Return to Flatland

Whoever first referred to Economics as ‘The Dismal Science’ had clearly never read an article on ‘3Dness’ in drug discovery.  My own experience reading articles on this topic is a sensation of having my life force slowly sucked out (I even suggested that reviewing the '3Dness' literature might be considered as an appropriate penance when I recently confessed my sins at St Gallen Cathedral) and the subject of Confession reminds me of a song that the late great Tom Lehrer sang about the Second Vatican Council.

In this post I review the CNM2025 study (Return to Flatland) which examines the heavily-cited LBH2009 study (Escape from Flatland: Increasing Saturation as an Approach to Improving Clinical Success).This also is a good point to mention a Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Editorial (Property-Based Drug Design Merits a Nobel Prize) that I reviewed in a 30-Jul-2024 post. The CNM2025 study, which has already been reviewed by Dan and Ash, opens with: 

The year is 2009, Barack Obama has just been inaugurated and both Lady Gaga and The Black Eyed Peas are at the height of their popularity

This couldn’t help but remind me of the “WORLD WAR 2 BOMBER FOUND ON MOON” headline that appeared on the front page of the Sunday Sport twenty-one years before the publication of LBH2009 (it was was accompanied by a photo of a B-17 in a lunar crater). A few weeks later the headline was “WORLD WAR 2 BOMBER FOUND ON MOON VANISHES” (this time accompanied by a photo of the now empty lunar crater).

I’ll start my review of CNM2025 by quoting from it and, as is usual for posts here at Molecular Design, quoted text is indented with any comments by me italicized in red and enclosed in square brackets. 

The hypothesis was attractive, and the data clearly showed the relationship between Fsp³ and clinical progression with pairwise significance P < 0.001. [This statement is inaccurate and Figure 3 of the LBH2009 study shows statistically significant differences at this level between (a) discovery and phase 2 compounds (b) phase 1 and phase 3 compounds (c) phase 2 compounds & drugs.  The authors of LBH2009 state: “The change in average Fsp³ was statistically significant between adjacent stages in only one case (phase 1 to phase 2)” but they neither show this in Figure 3 of their article nor do they report a P-value for the statistical significance of the mean difference in Fsp³ between phase 1 and phase 2 compounds.] The statistics seemed compelling, though the effect size was modest — an increase in average Fsp³ of 0.09 between sets of phase I and approved drugs equates to a difference of around two additional sp³ carbons per drug molecule only. [The authors of LBH2009 did not actually report this difference to be statistically significant so it is unclear why the authors of CNM2025 have stated that the “statistics seemed compelling”.]

The LBH2009 study is effectively a call to think beyond aromatic rings in drug design and my view is that there are considerable benefits in doing so even though I consider the data analysis in the study to be shaky. Almost three decades ago I included a quinuclidine in the Zeneca fragment library for NMR screening and later at AstraZeneca I would actively search (with minimal success) for amides and heteroaryls derived from bicyclic amines. I see the advantages in looking beyond aromatic rings as stemming primarily from increased molecular diversity and a more controllable coverage of chemical space, and in KM2013 we wrote:

Molecular recognition considerations suggest a focus on achieving axial substitution in saturated rings with minimal steric footprint, for example by exploiting the anomeric effect or by substituting N-acylated cyclic amines at C2.

Although data analyses (for example, see HY2010) presented in support of the belief that aromatic rings adversely affect aqueous solubility are typically underwhelming I consider the suggestion to be plausible and suggested in K2022 that deleterious effects of aromatic rings are more likely to be due to their potential for making molecular interactions than to their planarity. That said, I should also point out that the analysis of the relationship between aqueous solubility and Fsp³ presented in Figure 5 of LBH2009 is a textbook example of correlation inflation (see Fig. 5 in KM2013) and I suspect that if a team had submitted this analysis at Statistiques Sans Frontières the judges would have either awarded “nul points” or come to the conclusion that the team had played its joker. Given the Lady Gaga reference in CNM2025 I couldn't resist linking this Peter Gabriel song which includes the lyrics "Adolf builds a bonfire, Enrico plays with it" even though I have absolutely no idea what the the lyrics actually mean.

