References

[1] CSDD-Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. CNS drugs take 20 % longer to develop and to improve vs. non CNS drugs. Tufts CSDD impact reports, 2018. Available at: https://csdd.tufts.edu/tuftscsddreports/. Assessed: 26 Dec 2018.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Lipinski CA. Lead-and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov Today. 2004;1:337–41.10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.11.007Search in Google Scholar

[3] Athar M, Lone MY, Jha PC. First protein drug target’s appraisal of lead-likeness descriptors to unfold the intervening chemical space. J Mol Graph Model. 2017;72:272–82.10.1016/j.jmgm.2016.12.019Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[4] Ghose AK, Herbertz T, Hudkins RL, Dorsey BD, Mallamo JP. Knowledge-based, central nervous system (CNS) lead selection and lead optimization for CNS drug discovery. ACS Chem Neurosci. 2011;3:50–68.10.1021/cn200100hSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[5] Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-Y, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem. 2002;45:2615–23.10.1021/jm020017nSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[6] Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, Jhoti H. A ‘Rule of Three’ for fragment-based lead discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2003;8:876–7.10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02831-9Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN, Wendoloski JJ. A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative characterization of known drug databases. J Comb Chem. 1999;1:55–68.10.1021/cc9800071Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Santos GB, Ganesan A, Emery FS. Oral administration of peptide-based drugs: beyond Lipinski’s rule. ChemMedChem. 2016;11:2245–51.10.1002/cmdc.201600288Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[9] Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, Muresan S, Hopkins AL. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat Chem. 2012;4:90.10.1038/nchem.1243Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[10] Ntie-Kang F, Lifongo LL, Judson PN, Sippl W, Efange SM. How “drug-like” are naturally occurring anti-cancer compounds? J Mol Model. 2014;20:2069.10.1007/s00894-014-2069-zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Ntie-Kang F. An in silico evaluation of the ADMET profile of the StreptomeDB database. SpringerPlus. 2013;2:353.10.1186/2193-1801-2-353Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Ntie-Kang F, Zofou D, Babiaka SB, Meudom R, Scharfe M, Lifongo LL, et al. AfroDb: a select highly potent and diverse natural product library from African medicinal plants. PLoS One. 2013;8:e78085.10.1371/journal.pone.0078085Search in Google Scholar

[13] Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs from 1981 to 2014. J Nat Prod. 2016;79:629–61. (add 3 refs each till the end).10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b01055Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[14] Dobson PD, Kell DB. Carrier-mediated cellular uptake of pharmaceutical drugs: an exception or the rule? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2008;7:205.10.1038/nrd2438Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[15] Bauer RA, Wurst JM, Tan DS. Expanding the range of ‘druggable’targets with natural product-based libraries: an academic perspective. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2010;14:308–14.10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.02.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Overington JP, Al-Lazikani B, Hopkins AL. How many drug targets are there? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2006;5:993.10.1038/nrd2199Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[17] Hopkins AL, Groom CR. The druggable genome. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2002;1:727.10.1038/nrd892Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[18] Wells JA, McClendon CL. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein–protein interfaces. Nature. 2007;450:1001.10.1038/nature06526Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[19] Hert J, Irwin JJ, Laggner C, Keiser MJ, Shoichet BK. Quantifying biogenic bias in screening libraries. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;5:479.10.1038/nchembio.180Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Dobson CM. Chemical space and biology. Nature. 2004;432:824.10.1038/nature03192Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[21] Bohacek RS, McMartin C, Guida WC. The art and practice of structure‐based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med Res Rev. 1996;16:3–50.10.1002/(SICI)1098-1128(199601)16:1<3::AID-MED1>3.0.CO;2-6Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. J Nat Prod. 2007;70:461–77.10.1021/np068054vSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[23] Butler MS. Natural products to drugs: natural product-derived compounds in clinical trials. Nat Prod Rep. 2008;25:475–516.10.1039/b514294fSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[24] Al H. Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2008;13:894–901.10.1016/j.drudis.2008.07.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[25] Sukuru SC, Jenkins JL, Beckwith RE, Scheiber J, Bender A, Mikhailov D, et al. Plate-based diversity selection based on empirical HTS data to enhance the number of hits and their chemical diversity. J Biomolecul Screen. 2009;14:690–9.10.1177/1087057109335678Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[26] Grabowski K, Schneider G. Properties and architecture of drugs and natural products revisited. Curr Chem Biol. 2007;1:115–27.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Koch MA, Wittenberg L-O, Basu S, Jeyaraj DA, Gourzoulidou E, Reinecke K, et al. Compound library development guided by protein structure similarity clustering and natural product structure. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2004;101:16721–6.10.1073/pnas.0404719101Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[28] Koch MA, Schuffenhauer A, Scheck M, Wetzel S, Casaulta M, Odermatt A, et al. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2005;102:17272–7.10.1073/pnas.0503647102Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[29] Wetzel S, Klein K, Renner S, Rauh D, Oprea TI, Mutzel P, et al. Interactive exploration of chemical space with Scaffold Hunter. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;5:581.10.1038/nchembio.187Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[30] Renner S, Van Otterlo WA, Seoane MD, Möcklinghoff S, Hofmann B, Wetzel S, et al. Bioactivity-guided mapping and navigation of chemical space. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;5:585.10.1038/nchembio.188Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[31] Hung AW, Ramek A, Wang Y, Kaya T, Wilson JA, Clemons PA, et al. Route to three-dimensional fragments using diversity-oriented synthesis. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:6799–804.10.1073/pnas.1015271108Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[32] Firth NC, Brown N, Blagg J. Plane of best fit: a novel method to characterize the three-dimensionality of molecules. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52:2516–25.10.1021/ci300293fSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[33] Liao JJ. Molecular recognition of protein kinase binding pockets for design of potent and selective kinase inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2007;50:409–24.10.1021/jm0608107Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[34] Zinzalla G, Thurston DE. Targeting protein–protein interactions for therapeutic intervention: a challenge for the future. Future Med Chem. 2009;1:65–93.10.4155/fmc.09.12Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[35] Murray JK, Gellman SH. Targeting protein–protein interactions: lessons from p53/MDM2. Biopolymers. 2007;88:657–86.10.1002/bip.20741Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[36] Verdine GL, Walensky LD. The challenge of drugging undruggable targets in cancer: lessons learned from targeting BCL-2 family members. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:7264–70.10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-2184Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Berg T. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein–protein interactions. In: Martin Zacharias, editor, Protein-protein complexes: analysis, modeling and drug design. London, UK: World Scientific, 2010:318–39.10.1142/9781848163409_0012Search in Google Scholar

