search for small molecules that bind to the target is begun by screening libraries of potential drug compounds. This may be done by using the screening assay (a "wet screen"). In addition, if the structure of the target is available, a virtual screen may be performed of candidate drugs. Ideally, the candidate drug compounds should be "drug-like", that is they should possess properties that are predicted to lead to oral bioavailability, adequate chemical and metabolic stability, and minimal toxic effects.[21] Several methods are available to estimate druglikeness such as Lipinski's Rule of Five and a range of scoring methods such as lipophilic efficiency.[22] Several methods for predicting drug metabolism have also been proposed in the scientific literature.[23]

Due to the large number of drug properties that must be simultaneously optimized during the design process, multi-objective optimization techniques are sometimes employed.[24] Finally because of the limitations in the current methods for prediction of activity, drug design is still very much reliant on serendipity[25] and bounded rationality.[26]

Computer-aided drug design

[edit]

The most fundamental goal in drug design is to predict whether a given molecule will bind to a target and if so how strongly. Molecular mechanics or molecular dynamics is most often used to estimate the strength of the intermolecular interaction between the small molecule and its biological target. These methods are also used to predict the conformation of the small molecule and to model conformational changes in the target that may occur when the small molecule binds to it.[3][4] Semi-empirical, ab initio quantum chemistry methods, or density functional theory are often used to provide optimized parameters for the molecular mechanics calculations and also provide an estimate of the electronic properties (electrostatic potential, polarizability, etc.) of the drug candidate that will influence binding affinity.[27]

Molecular mechanics methods may also be used to provide semi-quantitative prediction of the binding affinity. Also, knowledge-based scoring function may be used to provide binding affinity estimates. These methods use linear regression, machine learning, neural nets or other statistical techniques to derive predictive binding affinity equations by fitting experimental affinities to computationally derived interaction energies between the small molecule and the target.[28][29]

Ideally, the computational method will be able to predict affinity before a compound is synthesized and hence in theory only one compound needs to be synthesized, saving enormous time and cost. The reality is that present computational methods are imperfect and provide, at best, only qualitatively accurate estimates of affinity. In practice, it requires several iterations of design, synthesis, and testing before an optimal drug is discovered. Computational methods have accelerated discovery by reducing the number of iterations required and have often provided novel structures.[30][31]

Computer-aided drug design may be used at any of the following stages of drug discovery:

  1. hit identification using virtual screening (structure- or ligand-based design)
  2. hit-to-lead optimization of affinity and selectivity (structure-based design, QSAR, etc.)
  3. lead optimization of other pharmaceutical properties while maintaining affinity
Flowchart of a common Clustering Analysis for Structure-Based Drug Design
Flowchart of a Usual Clustering Analysis for Structure-Based Drug Design

In order to overcome the insufficient prediction of binding affinity calculated by recent scoring functions, the protein-ligand interaction and compound 3D structure information are used for analysis. For structure-based drug design, several post-screening analyses focusing on protein-ligand interaction have been developed for improving enrichment and effectively mining potential candidates:

  • Consensus scoring[32][33]
    • Selecting candidates by voting of multiple scoring functions
    • May lose the relationship between protein-ligand structural information and scoring criterion
  • Cluster analysis[34][35]
    • Represent and cluster candidates according to protein-ligand 3D information
    • Needs meaningful representation of protein-ligand interactions.

Types

[edit]
Drug discovery cycle highlighting both ligand-based (indirect) and structure-based (direct) drug design strategies.

There are two major types of drug design. The first is referred to as ligand-based drug design and the second, structure-based drug design.[2]

Ligand-based

[edit]

Ligand-based drug design (or indirect drug design) relies on knowledge of other molecules that bind to the biological target of interest. These other molecules may be used to derive a pharmacophore model that defines the minimum necessary structural characteristics a molecule must possess in order to bind to the target.[36] A model of the biological target may be built based on the knowledge of what binds to it, and this model in turn may be used to design new molecular entities that interact with the target. Alternatively, a quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR), in which a correlation between calculated properties of molecules and their experimentally determined biological activity, may be derived. These QSAR relationships in turn may be used to predict the activity of new analogs.[37]

Structure-based

[edit]

Structure-based drug design (or direct drug design) relies on knowledge of the three dimensional structure of the biological target obtained through methods such as x-ray crystallography or NMR spectroscopy.[38] If an experimental structure of a target is not available, it may be possible to create a homology model of the target based on the experimental structure of a related protein. Using the structure of the biological target, candidate drugs that are predicted to bind with high affinity and selectivity to the target may be designed using interactive graphics and the intuition of a medicinal chemist. Alternatively, various automated computational procedures may be used to suggest new drug candidates.[39]

Current methods for structure-based drug design can be divided roughly into three main categories.[40] The first method is identification of new ligands for a given receptor by searching large databases of 3D structures of small molecules to find those fitting the binding pocket of the receptor using fast approximate docking programs. This method is known as virtual screening.

A second category is de novo design of new ligands. In this method, ligand molecules are built up within the constraints of the binding pocket by assembling small pieces in a stepwise manner. These pieces can be either individual atoms or molecular fragments. The key advantage of such a method is that novel structures, not contained in any database, can be suggested.[41][42][43] A third method is the optimization of known ligands by evaluating proposed analogs within the binding cavity.[40]

Binding site identification

[edit]

Binding site identification is the first step in structure based design.[20][44] If the structure of the target or a sufficiently similar homolog is determined in the presence of a bound ligand, then the ligand should be observable in the structure in which case location of the binding site is trivial. However, there may be unoccupied allosteric binding sites that may be of interest. Furthermore, it may be that only apoprotein (protein without ligand) structures are available and the reliable identification of unoccupied sites that have the potential to bind ligands with high affinity is non-trivial. In brief, binding site identification usually relies on identification of concave surfaces on the protein that can accommodate drug sized molecules that also possess appropriate "hot spots" (hydrophobic surfaces, hydrogen bonding sites, etc.) that drive ligand binding.[20][44]

Scoring functions

[edit]
Main article: Scoring functions for docking

Structure-based drug design attempts to use the structure of proteins as a basis for designing new ligands by applying the principles of molecular recognition. Selective high affinity binding to the target is generally desirable since it leads to more efficacious drugs with fewer side effects. Thus, one of the most important principles for designing or obtaining potential new ligands is to predict the binding affinity of a certain ligand to its target (and known antitargets) and use the predicted affinity as a criterion for selection.[45]

One early general-purposed empirical scoring function to describe the binding energy of ligands to receptors was developed by Böhm.[46][47] This empirical scoring function took the form:

where:

  • ΔG0 – empirically derived offset that in part corresponds to the overall loss of translational and rotational entropy of the ligand upon binding.
  • ΔGhb – contribution from hydrogen bonding
  • ΔGionic – contribution from ionic interactions
  • ΔGlip – contribution from lipophilic interactions where |Alipo| is surface area of lipophilic contact between the ligand and receptor
  • ΔGrot – entropy penalty due to freezing a rotatable in the ligand bond upon binding

A more general thermodynamic "master" equation is as follows:[48]

where:

  • desolvation – enthalpic penalty for removing the ligand from solvent
  • motion – entropic penalty for reducing the degrees of freedom when a ligand binds to its receptor
  • configuration – conformational strain energy required to put the ligand in its "active" conformation
  • interaction – enthalpic gain for "resolvating" the ligand with its receptor

The basic idea is that the overall binding free energy can be decomposed into independent components that are known to be important for the binding process. Each component reflects a certain kind of free energy alteration during the binding process between a ligand and its target receptor. The Master Equation is the linear combination of these components. According to Gibbs free energy equation, the relation between dissociation equilibrium constant, Kd, and the components of free energy was built.

Various computational methods are used to estimate each of the components of the master equation. For example, the change in polar surface area upon ligand binding can be used to estimate the desolvation energy. The number of rotatable bonds frozen upon ligand binding is proportional to the motion term. The configurational or strain energy can be estimated using molecular mechanics calculations. Finally the interaction energy can be estimated using methods such as the change in non polar surface, statistically derived potentials of mean force, the number of hydrogen bonds formed, etc. In practice, the components of the master equation are fit to experimental data using multiple linear regression. This can be done with a diverse training set including many types of ligands and receptors to produce a less accurate but more general "global" model or a more restricted set of ligands and receptors to produce a more accurate but less general "local" model.[49]

Examples

[edit]

A particular example of rational drug design involves the use of three-dimensional information about biomolecules obtained from such techniques as X-ray crystallography and NMR spectroscopy. Computer-aided drug design in particular becomes much more tractable when there is a high-resolution structure of a target protein bound to a potent ligand. This approach to drug discovery is sometimes referred to as structure-based drug design. The first unequivocal example of the application of structure-based drug design leading to an approved drug is the carbonic anhydrase inhibitor dorzolamide, which was approved in 1995.[50][51]

Another case study in rational drug design is imatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor designed specifically for the bcr-abl fusion protein that is characteristic for Philadelphia chromosome-positive leukemias (chronic myelogenous leukemia and occasionally acute lymphocytic leukemia). Imatinib is substantially different from previous drugs for cancer, as most agents of chemotherapy simply target rapidly dividing cells, not differentiating between cancer cells and other tissues.[52]

Additional examples include:

Drug screening

[edit]

Types of drug screening include phenotypic screening, high-throughput screening, and virtual screening. Phenotypic screening is characterized by the process of screening drugs using cellular or animal disease models to identify compounds that alter the phenotype and produce beneficial disease-related effects.[54][55] Emerging technologies in high-throughput screening substantially enhance processing speed and decrease the required detection volume.[56] Virtual screening is completed by computer, enabling a large number of molecules can be screened with a short cycle and low cost. Virtual screening uses a range of computational methods that empower chemists to reduce extensive virtual libraries into more manageable sizes.[57]

Case studies

[edit]

Criticism

[edit]

It has been argued that the highly rigid and focused nature of rational drug design suppresses serendipity in drug discovery.[58]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Drug design

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Drug design, also referred to as rational drug design, is a pharmaceutical focused on the invention and optimization of new medications by leveraging knowledge of biological targets, such as proteins or enzymes, and their interactions with drug molecules to achieve therapeutic efficacy while minimizing toxicity and side effects. This process integrates computational modeling, , and to create compounds that selectively bind to disease-related targets, addressing unmet medical needs through targeted interventions rather than broad-spectrum treatments. The field has evolved significantly since its foundational concepts in the late 19th century, beginning with Emil Fischer's "lock-and-key" model of drug-receptor interactions in the 1890s, which posited that drugs fit specific biological sites like keys into locks. Key milestones include the development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis by Corwin Hansch in 1964, enabling predictive modeling of molecular properties, and the establishment of the (PDB) in the 1970s, which now hosts over 220,000 three-dimensional protein structures essential for modern design efforts. These advancements shifted from empirical trial-and-error methods, rooted in screening, to systematic, knowledge-driven approaches that have accelerated the development of blockbuster drugs like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for depression. At its core, drug design encompasses two primary strategies: structure-based drug design (SBDD), which utilizes the three-dimensional structure of a target protein—often determined by or cryo-electron —to model and refine ligand binding, and ligand-based drug design (LBDD), which relies on the known structures and activities of existing ligands to infer pharmacophores and optimize new candidates when target structures are unavailable. Tools such as molecular docking simulations, of vast chemical libraries, and platforms like for have become integral, reducing the time and cost associated with lead identification and optimization. For instance, methods have dramatically lowered pharmacokinetic failure rates from 39% to as low as 1% in some pipelines by predicting absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) properties early in development. The overall drug design process is embedded within a broader discovery and development that typically spans 12–15 years and costs approximately $1–2.8 billion per approved , reflecting high attrition rates where only 1 in 5,000–10,000 compounds progresses to market. It begins with target identification and validation through genomic and proteomic studies, followed by hit discovery via or computational methods, lead optimization to enhance potency and selectivity, and preclinical testing for safety and efficacy. Regulatory milestones, such as submitting an (IND) application to agencies like the U.S. (FDA), ensure that preclinical data on manufacturing, stability, and pharmacology support safe entry into human clinical trials (Phases I–III). Post-approval Phase IV monitoring further evaluates long-term effects, underscoring the emphasis on both innovation and rigorous validation in producing safe, effective therapeutics. Emerging trends, driven by and , promise to revolutionize drug design by enabling rapid, patient-tailored therapies—potentially generating viable candidates in hours rather than years—as demonstrated by AI-assisted discoveries during the . Specifically, AI improves drug discovery by increasing Phase I success rates to 80-90%, shortening development cycles, and excelling in target identification, molecule design, and protein prediction. Despite challenges like off-target effects and the complexity of biological systems, these innovations, combined with biologics such as monoclonal antibodies alongside traditional small molecules, continue to expand the druggable genome and address previously intractable diseases.