While the analysis of the relationship between aqueous solubility presented in Figure 5 of LBH2009 does endow the study with what I’ll politely call a whiff of the pasture it’s not directly related to the analysis of clinical progression presented in the study. Let’s take a look at Figure 3 in LBH2009 which shows mean Fsp³ values for compounds in discovery, at the three phases of clinical development, and approved drugs. As an aside this analysis would fall foul of current Journal of Medicinal Chemistry author guidelines (see link; accessed 05-Aug-2025) which clearly mandate that “If average values are reported from computational analysis, their variance must be documented”.  As mentioned earlier in this post Figure 3 in LBH2009 shows statistically significant (P value < 0.001) differences between (a) discovery and phase 2 compounds (b) phase 1 and phase 3 compounds (c) phase 2 compounds & drugs. It’s also worth stressing that Figure 3 in LBH2009 does not show statistically significant differences in Fsp³ for any of the clinical development transitions (phase 1 to phase 2; phase 2 to phase 3; phase 3 to approved drug). Figure 3 of in LBH2009 shows 591 phase 2 compounds but only 376 phase 1 compounds, raising questions about the numbers of compounds that have been in clinical development without being recorded in the database.

I think that there are some problems with how the authors of the LBH2009 study have analysed the relationship between Fsp³ and progression through the stages of clinical development.  If charged with analysing this data I would focus on the three clinical development transitions (phase 1 to phase 2; phase 2 to phase 3; phase 3 to approved drug) and wouldn’t waste time on comparisons between discovery compounds and clinical compounds. If analysing the relationship between Fsp³ and the progression from phase 1 to phase 2, I would partition the set of phase 1 compounds into a ‘YES’ subset of compounds that had progressed to phase 2 and a ‘NO’ subset of compounds that had not progressed to phase 2. I would certainly be taking a close  look at distributions of Fsp³ values (some approaches to assessing statistical significance are based on the assumption of Normally-distributed data values) and I’d also be thinking about assessing effect size in addition to statistical significance. However, the problems with the LBH2009 analysis are more fundamental than non-Normal distributions of Fsp³ values.

The authors of LBH2009 assess the progression from phase 1 to phase 2 by comparing the mean Fsp³ value for the phase 1 compounds with the mean Fsp³ value for phase 2 compounds. The problem is that the Fsp³ values for the YES compounds (that have progressed from phase 1 to phase 2) are present in both the data sets for which comparisons are being made. This means that the observed differences in mean Fsp³ values will reflect both the difference between YES and NO compounds (relevant to relationship between Fsp³ and progression from phase 1 to phase 2) and the relative numbers of YES and NO compounds in the phase 1 data (not relevant to relationship between Fsp³ and progression from phase 1 to phase 2). Analysing the data in the way that the authors of LBH2009 have done effectively adds noise to the signal and it’s possible that they would have observed more statistically significant differences in mean Fsp³ values had they analysed the data in a more appropriate manner.

This is an appropriate point at which to discuss correlation in the context of studies such as LBH2009 and CNM2025. It’s actually well known (see L2013) that that Fsp³ values for chemical structures tend to be greater when amine nitrogen atoms are present (this does not invalidate the observed trends in the data but has big implications for how you interpret these trends). There is, however, a much bigger issue which is that correlation does not imply causation. Let’s suppose that you’ve just joined a drug discovery team as they are preparing to select a clinical candidate (I concede that this is most improbable scenario but it does illustrate a point). The team have an excellent understanding of the structure-activity relationship (SAR) and have successfully addressed a number of issues during the lead optimization process (the chemical structures of the compounds have been quite literally shaped by the problems that the team members have solved). Now consider the likely reaction of the team members to a suggestion that probability of success in the clinic would increase if the chemical structure of the best compound were modified so as to increase its Fsp³ value. My view is that the team might think that the person making such a suggestion had just stepped off the shuttle from Planet Tharg (an alien from this planet used to make occasional Sunday Sport  appearances). I see the trends in data observed by the authors of LBH2009 as effects rather than causes (the vanishing B-17 was never there in the first place).