[38] Wilson AJ. Inhibition of protein–protein interactions using designed molecules. Chem Soc Rev. 2009;38:3289–300.10.1039/b807197gSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] Fry DC. Drug-like inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: a structural examination of effective protein mimicry. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2008;9:240–7.10.2174/138920308784533989Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Keskin O, Gursoy A, Ma B, Nussinov R. Principles of protein− protein interactions: What are the preferred ways for proteins to interact? Chem Rev. 2008;108:1225–44.10.1021/cr040409xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[41] Singh N, Guha R, Giulianotti MA, Pinilla C, Houghten RA, Medina-Franco JL. Chemoinformatic analysis of combinatorial libraries, drugs, natural products, and molecular libraries small molecule repository. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:1010–24.10.1021/ci800426uSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[42] Feher M, Schmidt JM. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products, and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:218–27.10.1021/ci0200467Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] Shelat AA, Guy RK. Scaffold composition and biological relevance of screening libraries. Nat Chem Biol. 2007;3:442.10.1038/nchembio0807-442Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[44] Ertl P, Roggo S, Schuffenhauer A. Natural product-likeness score and its application for prioritization of compound libraries. J Chem Inf Model. 2008;48:68–74.10.1021/ci700286xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[45] Silva DG, Emery FS. Strategies towards expansion of chemical space of natural product-based compounds to enable drug discovery. Braz J Pharm Sci. 2018;54:e01004.10.1590/s2175-97902018000001004Search in Google Scholar

[46] Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J Med Chem. 2009;52:6752–6.10.1021/jm901241eSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[47] Firn RD, Jones CG. Natural products–a simple model to explain chemical diversity. Nat Prod Rep. 2003;20:382–91.10.1039/b208815kSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[48] Maplestone RA, Stone MJ, Williams DH. The evolutionary role of secondary metabolites—a review. Gene. 1992;115:151–7.10.1016/0378-1119(92)90553-2Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Balamurugan R, Dekker FJ, Waldmann H. Design of compound libraries based on natural product scaffolds and protein structure similarity clustering (PSSC). Mol Biosyst. 2005;1:36–45.10.1039/b503623bSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[50] Haustedt L, Mang C, Siems K, Schiewe H. Rational approaches to natural-product-based drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel. 2006;9:445–62.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[51] Jayaseelan KV, Moreno P, Truszkowski A, Ertl P, Steinbeck C. Natural product-likeness score revisited: an open-source, open-data implementation. BMC Bioinformics. 2012;13:106.10.1186/1471-2105-13-106Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[52] Dobson PD, Patel Y, Kell DB. ‘Metabolite-likeness’ as a criterion in the design and selection of pharmaceutical drug libraries. Drug Discov Today. 2009;14:31–40.10.1016/j.drudis.2008.10.011Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[53] Baker M. Fragment-based lead discovery grows up. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2013;12:5–7.10.1038/nrd3926Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[54] Chen H, Zhou X, Wang A, Zheng Y, Gao Y, Zhou J. Evolutions in fragment-based drug design: the deconstruction–reconstruction approach. Drug Discov Today. 2015;20:105–13.10.1016/j.drudis.2014.09.015Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[55] Joseph-McCarthy D, Campbell AJ, Kern G, Moustakas D. Fragment-based lead discovery and design. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54:693–704.10.1021/ci400731wSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[56] Murray CW, Rees DC. Opportunity knocks: organic chemistry for fragment‐based drug discovery (FBDD). Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 2016;55:488–92.10.1002/anie.201506783Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[57] Scott DE, Coyne AG, Hudson SA, Abell C. Fragment-based approaches in drug discovery and chemical biology. Biochemistry. 2012;51:4990–5003.10.1021/bi3005126Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[58] Genis D, Kirpichenok M, Kombarov R. A minimalist fragment approach for the design of natural-product-like synthetic scaffolds. Drug Discov Today. 2012;17:1170–4.10.1016/j.drudis.2012.05.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[59] Austin MJ, Hearnshaw SJ, Mitchenall LA, McDermott PJ, Howell LA, Maxwell A, et al. A natural product inspired fragment-based approach towards the development of novel anti-bacterial agents. MedChemComm. 2016;7:1387–91.10.1039/C6MD00229CSearch in Google Scholar