Fundamentals

Definition and Principles

Drug design is the inventive process of finding new medications based on the knowledge of a , involving the identification, synthesis, and optimization of small molecules or biologics to interact specifically with these for therapeutic effect. This process designs candidate compounds that are complementary in shape and charge to the target, enabling effective binding while aiming to modulate disease-related biological pathways. Central to drug design are principles such as selectivity, which focuses on targeting specific biological entities to reduce side effects; potency, the strength of a drug's effect at a given concentration; and , the maximum therapeutic response a drug can produce. A key challenge is balancing high binding affinity— the strength of the drug-target interaction—with minimization of off-target effects, which are unintended bindings that can lead to or adverse reactions. These principles guide the development of agents that not only achieve desired outcomes but also maintain safety profiles suitable for clinical use. The drug discovery pipeline provides a structured framework for this process, comprising high-level stages including target identification to select relevant biological entities; hit finding through screening for initial active compounds; lead optimization to enhance properties like affinity and selectivity; and preclinical and clinical testing to assess , , and in models and humans. Essential metrics underpinning these efforts include , the fraction of an administered dose that reaches systemic circulation to exert its effect; , the duration over which drug levels halve in the body, influencing dosing frequency; and the , the ratio of a drug's toxic dose to its effective dose, serving as a measure of its safety margin. These concepts ensure that designed drugs are not only effective but also practical for therapeutic application.

Drug Targets

Drug targets are the biological molecules or pathways that therapeutic agents are designed to interact with in order to elicit a desired pharmacological response. The majority of these targets—over 95%—are proteins, which mediate about 93% of known drug-target interactions. Protein targets primarily fall into classes such as enzymes, which catalyze biochemical reactions; receptors, which transmit signals across cell membranes; and ion channels, which regulate ion flow to influence cellular excitability. Less common targets include nucleic acids like DNA and RNA, which can be modulated to interfere with gene expression or replication, and cellular pathways, such as signaling cascades, where drugs indirectly alter flux through multi-step processes. This focus on proteins reflects their central role in disease pathology, though non-protein targets have gained attention for addressing previously undruggable mechanisms. The identification of drug targets has evolved significantly, particularly since the 1990s, when drug design shifted from empirical, phenotype-based screening to a target-driven paradigm fueled by advances in and the . Modern methods leverage to map genetic variations associated with diseases; for instance, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) scan populations to link single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with traits, prioritizing genes like IL6R for coronary heart disease or for hypercholesterolemia. complements this by profiling protein expression and interactions, using techniques like to identify differentially abundant proteins in diseased states, such as HER2 overexpression in . Disease association studies further integrate these data to nominate candidates, ensuring targets align with therapeutic relevance. Once identified, targets undergo rigorous validation to confirm their causal role in disease and suitability for modulation. Techniques include models, where CRISPR-Cas9 permanently disables genes to assess phenotypic consequences, as in evaluating essentiality for survival. via siRNA transiently silences , allowing observation of effects like reduced tumor growth upon knockdown of oncogenes such as . Functional assays, ranging from enzymatic readouts to disease models, quantify how target perturbation alters biology, ensuring the intervention yields a beneficial outcome without redundancy. These orthogonal approaches minimize false positives and establish . Druggability assessment evaluates a target's potential for safe, effective modulation by small molecules or biologics. Key criteria encompass the presence of suitable binding pockets—hydrophobic cavities capable of accommodating ligands with high affinity, as analyzed in over 22,000 protein-ligand complexes. Differential expression levels between diseased and healthy tissues are examined to confirm accessibility, with tools tracking variations across thousands of cell types to prioritize targets like those upregulated in tumors. Finally, the potential for selective modulation is gauged to avoid , incorporating predictions of off-target effects and interactions that could exacerbate adverse outcomes. Targets meeting these thresholds, such as well-defined pockets, proceed to lead optimization, balancing efficacy with a favorable profile.

History

Early Developments

The origins of drug design trace back to ancient and medieval , where empirical observations guided the use of s for therapeutic purposes. Civilizations such as the Sumerians, , , and Romans documented the medicinal properties of plants, minerals, and animal-derived substances through trial-and-error experimentation, forming the basis of early pharmacopeias. For instance, , derived from the , was used for relief and sedation as early as 3400 BCE in , with its active isolated in 1804 by , marking the first purification of a plant-derived . Similarly, bark (Salix spp.) was employed by ancient cultures for fever and reduction, leading to the isolation of in 1828 by Johann Andreas Buchner, which served as a precursor to and later aspirin. These practices relied heavily on herbal remedies, with medieval European and Islamic scholars compiling texts like the works of that preserved and expanded knowledge of applications. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, began transitioning from purely empirical methods to include serendipitous discoveries and initial , though still limited by incomplete understanding of disease mechanisms. A foundational theoretical advance came in 1894 with Emil Fischer's "lock-and-key" model, which proposed that enzymes and substrates interact specifically, like a key fitting a lock, laying the groundwork for understanding drug-receptor binding. , synthesized in 1832 by through chlorination of , became the first synthetic sedative, introduced clinically in 1869 for and . A landmark serendipitous find occurred in 1928 when observed that a mold contaminant inhibited bacterial growth in a , leading to the identification of penicillin as an antibacterial agent. These advances highlighted the potential of both natural extracts and laboratory synthesis, yet progress remained haphazard, often dependent on accidental observations rather than targeted design. The emergence of pharmaceutical chemistry in the early 1900s introduced more systematic approaches, exemplified by Paul Ehrlich's "magic bullet" concept, which envisioned selective agents that target pathogens without harming the host. This idea culminated in the development of Salvarsan () in 1910 by Ehrlich and , the first effective chemical treatment for through targeted arsenic-based therapy after testing over 600 compounds. Key milestones followed, including the isolation of insulin in 1921 by and Charles Best, which revolutionized by extracting the hormone from canine pancreases. The 1930s saw the advent of sulfa drugs, with discovering Prontosil's antibacterial effects in 1932, the first synthetic agent to combat streptococcal infections in mice and humans. World War II accelerated antibiotic development, notably with Selman Waksman's isolation of from griseus soil bacteria in 1943, providing the first effective treatment for . Despite these breakthroughs, early drug development was constrained by heavy reliance on trial-and-error screening of natural sources and crude synthetics, lacking molecular insights into drug-target interactions or , which often resulted in inconsistent and unforeseen toxicities. This empirical laid the groundwork for modern rational design but underscored the inefficiencies of non-targeted approaches, with many remedies failing due to poor and limited mechanistic knowledge.