Let’s return to the CNM2025 study and its authors state:

Using data from the Cortellis Drug Discovery Intelligence database, we repeated an analysis similar to that of Lovering et al. to assess Fsp³ in drugs approved post-2009 and those in active clinical development as of mid-2024 (Fig. 1). [I would challenge the claim that the analysis presented in CNM2025 is similar to that presented in LBH2009. The supplementary material for CNM2025 indicates that the data summarised in Fig. 1b correspond to the period 2012 through 2024 (it is not clear whether the database has been updated to account for compounds that have fallen out of active development during this period. As is the case for Figure 3 in LBH2009, Fig.1b in CNM2025 shows more phase 2 compounds (816) than phase 1 compounds (421), raising similar questions about the numbers of compounds that have been in clinical development without being recorded in the database. I thank fellow blogger  Dan Erlanson for suggesting that I examine the supplemental information for CNM2025.] Although our methods used contemporary data sources different to Lovering et al., we obtained comparable Fsp³ data for approved drugs prior to 2009. More recently however, the picture appears to have changed with approvals shifting to lower Fsp³ drugs (Fig. 1a). Similarly, when looking at drugs currently in clinical development (Fig. 1b), there appeared to be no clear relationship between highest phase reached and Fsp³, suggesting the key conclusion noted by Lovering et al. has not persisted. In all data sets, exemplars with Fsp³ = 0 as well as Fsp³ = 1 are extensively seen. [It is necessary to account for the number of hypotheses have been tested for statistical significance when quoting P-values (see R2016 and VM2018).]

Fig. 1a in CNM2025 shows the time-dependence of Fsp³ distributions for approved drugs according to approval date and I remain unconvinced of the value of analysis like this (on first encountering analysis of time-dependence of drug properties a quarter of a century ago I recall being left with the distinct impression that some senior medicinal chemists where I worked had a bit too much time on their hands). However, it is immaterial whether or not you are as underwhelmed as I am by time-dependence of drug properties because no such analysis is actually reported in LBH2009 and this is one reason that I challenge the claim by made by the authors of CNM2025 that they “repeated an analysis similar to that of Lovering et al. to assess Fsp³ in drugs approved post-2009 and those in active clinical development as of mid-2024”.  

Now let’s take a look at Fig. 1b in CNM2025 and this should be compared with Figure 3 in LBH2009. In some ways the former is an improvement on the latter since the violin plots show the distributions of Fsp³ values for each group of compounds and, as mentioned earlier in the post, I don’t think that it makes any sense to include discovery compounds in analysis like this (as the authors of LBH2009 did). Although these two figures look superficially similar they are actually very different and, given that the authors of CNM2025 only included "compounds in clinical trials as of mid-2024" in their study, I would argue that their study does not properly examine the link between Fsp³ and clinical progression. I agree that the difference between mean Fsp³ values for drugs approved up to 2009 and for drugs approved after 2009 is statistically significant. What is not clear from the analysis summarized in Fig. 1b in CNM2025 is whether the lower Fsp³ values of drugs that were approved after 2009 reflect smaller increases in Fsp³ over the course of clinical development (the B-17 has disappeared from the lunar crater) or lower Fsp³ values for compounds entering clinical development (the B-17 is still in the lunar crater). I think it's possible to address this question but you would need to analyse the data a lot more carefully than the authors of CNM2025 appear to have done. For example, you might examine the time-dependencies of mean Fsp³ values for compounds evaluated in phase 1 and the corresponding mean Fsp³ values for compounds that progressed or failed to progress to phase 2. While I consider more careful analysis of progression to be feasible I see little or no value from the perspective of real world drug discovery in actually performing the analysis more carefully.