[60] Pascolutti M, Campitelli M, Nguyen B, Pham N, Gorse A-D, Quinn RJ. Capturing nature’s diversity. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0120942.10.1371/journal.pone.0120942Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[61] Prescher H, Koch G, Schuhmann T, Ertl P, Bussenault A, Glick M, et al. Construction of a 3D-shaped, natural product like fragment library by fragmentation and diversification of natural products. Bioorg Med Chem. 2017;25:921–5.10.1016/j.bmc.2016.12.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[62] Rodrigues T, Reker D, Schneider P, Schneider G. Counting on natural products for drug design. Nat Chem. 2016;8:531.10.1038/nchem.2479Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[63] Over B, Wetzel S, Grütter C, Nakai Y, Renner S, Rauh D, et al. Natural-product-derived fragments for fragment-based ligand discovery. Nat Chem. 2013;5:21.10.1038/nchem.1506Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[64] Zaid H, Raiyn J, Nasser A, Saad B, Rayan A. Physicochemical properties of natural based products versus synthetic chemicals. Open Nutraceuticals J. 2010;3:194–202.10.2174/18763960010030100194Search in Google Scholar

[65] Wetzel S, Schuffenhauer A, Roggo S, Ertl P, Waldmann H. Cheminformatic analysis of natural products and their chemical space. CHIMIA Int J Chem. 2007;61:355–60.10.2533/chimia.2007.355Search in Google Scholar

[66] Lewell XQ, Judd DB, Watson SP, Hann MM. Recap retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1998;38:511–22.10.1021/ci970429iSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[67] Flaherty KT, Yasothan U, Kirkpatrick P. Vemurafenib. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:811–12.10.1038/nrd3579Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[68] Irwin JJ, Sterling T, Mysinger MM, Bolstad ES, Coleman RG. ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology. J Chem Inform Model. 2012;52:1757–68.10.1021/ci3001277Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[69] Hann MM, Oprea T. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr Opin Chem Biol. 2004;8:255–63.10.1016/j.cbpa.2004.04.003Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[70] Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? a historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001;41:1308–15.10.1021/ci010366aSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[71] Harvey AL, Edrada-Ebel R, Quinn RJ. The re-emergence of natural products for drug discovery in the genomics era. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015;14:111–29.10.1038/nrd4510Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[72] Quinn RJ, Carroll AR, Pham NB, Baron P, Palframan ME, Suraweera L, et al. Developing a drug-like natural product library. J Nat Prod. 2008;71:464–8.10.1021/np070526ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[73] McArdle BM, Campitelli MR, Quinn RJ. A common protein fold topology shared by flavonoid biosynthetic enzymes and therapeutic targets. J Nat Prod. 2006;69:14–7.10.1021/np050229ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[74] Kellenberger E, Hofmann A, Quinn RJ. Similar interactions of natural products with biosynthetic enzymes and therapeutic targets could explain why nature produces such a large proportion of existing drugs. Nat Prod Rep. 2011;8:1483–92.10.1039/c1np00026hSearch in Google Scholar

[75] Saldívar-González FI, Pilón-Jiménez BA, Medina-Franco JL. Chemical space of naturally occurring compounds. Phys Sci Rev. 2018. doi:10.1515/psr-2018-0103.Search in Google Scholar

[76] Benet LZ, Hosey CM, Ursu O, Oprea TI. BDDCS, the rule of 5 and drugability. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;101:89–98.10.1016/j.addr.2016.05.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[77] Zhang MQ, Wilkinson B. Drug discovery beyond the ‘rule-of-five’. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2007;18:478–88.10.1016/j.copbio.2007.10.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[78] Newman DJ. From natural products to drugs. Phys Sci Rev. 2018. doi:10.1515/psr-2018-0111.Search in Google Scholar

[79] Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 1997;23:3–25.10.1016/S0169-409X(96)00423-1Search in Google Scholar

[80] Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;46:3–26.10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00129-0Search in Google Scholar PubMed