Modern Evolution

The post-World War II period marked a transformative boom in biochemistry, fueled by wartime advancements in instrumentation and funding, which accelerated the elucidation of biomolecular structures and laid the groundwork for rational drug design. The 1953 discovery of DNA's double-helix structure by Watson and Crick provided critical insights into genetic mechanisms, indirectly supporting the evolution of receptor theory by emphasizing molecular interactions at the atomic level. Further progress in the included Corwin Hansch's development of quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis in , which integrated and statistics to predict from molecular structure, enabling more rational lead optimization. The establishment of the (PDB) in 1971 centralized three-dimensional protein structures, growing to over 180,000 entries by the 2020s and becoming indispensable for structure-based drug design. This era enabled the first targeted rational designs, exemplified by , developed in the 1970s at Laboratories through systematic modification of analogs to block H2-receptors and treat peptic ulcers. , approved in 1976 as Tagamet, represented a milestone in structure-activity relationship studies, reducing the need for ulcer surgeries by inhibiting secretion without the toxicity of earlier candidates like metiamide. In the and , drug design shifted toward industrialized processes with the introduction of (HTS), originating at companies like in 1986 by adapting natural products assays to synthetic libraries in 96-well plates, scaling from hundreds to thousands of compounds screened weekly. technology, advanced through systems like E. coli expression vectors and baculovirus in insect cells, facilitated large-scale production of drug targets for biochemical assays, enabling the validation of novel proteins as therapeutic candidates. progressed rapidly, culminating in the 2000 determination of the first G-protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) structure—bovine — which provided a template for modeling the superfamily, comprising ~30% of marketed drugs, and spurred structure-based optimization despite initial challenges in . The 2000s witnessed the influence of genomics on target identification, with the Human Genome Project's completion in 2003 cataloging ~20,000 protein-coding genes and enabling genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to link variants to diseases, increasing the success rate of genetically validated targets by up to twofold in clinical trials. This era also saw the ascent of biologics, highlighted by the 1997 FDA approval of rituximab, the first for cancer (), which targeted on B-cells and improved survival rates, paving the way for over a dozen similar therapies like by the decade's end. From the 2010s to the 2020s, (cryo-EM) revolutionized , earning the 2017 for its developers and enabling over 30,000 atomic models as of 2025, particularly for challenging targets like ion channels and complexes previously intractable by X-ray methods. and integrated deeply, with DeepMind's , announced in 2020 and detailed in 2021, achieving near-atomic accuracy in (median 0.96 Å RMSD), accelerating by providing structures for ~200 million proteins without experimental effort. The platform exemplified rapid design principles during the , with Pfizer-BioNTech and vaccines approved in 2020 based on sequences, leveraging lipid nanoparticle delivery for unprecedented speed from sequence to deployment. Post-2020 AI advancements include Insilico Medicine's INS018_055, a generative AI-designed TNIK inhibitor for , which entered Phase II trials in 2023 after target identification in 18 months and reported positive Phase IIa results in November 2024, demonstrating improvements in lung function and end-to-end AI efficiency in small-molecule development.

Discovery Strategies

Phenotypic Approaches

Phenotypic drug discovery (PDD) involves screening compound libraries against biological systems to identify molecules that induce a desired phenotypic change, such as inhibition of or restoration of normal function in models, without prior of the molecular target. This approach is particularly suited for complex s like cancer, where multiple pathways may contribute to pathology, as it focuses on holistic therapeutic outcomes rather than isolated targets. By observing emergent biological responses, PDD can uncover drugs with polypharmacological effects that might be missed in more reductionist strategies. Key techniques in PDD include cell-based assays, which measure phenotypic endpoints like inhibition in cancer models or in neurodegeneration assays, often using high-content imaging for multiparametric readouts. Organism-level screens employ model organisms such as (worms) or (flies) for neurodegeneration studies, where compounds are tested for effects on motility or lifespan, and zebrafish (Danio rerio) models for whole-animal phenotypes in developmental or cardiovascular disorders. These systems enable validation early in discovery, bridging cellular and organismal biology. Advantages of PDD include its ability to capture beneficial off-target interactions and polypharmacology, which can enhance efficacy in multifactorial diseases, and it has contributed to approximately 30% of small-molecule drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1999 and 2008. Representative successes include for , identified through airway epithelial cell assays showing corrected chloride transport. The typical workflow begins with assay development to establish a robust disease-relevant , followed by screening of diverse compound libraries to identify hits, which are then validated through dose-response curves and secondary assays. Hit-to-lead progression involves target deconvolution using techniques like CRISPR-based genetic screens or to elucidate mechanisms post-identification. In contrast to target-based approaches, PDD emphasizes functional from the outset. Historically, PDD dominated before the 1990s, yielding classics like aspirin through observational screening in animal models, but declined with the rise of genomics-driven target identification. It has resurged since the , fueled by advances in , , and model systems, proving effective for "undruggable" targets in areas like and rare diseases.

Target-Based Approaches

Target-based approaches in drug design center on the rational selection of a molecular target validated for its role in pathogenesis, followed by the development of small-molecule modulators that interact with this target to elicit a therapeutic response. This strategy emphasizes a hypothesis-driven , where the target—typically a protein such as an , receptor, or signaling —is chosen based on evidence from , , or demonstrating its causal involvement in the pathology. Validation ensures the target's druggability, meaning it possesses suitable binding pockets for modulation without undue off-target effects. Once a target is selected and validated, candidates are designed to function as agonists, which activate the target to enhance its activity; antagonists, which block endogenous ligands to inhibit signaling; or inhibitors, which directly impair enzymatic or catalytic functions. These modulators can engage the target through orthosteric binding, where they occupy the primary to compete with natural substrates or ligands, or allosteric binding, where they interact with secondary sites to induce conformational changes that indirectly regulate activity, often providing enhanced selectivity and reduced toxicity compared to orthosteric agents. For instance, allosteric modulators can fine-tune receptor responses without fully ablating function, which is particularly useful for G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) or ion channels. The design process incorporates to computationally evaluate vast libraries of compounds for potential binding to the target, identifying initial hits for experimental follow-up. These hits undergo rational synthesis, guided by structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies that map how chemical modifications influence potency, selectivity, and . Iterative testing in biophysical assays, cellular models, and early refines the candidates, optimizing for while minimizing adverse effects through cycles of synthesis, , and redesign. This iterative framework ensures progressive improvement in . Key to success in target-based approaches is the concept of reverse translation, which bridges molecular-level target modulation back to phenotypic outcomes by confirming that altering the target produces the desired disease-relevant effects in model systems. Modern validation increasingly employs CRISPR-Cas9 screens to systematically knock out or edit target genes, assessing impacts on cellular phenotypes or drug sensitivity in high-throughput formats, thereby strengthening causal links between target engagement and therapeutic benefit. is quantitatively gauged using (LE), a metric that normalizes binding affinity by molecular size to prioritize compact, efficient binders during optimization; it is defined as
LE=−ΔGN\text{LE} = \frac{-\Delta G}{N}
where ΔG\Delta G is the of binding and NN is the number of heavy atoms, with a practical approximation of
LE≈1.37×pKiN\text{LE} \approx \frac{1.37 \times \mathrm{p}K_i}{N}
for Ki-based affinities at standard conditions, guiding the selection of leads with high efficiency per atom. These approaches have driven a majority of small-molecule drugs through the discovery pipeline to regulatory approval, reflecting their prevalence in modern pharma portfolios despite challenges like target validation complexity. A seminal example is (Gleevec), approved in 2001, which exemplifies as a selective inhibitor of the BCR-ABL in chronic , transforming treatment outcomes by precisely blocking the oncogenic driver. While effective, target-based methods complement , which prioritizes observable effects over predefined targets for discovering novel mechanisms.