This is a good point at which to wrap up and, unless the the trends in the data can shown to reflect causation, the debate can be described as bald men fighting over a comb (as one who is follicly challenged I always find it painful to use this phrase). I see variation in drug properties with time as an effect rather than a cause and Forrest Gump would have been well aware of this fifteen years before the publication of LBH2019 when he famously observed that "shit happens". One point on which the CNM2025 authors and I do appear to agree is that there is not currently a B-17 in a lunar crater. Where we appear to differ is that they seem to be suggesting this was because it has vanished while I never believed that it was ever there in the first place. I’ll let the late great Dave Allen have the last word.

Property Forecast Index Validated

<< previous || next >>

I arrived in Korea on Friday night and am greatly enjoying it here. Photos below show the Jungbu Dried Seafoods Market near where I'm staying and dinner on Sunday (spicy beef noodles).

I visited the War Memorial on Sunday and took selfies with the Shenyang J-6 (Chinese version of MiG-19) 'liberated' by Capt. Lee Woong-pyeong when he defected to South Korea on 25th February 1983, a 'liberated' T-34 (as Uncle Joe is said to have observed, quantity has a quality all of its own) and Great Leader's car (also 'liberated' although it was not clear exactly when). 

So enough of the travel photos for now and let's get back to the science. Regular readers (both of them) of this blog will be well aware of my visceral dislike for drug design metrics. One reason for this visceral dislike is that I consider these metrics to trivialise the problems faced by medicinal chemists and I remain sceptical that one can make meaningful predictions of developability or likelihood of clinical success for compounds based only on their chemical structures without knowing anything about their biological activities. One metric that I have criticised harshly in the past is property forecast index (PFI) which was originally introduced as solubility forecast index (SFI). Specifically, I denounced SFI as a ‘draw pictures and wave arms’ data analysis strategy and privately I even considered the possibility that it had been created by a toddler armed with a box of colored crayons.

Let’s take a look at the HY2010 article in which SFI was introduced. Proprietary aqueous solubility measurements (continuous variable) were first processed to assign compounds to one of three aqueous solubility categories. Histograms showing the proportions of measurements in each aqueous solubility category were created by binning values of SFI and of c log D_pH7.4 and the histograms were compared visually:    

This graded bar graph (Figure 9) can be compared with that shown in Figure 6b to show an increase in resolution when considering binned SFI versus binned c log D_pH7.4 alone.

Recently, I have been forced to revise my negative view of PFI and I have to admit that it pains me deeply to realise that I could have been so utterly wrong for so long in my assessment of what is actually an elegant and highly-predictive drug design metric. Indeed I have now come to the conclusion that the only reason that the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry did not include PFI in its nomination for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was that the introduction of the Ro5, LipE and Fsp3 principles led directly to so many marketed drugs being approved.

What has caused such a fundamental shift in my views? First, PFI is highlighted in the European Federation of Medicinal Chemistry (EFMC) ‘Best Practices from Hits to Lead Generation’ webinar.  Now it goes without saying that EFMC includes some of the sharpest minds in medicinal chemistry and, given that they consider PFI to be sufficiently important for inclusion in a best practices webinar, it became abundantly clear that I needed to revise my hopelessly naïve thinking. Let’s join the webinar at 27:53 and you’ll see in the webinar slide that SFI (as PFI was originally introduced) has been strongly endorsed by Practical Cheminformatics, a blog that many, including me, accept without question as the source of a number of fundamental ground truths in the AI field.

However, what convinced me of the sublime elegance and extreme predictivity of PFI is a seminal study by the world-renowned expert on tetrodotoxin pharmacology, Prof. Angelique Bouchard-Duvalier of the Port-au-Prince Institute of Biogerontology, working in collaboration with the Budapest Enthalpomics Group (BEG). The manuscript has not yet been made publicly available although I was able to access it with the help of my associate ‘Anastasia Nikolaeva’ (not sure exactly what she’s doing these days although she did post a photo from Pyongyang showing her and a burly chap with a toothy grin and a bizarre haircut). There is no doubt that this genuinely disruptive study will comprehensively reshape the predictive ADME landscape, enabling drug discovery scientists, for the very first time, to make accurate predictions for developability and probability of critical trial success using only chemical structures as input.

