Linked Life Data

15369393

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/15369393

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
20
pubmed:dateCreated
2004-9-16
pubmed:abstractText
Medicinal chemists are frequently asked to review lists of compounds to assess their drug- or leadlike nature and to evaluate the suitability of lead compounds based on their "attractiveness" and/or synthetic feasibility as a basis for launching a drug-discovery campaign. It is often felt that one medicinal chemist's opinion is as good as any other, but is it? In an attempt to answer this question, an experiment was performed in conjunction with a recent compound acquisition program (CAP) conducted at Pharmacia. Historically, the CAP included a review of many thousands of compounds by medicinal chemists who eliminate anything deemed undesirable for any reason. In a review conducted in 2002, about 22 000 compounds requiring review by medicinal chemists were broken down into 11 lists of approximately 2000 compounds each. Unknown to the medicinal chemists, a subset of 250 compounds, previously rejected by a very experienced senior medicinal chemist, was added to each of the lists. Most of the 13 medicinal chemists who participated in this process reviewed two lists, although some only reviewed a single list and one reviewed three lists. Those compounds that were deemed unacceptable were recorded and tabulated in various ways to assess the consistency of the reviews. It was found that medicinal chemists were not very consistent in the compounds they rejected as being undesirable. The inconsistency arises from the subjective analysis that all humans utilize when considering "data sets" of any kind. This has important implications for pharmaceutical project teams where individual medicinal chemists review lists of primary screening hits to identify those compounds suitable for follow-up. Once a compound is removed from a list, it and other structurally similar compounds are effectively removed from further consideration. This can also have an impact on computational chemists who are developing models for assessing the desirability or attractiveness of different classes of compounds for lead discovery.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Sep
pubmed:issn
0022-2623
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:day
23
pubmed:volume
47
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
4891-6
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2004
pubmed:articleTitle
Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds.
pubmed:affiliation
Computer-Aided Drug Discovery, Pharmacia Corporation, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49008, USA. LaijinessMS@Lilly.com
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study