Computational Methods

Ligand-Based Design

Ligand-based drug design leverages datasets of known ligands and their biological activities to predict and generate new drug candidates without requiring the three-dimensional structure of the target protein. This approach fundamentally relies on quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, which establishes mathematical correlations between a ligand's structural descriptors—such as physicochemical properties, topological features, or molecular fingerprints—and its observed activity, expressed as activity = f(structural descriptors). Developed over 50 years ago, QSAR enables the extrapolation of activity trends from a training set of active and inactive compounds to novel structures, facilitating rational optimization in the absence of target structural data. Key techniques in ligand-based design include modeling, which identifies essential spatial arrangements of molecular features—such as hydrogen-bond donors, acceptors, hydrophobic regions, or charged groups—that are common among active ligands and necessary for biological recognition. Three-dimensional QSAR methods, such as Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) and Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis (CoMSIA), extend this by aligning ligands in 3D space and computing grid-based fields to quantify steric, electrostatic, hydrophobic, and hydrogen-bonding interactions influencing activity. Additionally, machine learning-driven similarity searching employs molecular fingerprints, like Extended Connectivity Fingerprints (ECFPs), to encode structural patterns into bit vectors for rapid comparison and of large compound libraries, prioritizing molecules structurally akin to known actives. The typical begins with curating a of ligands with measured activities, followed by descriptor calculation and model training using regression or algorithms to predict activity for unseen compounds. These predictions guide the prioritization of virtual hits for synthesis and testing, iteratively refining the model with new . A seminal example is the Hansch-Fujita QSAR equation, which pioneered this paradigm by correlating and electronic effects with potency: log⁡(1IC50)=a(log⁡P)2+b(log⁡P)+cσ+d\log\left(\frac{1}{\text{IC}_{50}}\right) = a(\log P)^2 + b(\log P) + c\sigma + d Here, log⁡P\log P represents , σ\sigma is the Hammett constant for electronic effects, and aa, bb, cc, dd are fitted coefficients. In applications, ligand-based methods are particularly valuable for lead optimization, where they predict structural modifications to enhance potency by analyzing activity cliffs in QSAR models or fits. These techniques support de novo design by generating diverse analogs that maintain key features while improving selectivity or reducing off-target effects. Recent advances incorporate for de novo ligand generation, such as the REINVENT model, which uses on recurrent neural networks to propose novel SMILES strings optimized for desired properties like binding affinity. Artificial intelligence excels in molecule design through generative models, which have reshaped drug discovery by enabling the rapid generation of novel chemical structures with optimized properties, integrating diverse data sources to enhance efficiency and innovation in ligand-based approaches. Hybrid strategies briefly integrate ligand-based predictions with structure-based docking to refine candidates when partial target data becomes available.

Structure-Based Design

Structure-based drug design leverages the three-dimensional (3D) atomic coordinates of a , typically a protein, to rationally design and optimize small-molecule that bind specifically to its . These coordinates are primarily obtained through experimental techniques such as , which provides high-resolution structures of protein-ligand complexes, (NMR) spectroscopy for solution-state dynamics, or computational methods such as traditional or AI-driven structure prediction (e.g., ) when experimental data is unavailable, using known structures of related proteins as templates or sequence-based models to predict the target's geometry. AI excels in protein prediction, with tools like AlphaFold achieving near-atomic accuracy and significantly impacting drug design by enabling structure-based methods for previously intractable targets, thus accelerating the overall drug discovery process. The approach emphasizes the geometry of the target's binding pocket, including its shape, size, and physicochemical properties, to guide ligand placement and interaction modeling. A core method in structure-based design is molecular docking, which computationally predicts the preferred orientation (pose) of a ligand within the target's binding site by simulating non-covalent interactions. Seminal tools like AutoDock employ an empirical scoring function to estimate the binding free energy (ΔG), approximated as the sum of van der Waals (vdW), hydrogen bonding (H-bond), desolvation, and electrostatic terms: ΔG≈∑(EvdW+EH-bond+Edesolvation+Eelectrostatic)\Delta G \approx \sum \left( E_{\text{vdW}} + E_{\text{H-bond}} + E_{\text{desolvation}} + E_{\text{electrostatic}} \right) where each term is calculated from pairwise atom interactions weighted by empirical coefficients derived from known complexes. To account for target flexibility and solvent effects, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations are integrated, using force fields like AMBER to model atomic motions over time. The AMBER potential energy function decomposes the system's energy as: E=Ebond+Eangle+Edihedral+EvdW+EelectrostaticE = E_{\text{bond}} + E_{\text{angle}} + E_{\text{dihedral}} + E_{\text{vdW}} + E_{\text{electrostatic}} enabling refinement of docked poses by exploring conformational ensembles and binding dynamics. Identifying suitable binding sites is a prerequisite, often achieved through cavity detection algorithms that analyze the target's surface for . CASTp (Computed Atlas of Surface Topography of Proteins) computes volumes and by triangulating solvent-accessible surfaces from atomic coordinates, quantifying geometrically feasible binding regions. Complementary hot spot mapping with FTMAP probes the site's by docking small organic fragments and ranking consensus binding clusters based on their energetic contributions, highlighting key interaction regions for design. AI also excels in target identification by integrating multi-omics data and machine learning to predict and validate potential drug targets, providing a foundation for subsequent structure-based design efforts. Scoring functions rank docking poses and predict binding affinities, categorized as empirical (knowledge-based from experimental data), force-field based (physics-derived interactions), or consensus approaches combining multiple functions for improved accuracy. For instance, X-Score is an empirical function that linearly combines H-bond, vdW, and hydrophobic terms fitted to known affinities, enhancing enrichment. A persistent challenge is the underestimation of contributions, such as conformational flexibility and , which force-field methods often approximate poorly, leading to biases in pose selection. Recent advances have accelerated these methods, with GPU-accelerated simulations in the enabling longer timescales (microseconds to milliseconds) for flexible targets, as implemented in tools like with support, facilitating allosteric site exploration. AI integration, such as DiffDock (2022), refines docking by diffusion models that generate poses de novo, outperforming traditional samplers in pose accuracy on diverse targets. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) has further expanded structural inputs, providing near-atomic resolution for large complexes intractable to , directly informing docking for proteins and multi-subunit assemblies in the .