Prof. Bouchard-Duvalier’s seminal study clearly demonstrates that graphical presentation of categorized continuous data outperforms regression analysis performed on the uncategorized continuous data. The math is truly formidable (my rudimentary understanding of Haitian patois didn’t help either) and involves first projecting the atomic isothermal compressibility matrix into the quadrupole-normalized polarizability tensor before applying the Barone-Samedi transformation, followed by hepatic eigenvalue extraction using an algorithm devised by E. V. Tooms (a reclusive Baltimore resident whose illustrious research career in analytic topology was abruptly halted almost 31 years ago by an unfortunate escalator accident). The incisive analysis of Prof. Bouchard-Duvalier shows without a shadow of doubt that the data visualization used to establish PFI as a fundamental drug design principle will reliably and robustly outperform all AI approaches to prediction of aqueous solubility. Furthermore, ‘Anastasia Nikolaeva’ was also able to ‘liberate’ a prepared press release in which the beaming BEG director Prof. Kígyó Olaj explains: 

Possibilities are limitless now that we can accurately and robustly predict the developability of a compound using only its chemical structure as input and we can now finally consign regression analysis to the dustbin of history. Surely the Editors of Journal of Medicinal Chemistry will recognize the impact of PFI on real world drug discovery when they make their Nobel Prize nominations later this year. 

A Nobel for property-based drug design?

[This post was updated on 10-Aug-2025 to mention my review of CNM2025 (Return to Flatland) which  critically examines (35) (Escape from Flatland: Increasing Saturation as an Approach to Improving Clinical Success)] 

 

This post was updated on 04-Aug-2024. I thank Tim Ritchie (see RM2009 | RM2014) for bringing YG2003 (Prediction of Aqueous Solubility of Organic Compounds by Topological Descriptors) to my attention.]

"The problems of ADME are precisely those that determine success or failure of a drug in vivo. In vitro data can give a clearer picture of the receptor characteristics, but knowledge and control of ADME are also vital. A common trap in binding studies is that binding generally increases with lipophilicity, so that one may obtain extremely potent binding that is totally unattainable in vivo."

SH Unger (1987) Computer-Aided Drug Design in the Year 2000. 

Drug Information Journal 21:267-275 DOI

******************************************

In this post I’ll be reviewing an Editorial (Property-Based Drug Design Merits a Nobel Prize) that was recently published in J Med Chem. For me, the Editorial raises questions about the critical thinking skills of its authors and of the judgement of the J Med Chem Editors (I’m guessing that some of the courteous and cultured members of the Nobel Prize committee might regard it to be somewhat pushy, and possibly even uncouth, for journals to be publishing nominations for Nobel Prizes as editorials). My advice to anybody nominating individuals for a Nobel Prize is to be aware of an observation, usually attributed to Jocelyn Bell Burnett, that it’s better that people ask why you didn’t win a Nobel Prize than why you did. Where applicable, I've used the the same reference numbers that were used in the Editorial and I’ll start by reproducing the Nobel Prize proposal (as is usual in posts at Molecular Design, I’ve inserted some comments, italicized in red and enclosed in square brackets, into the quoted text):

We propose that a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine should be awarded for property-based drug design, with Christopher A. Lipinski, Paul D. Leeson, and Frank Lovering as the proposed recipients for their development of “important principles for drug design” [I would describe what the proposed Nobel laureates have introduced as a rule, a metric and a molecular descriptor rather than principles.], principles that have contributed to the development of numerous approved drugs. [The authors do need to provide convincing evidence to support what appear to be some wildly extravagant claims. Specifically, the authors need to demonstrate that the rule, metric and molecular descriptor (which they describe as “principles”) were actually critical to the decision-making in projects that led to the development of numerous drugs.] While drug design previously focused primarily on optimizing potency, they introduced a more holistic approach based on the consideration of how fundamental molecular and physicochemical properties affect pharmaceutical, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and safety properties. [My view is that none of proposed Nobel laureates even demonstrated a single convincing link between molecular and physicochemical properties, and pharmaceutical, pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and safety properties.] The development of the Rof5 by Christopher A. Lipinski in 1997 introduced a new principle for how molecular and physicochemical properties affect oral bioavailability. The development of LipE by Paul D. Leeson in 2007 introduced a new principle for how physicochemical properties impact potency, selectivity, and safety. Finally, the development of Fsp3 by Frank Lovering in 2009 introduced a new principle for how molecular shape affects pharmaceutical properties and developability.