Experimental Techniques

High-Throughput Screening

(HTS) is an automated process in drug discovery that evaluates millions of chemical compounds from libraries exceeding 10^6 members against biological targets or phenotypic endpoints to identify initial active hits. This approach relies on robotic systems for liquid handling, plate movement, and detection, typically using multi-well formats such as 384- or 1536-well microplates with volumes as low as 1-5 µL per well to enable efficient testing. Common detection methods include , , and readouts, which allow for rapid signal measurement across thousands of samples per day. HTS assays are categorized into biochemical, cell-based, and absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion ()-focused types. Biochemical assays, such as those measuring inhibition through fluorescence resonance energy transfer (), directly assess target-ligand interactions in purified systems, providing high specificity for mechanism-based validation. Cell-based assays, like reporter systems where expression indicates pathway activation, incorporate physiological context to detect functional responses in living cells. ADME-focused screens, including assessments via turbidimetric methods, evaluate physicochemical properties to prioritize compounds with favorable pharmacokinetic profiles early in discovery. Hit identification in HTS involves statistical validation and to ensure reliability. The Z'-factor, a dimensionless metric calculated from positive and negative control variability, assesses quality, with values greater than 0.5 indicating robust performance suitable for screening. Potential hits are confirmed using orthogonal assays, such as switching from to spectrometry-based readouts, while counterscreens filter false positives by testing against unrelated targets or known interferents like reactive compounds. The evolution of HTS traces back to the , when ultra-HTS (uHTS) platforms emerged, capable of processing over 10^5 compounds per day through integrated and from 96-well to higher-density plates. By the early , incorporation of endpoints expanded its scope beyond efficacy to safety profiling. In the , advancements include microfluidic technologies, such as droplet-based systems that encapsulate reactions in picoliter volumes for throughputs exceeding 10^6 assays per day, reducing use and enabling . As of 2025, integrations with next-generation sequencing (NGS) and advanced AI have further boosted capabilities, enabling genomic-focused screens and throughputs up to 10^8 assays per day in optimized droplet systems. Additionally, AI-assisted has become prevalent, using to prioritize screening subsets and analyze hit patterns, improving efficiency in large-scale campaigns. Typical HTS campaigns yield hit rates of 0.1-1%, depending on library diversity and assay stringency, often generating hundreds to thousands of initial actives from million-compound screens for further triage.

Fragment-Based Screening

Fragment-based screening, a key experimental technique in drug design, involves identifying low-molecular-weight chemical fragments that bind weakly to a , serving as starting points for developing potent drug candidates. These fragments typically have molecular weights under 300 Da and are screened from libraries comprising 1,000 to 10,000 compounds, enabling efficient exploration of a vast chemical space with minimal synthetic effort. Hits exhibit weak binding affinities, often in the millimolar range, but are prioritized based on (LE), defined as the binding free energy per non-hydrogen atom, with target values exceeding 0.3 kcal/mol per heavy atom to ensure efficient optimization potential. Detection of fragment binding relies on sensitive biophysical methods, including through direct soaking of fragments into pre-formed protein crystals to visualize binding sites, ligand-observed (NMR) techniques such as saturation transfer difference (STD)-NMR for indirect detection of interactions, (SPR) for real-time affinity measurements, and differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) to assess thermal stability shifts induced by binding. Once identified, hits are elaborated via strategies like linking multiple fragments, merging overlapping scaffolds, or growing individual fragments, often informed by structure-activity relationships derived from catalog sourcing (SAR by catalog, SBC) to rapidly test analogs without extensive synthesis. These post-2010 biophysical advances, such as widespread adoption of DSF for high-throughput , have enhanced the reliability of hit validation. The approach offers distinct advantages over traditional (HTS), including broader chemical diversity coverage from smaller libraries and a lower synthetic burden, as fragments require fewer modifications to achieve drug-like properties. It excels for "undruggable" targets like bromodomains and protein-protein interfaces, where flat or featureless binding sites challenge conventional methods; for instance, the 2016 FDA approval of , a BCL-2 inhibitor for , originated from fragment hits that enabled structure-guided optimization of this previously intractable target. In the , validated fragment hits are expanded iteratively through structure-guided design, integrating crystallographic or NMR-derived binding modes with to improve potency while maintaining high LE, often complemented by HTS for orthogonal validation of elaborated leads. This process has yielded several FDA-approved drugs in the 2010s and 2020s, including erdafitinib (2019) for , asciminib (2021) for chronic , and sotorasib (2022) for non-small cell , underscoring FBDD's growing role in FDA approvals of small-molecule drugs from novel scaffolds.

Optimization and Development

Lead Optimization

Lead optimization represents the iterative refinement stage in drug design, where initial hit compounds from screening methods are systematically modified to enhance their therapeutic potential while addressing limitations in efficacy, , and safety. This process focuses on transforming promising leads into viable preclinical candidates by balancing multiple molecular properties, often requiring several cycles of synthesis and evaluation to achieve optimal profiles. The core of lead optimization involves structure-activity relationship (SAR) analysis, which maps how structural changes influence to guide targeted modifications of hit scaffolds. Common strategies include bioisostere replacement, where functional groups are substituted with analogs of similar electronic and steric properties to retain potency while improving metabolic stability or reducing toxicity. Additionally, parallel synthesis techniques enable the rapid production of focused analog libraries, allowing medicinal chemists to explore SAR trends efficiently and accelerate iteration. Key performance metrics in lead optimization emphasize potency, with a target half-maximal inhibitory concentration (IC50) below 100 nM for the primary target to ensure sufficient at achievable doses. Selectivity is quantified by the selectivity index, typically aiming for a value greater than 100 relative to off-target proteins to minimize adverse effects. To holistically evaluate candidates, multiparameter optimization (MPO) scores are employed, calculated as the sum of normalized desirability functions for physicochemical properties such as logP (ideally 1-3 for balanced and permeability), hydrogen bond donors (≤3), and rotatable bonds (<5), providing a composite measure to prioritize leads with favorable drug-like characteristics. Optimization techniques rely on iterative medicinal chemistry cycles, integrating design, synthesis, biological assays, and computational predictions to refine leads progressively. Early absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiling is crucial, including cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition assays to identify and mitigate drug-drug interaction risks. Compliance with Lipinski's Rule of 5—molecular weight <500 Da, calculated logP <5, hydrogen bond donors <5, and hydrogen bond acceptors <10—serves as a predictive guideline for oral bioavailability, helping to filter candidates likely to succeed in vivo. Despite these approaches, lead optimization faces significant challenges, including an attrition rate of approximately 50% for projects advancing from this phase, primarily due to difficulties in simultaneously optimizing efficacy, selectivity, and ADMET properties. Multi-objective scoring systems are essential to navigate these trade-offs, but incomplete integration can lead to stalled progress or suboptimal candidates. Recent advances incorporate artificial intelligence-driven generative models, developed post-2020, for de novo design and optimization, enabling the exploration of vast chemical spaces to propose novel scaffolds with balanced profiles more rapidly than traditional methods; as of 2025, AI tools are further accelerating hit-to-lead processes through optimized design-synthesis-testing cycles.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety

Pharmacokinetics and safety evaluation are integral to drug design, focusing on the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion () properties of candidate compounds to ensure effective delivery and minimal adverse effects in vivo. During development, leads from prior optimization stages are assessed for their pharmacokinetic profiles to predict human exposure and duration of action. Poor ADME characteristics contribute significantly to attrition, with approximately 40% of drug candidates failing due to suboptimal pharmacokinetics or toxicity issues in preclinical and early clinical phases. ADME principles guide the assessment of drug behavior in biological systems. Absorption is evaluated using models like Caco-2 cell permeability assays, which simulate intestinal epithelial transport to estimate oral bioavailability. Distribution is influenced by factors such as plasma protein binding, where high binding can limit free drug availability at target sites. Metabolism primarily involves cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes in the liver, with substrates screened to avoid rapid clearance or drug-drug interactions. Excretion occurs mainly via renal clearance, assessed through glomerular filtration rates and transporter activity to ensure adequate elimination without accumulation. These properties are iteratively refined to achieve desirable half-lives and tissue penetration. Safety assessment encompasses toxicity profiling to establish a therapeutic window, calculated as the therapeutic index (TI = / ED50), where is the in and ED50 is the median effective dose. assays include hERG channel inhibition for risk, which can lead to QT prolongation and arrhythmias. is tested via the Ames assay, detecting mutagenic potential in bacterial strains. studies determine through in , providing data on dose-dependent harm. These evaluations ensure candidates have a wide margin before advancing. Optimization strategies address and safety shortcomings. Prodrug design enhances absorption for poorly permeable compounds by masking polar groups, as seen in prodrugs that undergo enzymatic conversion post-absorption. To evade , fluorination at susceptible sites blocks CYP450 oxidation, improving stability without altering potency. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, using software like Simcyp, predicts PK profiles from and preclinical data, aiding dose selection and reducing animal use. Regulatory compliance follows ICH M3(R2) guidelines, which outline nonclinical safety studies for support, emphasizing duration and species relevance. Recent advances include human-on-a-chip models, integrating microfluidic organ systems to better predict and toxicity in the 2020s, offering alternatives to traditional .

Applications and Challenges

Case Studies

One prominent example of structure-based drug design is the development of (Gleevec), approved in 2001 for chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). was rationally designed to inhibit the BCR-ABL , a driving CML, by exploiting the of the Abl kinase domain to target the inactive conformation and block ATP binding. This approach enabled high selectivity, minimizing off-target effects on other kinases. Clinical trials demonstrated that transformed CML from a fatal disease to a manageable , reducing annual mortality rates from 10-20% to 1-2%, an approximately 80-90% decline. In the realm of biologics, (Herceptin), approved in 1998, exemplifies target-based design for HER2-positive . Developed from the murine 4D5 antibody generated via against the HER2 receptor, trastuzumab was humanized to reduce while retaining binding affinity to the extracellular domain of HER2, thereby inhibiting downstream signaling and promoting . Its efficacy was validated phenotypically in HER2-overexpressing xenograft models, showing tumor regression and prolonged survival, which led to its approval as an improving overall survival by about 30% in combination regimens. A recent case of computational is , a originally for , which was rapidly redeployed for in 2020 using AI-driven methods. BenevolentAI's platform analyzed existing inhibitors to predict 's inhibition of AP2-associated protein 1 (AAK1), facilitating entry while also countering via JAK-STAT pathway blockade. This ligand-similar from kinase libraries accelerated validation, culminating in successful Phase III trials (e.g., ACTT-2) that showed a reduced median recovery time by 1 day and lower mortality in hospitalized patients. Zanamivir, approved in 1999 for treatment, illustrates mixed-method optimization starting from structure-based mimics of , the natural substrate of viral neuraminidase. Using of neuraminidase- complexes, researchers designed as a transition-state analogue with a guanidino group at C4 to enhance binding affinity in the , preventing viral release. Subsequent structure-activity relationship (SAR) studies refined substituents for potency and , yielding an orally inhaled drug that shortens symptom duration by 1-2 days in uncomplicated . These cases highlight how integrating computational, structural, and experimental methods can streamline drug design, often compressing the typical 10-15 year development timeline to 5-10 years for targeted therapies. For instance, AI platforms have enabled faster lead identification, as seen in Exscientia's DSP-1181, a 5-HT1A for obsessive-compulsive disorder that reached Phase I trials in 2020 after AI-optimized design from chemical libraries, demonstrating reduced iteration cycles compared to traditional approaches.

Limitations and Advances

Drug design faces significant limitations, including a high where over 92% of candidates fail to translate from preclinical testing to approval, primarily due to poor predictive models of and . The average cost to develop and bring a new to market is estimated at $2.6 billion, encompassing research, clinical trials, and regulatory hurdles, which strains resources and discourages investment in high-risk areas. Many therapeutically relevant targets, such as protein-protein interactions (PPIs), remain "undruggable" due to their flat interfaces lacking defined binding pockets for small molecules, limiting the scope of viable candidates. Additionally, polypharmacology—unintended interactions with multiple targets—poses risks of off-target effects, toxicity, and reduced selectivity, complicating lead optimization. Criticisms of current practices highlight an overreliance on reductionist approaches that isolate single targets, often overlooking the interconnected nature of biological systems and leading to failures in complex diseases. Ethical concerns arise from extensive , which not only raises welfare issues but also contributes to translational failures, as models poorly recapitulate . barriers, including prolonged protections and exclusivity periods, can stifle by restricting access to foundational and delaying generic competition, ultimately hindering collaborative progress. Recent advances address these challenges through and , which excel in target identification, de novo molecule design, and protein structure prediction, such as with AlphaFold achieving near-atomic accuracy. AI has been shown to increase Phase I clinical trial success rates to 80-90% for AI-discovered molecules, compared to historical industry averages of 40-65%, and to shorten development cycles, reducing the traditional 10-15 year process to as little as 1-2 years in some cases. For predictive , AI leverages datasets like Tox21 to forecast adverse effects with greater accuracy and reduces reliance on animal models. Organoids, three-dimensional cell cultures mimicking human tissues, have emerged post-2015 as more relevant platforms for drug testing, improving predictions of human responses and efficacy in diseases like cancer. Multi-omics integration—combining , , and —enables precision drug design by revealing holistic disease mechanisms and tailoring therapies to individual profiles. Emerging technologies promise further breakthroughs, such as quantum computing for simulating molecular dynamics, exemplified by IBM's 2024 advancements in scaling quantum simulations to model complex protein interactions beyond classical limits. DNA-encoded libraries facilitate screening of over 10^9 compounds in the 2020s, accelerating hit identification for undruggable targets while minimizing costs and physical library synthesis. Looking ahead, integrated platforms could shorten development timelines dramatically, as demonstrated by vaccines approved in under one year compared to the traditional 10-15 years, signaling potential for faster responses to unmet needs through accelerated regulatory and technological synergies.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8911833/
  2. https://gsconlinepress.com/journals/gscbps/sites/default/files/GSCBPS-2021-0330.pdf
  3. https://www.rcsb.org/
  4. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2023.1201419/full
  5. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/investigational-new-drug-ind-application/drug-development-and-review-definitions
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135964462400134X
  7. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02754-1
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11909971/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6155886/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10536713/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3058157/
  12. https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-drug-and-device-approvals/drug-development-process
  13. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2019.01075/full
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/pharmacological-target
  15. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6314433/
  16. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/md/c6md00129g
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915024000224
  18. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-025-07155-2
  19. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0087-3
  20. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10767903/
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3901206/
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/chloral-hydrate
  23. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/flemingpenicillin.html
  24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1286457904001388
  25. https://www.umassmed.edu/dcoe/diabetes-education/patient-resources/banting-and-best-discover-insulin/
  26. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1939/domagk/facts/
  27. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/waksman-lecture.pdf
  28. https://www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cimetidinetagamet.html
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1978279/
  30. https://www.europeanpharmaceuticalreview.com/article/27775/history-recombinant-protein-technology-small-molecule-drug-discovery/
  31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2839258/
  32. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8251523/
  33. https://www.cancer.gov/research/progress/discovery/blood-cancer
  34. https://www.rcsb.org/stats/growth/growth-em
  35. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2
  36. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2023/press-release/
  37. https://insilico.com/blog/first_phase2
  38. https://insilico.com/news/tnik-ipf-phase2a
  39. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-022-00472-w
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd4366
  41. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.111
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5886320/
  43. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3480
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4329591/
  45. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ml500146d
  46. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.01275/full
  47. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3123535/
  48. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1054358925000109
  49. https://projects.volkamerlab.org/teachopencadd/talktorials/T009_compound_ensemble_pharmacophores.html
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2975775/
  51. https://basicmedicalkey.com/introduction-to-3d-qsar/
  52. https://chemaxon.com/blog/structural-similarity-methodologies-for-small-molecules
  53. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcms.1096
  54. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-017-0235-x
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9797947/
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590098625000107
  57. https://optibrium.com/knowledge-base/leveraging-structure-based-and-ligand-based-drug-discovery/
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6601033/
  59. https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/20/7/13384
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7614146/
  61. https://deepmind.google/blog/alphafold-five-years-of-impact/
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25753725/
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11383977/
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165614723001372
  65. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/1-4020-4407-0_9
  66. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01776
  67. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38501110/
  68. https://www.bmglabtech.com/en/blog/high-throughput-screening/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7322755/
  70. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10838414/
  71. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3368
  72. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2016/lc/c6lc00249h
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2090123225006897
  74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166924000338
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7838329/
  76. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5c00424
  77. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17460441.2021.1905629
  78. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19073276/
  79. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/molecular-biosciences/articles/10.3389/fmolb.2020.00180/full
  80. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590257125000215
  81. https://portlandpress.com/essaysbiochem/article/61/5/453/78260/Current-perspectives-in-fragment-based-lead
  82. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cmdc.202400342?af=R
  83. https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1878-0261.13277
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7979990/
  85. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7416817/
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0968089696000582
  87. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c00988
  88. https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12859-016-1413-y
  89. https://optibrium.com/downloads/MPO_review_preprint.pdf
  90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326710/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169409X96004231
  92. https://www.oncodesign-services.com/drive-idds/lead-optimization/
  93. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05905-z
  94. https://www.ddw-online.com/the-future-of-drug-discovery-using-ai-to-optimise-the-hit-to-lead-process-31203-202408/
  95. https://www.pharmaexcipients.com/news/90-of-drugs-fail-clinical-trials/
  96. https://chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cmdc.202100542
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9214059/
  98. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32283295/
  99. https://www.fda.gov/media/183844/download
  100. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230768541_The_determination_and_interpretation_of_the_therapeutic_index_in_drug_development
  101. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7692606/
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10099028/
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5125732/
  104. https://www.fda.gov/media/71542/download
  105. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8011576/
  106. https://jhoonline.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13045-018-0624-2
  107. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajh.27443
  108. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11333330/
  109. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2749795
  110. https://www.embopress.org/doi/10.15252/emmm.202012697
  111. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2031994
  112. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9231077/
  113. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm100621s
  114. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr800449m
  115. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7194950/
  116. https://www.lindushealth.com/blog/understanding-the-pharmaceutical-development-timeline-key-stages-and-processes
  117. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02611929231157756
  118. https://greenfieldchemical.com/2023/08/10/the-staggering-cost-of-drug-development-a-look-at-the-numbers/
  119. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01589-z
  120. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3809828/
  121. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6180410/
  122. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/drug-discovery/articles/10.3389/fddsv.2024.1355044/full
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9013034/
  124. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/programs/tox21
  125. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11791835/
  126. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10594525/
  127. https://newsroom.ibm.com/2024-11-13-ibm-launches-its-most-advanced-quantum-computers%2C-fueling-new-scientific-value-and-progress-towards-quantum-advantage
  128. https://www.amgen.com/stories/2025/04/driving-drug-design-using-dna-encoded-libraries
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8935460/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.