Before examining the contributions of the three nominated individuals it's worth saying something about the objectives of drug design. First, a drug needs to be highly active against its target(s). Second, activity against anti-targets should be very low (ideally too low to even be measured). Third, as I note in 34, the exposure (concentration at the site of action) of the drug needs to be controllable (one challenge in drug design is that intracellular drug concentration can’t generally be measured in vivo and I recommend that all drug discovery scientists read SR2019). I see controlling exposure as the primary focus of property-based design and one fundamental challenge is that structural modifications that lead to increased engagement potential for the therapeutic target(s) frequently result in reduced controllability of exposure as well as increased engagement potential for anti-targets. I’ve tried to capture these points in the graphic shown below.

It's generally accepted that excessive lipophilicity and molecular size are risk factors in drug design and the “compound quality” (CQ) literature abounds with fire-and-brimstone sermons on the evils of "molecular obesity" (see H2011). Nevertheless, the relationships between these descriptors and properties such as binding affinity for anti-targets, permeability, aqueous solubility and metabolic lability are generally not quite as strong as is commonly believed (or claimed). When using trends in data to inform design it’s really important to know how strong the trends are because this tells you how much weight to give to the trends when making decisions. It’s not unknown in CQ studies for trends in data to be made to appear to be stronger than they actually are which endows the CQ field with what I’ll politely call a “whiff of the pasture” (the term “correlation inflation” has been used; see KM2013). Transformation of continuous data (IC₅₀ values) to categorical data (high | medium | low) prior to analysis should trigger a deafening cacophony of alarm bells as should any averaging of groups of continuous data values without showing the spread in the data values. Some examples of studies in which I consider the strengths of trends to have been exaggerated include 29, 35, HMO2016 and HY2010.

I think that one thing that everybody who actually works (or has worked) on drug discovery projects agrees on is that drug discovery is really difficult. My view is that, by focusing on Rof5, LipE and Fsp3, the Editorial actually trivializes the challenges faced by drug discovery scientists. Most drug design (as opposed to ligand design) takes place during lead optimization and lead optimization teams are typically addressing specific problems (for example, structural changes that result in increased potency also result in reduced aqueous solubility).  Lead optimization teams typically work with a lot of measured data (a significant component of drug design is efficient generation of data to enable decision-making) and a weak correlation between logP and aqueous solubility reported in the literature would be of no practical relevance when the lead optimization team is using aqueous solubility measurements for compounds in the structural series that they’re optimizing. It is common (see M2001 | G2008) for the simplicity of rules, guidelines and metrics to be touted and we noted in KM2013 that:   

Given that drug discovery would appear to be anything but simple, the simplicity of a drug-likeness model could actually be taken as evidence for its irrelevance to drug discovery.

Guidelines for successful drug discovery are often presented in terms of something good (or bad) being more likely to happen when the value of a calculated property such as Fsp3 exceeds a threshold. When using guidelines like these be aware that it’s actually very difficult to set these threshold values objectively and that the guidelines would have been stated in an identical manner had different threshold values been chosen to specify them. One difficulty with using guidelines like these is that the creators of the guidelines don’t usually say what they mean by “more likely” (millions of people book flights knowing that one is “more likely” to die in a plane crash if one takes a flight than if one doesn’t take a flight). A number of published guidelines (some of which have been referenced in the Editorial) claim that compounds that comply with the guidelines are more likely to be developable. However, giving weight to these claims would require that developability be defined in an objective manner that enables compounds with arbitrary molecular structures and differing biological activity to be meaningfully compared.   

I’ll examine the contributions of the three proposed laureates for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine following the order in the Editorial. Let's start with the first:

  

The development of the Rof5 by Christopher A. Lipinski in 1997 introduced a new principle for how molecular and physicochemical properties affect oral bioavailability. [As a reviewer of the manuscript I would have pressed the authors to explicitly state the new principle that their first nominee for the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine had introduced 1997.]

My view is that the publication of the Rof5 (22) has certainly proven to be highly influential in that it made many drug discovery scientists aware of the need to take account of physicochemical properties, in particular lipophilicity, in drug design. What is less well-known, but possibly more important in my view, is that publication of the Rof5 sent a clear message to Pharma/Biotech management that high-throughput screening wasn’t going to be the panacea that many believed that it would be. However, I don't see the Rof5 as quite the epiphany that the authors of the Editorial would have us believe it to be. The quote with which I started this post was taken from an article that had been published ten years before 22 and the inverse nature of the relationship between aqueous solubility and lipophilicity was being discussed in the scientific literature (see YV1980) more than forty years ago. The NC1996 study is also worthy of mention because it was published more than a year before 22 and it makes the important point that optimal logP values are likely to vary with chemotype ("each congeneric series for a drug backbone usually demonstrates its own optimal log P").       

Questions can be raised about the data analysis presented in support of the Rof5 and readers may find it helpful to take a look at the S2019 study as well as my comments on the Rof5 in HBD3 and in this post. I would argue that the Rof5 does not have any practical value as a drug design tool and I would challenge the assertion made in the Editorial that the publication of 22 demonstrated how “molecular and physicochemical properties affect oral bioavailability”. One aspect of the analysis presented (22) in support of the Rof5 that isn't always fully appreciated is that the compounds for which the descriptors are calculated were all treated as having equivalent oral bioavailability (compounds were selected for the analysis on the basis of having been taken into phase 2 clinical trials at some point before the Rof5 had been published in 1997). This is one reason that it’s not credible to assert that the analysis demonstrates that these molecular and physicochemical properties are linked to bioavailability (it must be stressed that, like many, I do actually believe that excessive lipophilicity and molecular size are risk factors in drug design). I make the following point in a blog post (I’ve modified the original text very slightly for consistency with the Editorial):

The Rof5 is stated in terms of likelihood of poor absorption or permeation although no measured oral absorption or permeability data are given in 22 and the Rof5 should therefore be regarded as a statement of belief. I realise that to make such an assertion runs the risk of an appointment with the auto-da-fé and I stress that had the Rof5 been stated in terms of physicochemical and molecular property distributions I would not have made the assertion.

To see what I was getting at let’s take a look at how the Rof5 was stated in 22 (“The ‘rule of 5’ states that: poor absorption or permeation are more likely when…”). However, the analysis presented in support of the Rof5 was of the distribution of compounds in chemical space defined by molecular weight, logP and numbers of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors with no account being taken of variation in either absorption or permeation for the compounds. Analysis like this can be informative but you need to demonstrate that the chemical space is actually relevant to the phenomena of interest. One way that you can demonstrate that a chemical space is relevant is to build predictive models for the phenomena of interest using only the dimensions of the chemical space as descriptors. Alternatively you might observe meaningful differences between the distributions in the chemical space for compounds that have respectively passed and failed at at a particular stage in clinical development.  

So that’s all that I’ll be saying about Rof5 and it’s time to take a look at the contributions of the second proposed Nobel Laureate:

The development of LipE by Paul D. Leeson in 2007 introduced a new principle for how physicochemical properties impact potency, selectivity, and safety. [As a reviewer of the manuscript I would have pressed the authors to explicitly state the new principle that their second nominee for the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine had introduced 2007.]

I'll start by saying that LipE is a simple mathematical formula and I suggest that one shouldn't be confusing simple mathematical formulae with principles when nominating people for Nobel Prizes. There are, however, other errors and these are not the kind of errors that you can afford to make when nominating people for Nobel Prizes. First, the term used in 29 is actually “ligand-lipophilicity efficiency” (LLE) although this appears to have mutated to “lipophilic ligand efficiency” (also LLE) by 2014 (see H2014). The term “LipE” was actually introduced by Pfizer scientists (see R2009) and it is significant that the more recent J2018 article defines LipE in terms of logD rather than logP (doing so means that you can make compounds more efficient simply by increasing extent of ionization and, as a drug design tactic, this is likely to end about as well as things did for the Sixth Army at Stalingrad).

The second (and more serious from the perspective of a Nobel nomination) error is that the metric had already been discussed, although not named, in the literature when 29 was published (I’m guessing that a suggestion that naming a metric merits a Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine might cause some members of the Nobel Prize committee to choke on their surströmming).  The L2006 book chapter, published fifteen months before 29, states:

Thus, to achieve compounds with a not too high log P while still retaining potency, the difference between the log potency and the log D can be utilised.

From the A2007 perspective which was published three months before 29: 

Lipophilicity is thought to be a driving force for binding to anti-targets such as the hERG ion channel and cytochrome p450 enzymes and potency can be scaled by lipophilicity by subtracting measured or calculated 1-octanol water partition coefficients from pIC₅₀.

It might be helpful to say something about efficiency metrics since LiPE (or LLE if you prefer) is an example of an efficiency metric. The idea behind efficiency metrics is to “normalize” a compound’s activity (typically quantified by potency or affinity) by the value of a risk factor such as lipophilicity or molecular size (for the masochists among you there’s an entire section in 34 on normalization of binding affinity). Ligand efficiency (LE) was introduced in 2004 (see H2004) and is generally regarded as the original efficiency metric although its creators do acknowledge the influence of the K1999 study. I’ve argued at length in 34 (Table 1 and Figure 1 in the article capture the essence of the argument) that LE is physically meaningless because perception of efficiency changes if you use a different concentration to define the standard state (by convention ΔG_binding values correspond to an arbitrary 1 M standard concentration) and there is no way to objectively select any particular value of the standard concentration for calculation of LE.  The problem doesn’t go away if you try to define ligand efficiency in terms of logarithmically expressed values of IC₅₀, K_i or K_d instead of ΔG_binding because these quantities still have to be divided by an arbitrary concentration value in order to be expressed as logarithms (see M2011).  My view is that LE shouldn't even be described as a metric and I sometimes appropriate a quote ("it's not even wrong") that is usually attributed to Pauli because those who advocate the use of LE in drug design are unable (or unwilling) to say what it measures.

The meaninglessness of LE stems from it being defined by scaling ΔG_binding by the design risk factor (molecular size). In contrast, LipE is defined by offsetting pIC₅₀ by the risk factor (logP) and can be interpreted (see 34) as the energetic cost of moving the ligand from octanol to its target binding site (this interpretation is only valid when the ligand binds in its neutral form and is predominantly neutral in the aqueous phase).  When considering lipophilicity in property-based design it is important to be aware that octanol is an arbitrary choice of solvent for measurement of partition coefficients and that the logP (or logD) calculated for a compound may differ significantly depending on the algorithm used for the calculations. That said, the hydrogen bond donors/acceptors and ionizable groups tend to be relatively conserved within structural series which means that the details of exactly how lipophilicity is quantified are likely to be less critical in lead optimization than for structurally-diverse sets of compounds.

When we use LipE we’re actually assuming that logP (or logD) is predictive of properties such as aqueous solubility, affinity for anti-targets and metabolic lability. That is why it’s not accurate to state that the introduction of LipE showed how “physicochemical properties impact potency, selectivity, and safety”.  In some published studies the focus is less on the LipE metric and more on what might be called the "lipophilic efficiency concept" (aim for top left corner of a plot of potency against lipophilicity). It is common to show reference lines of constant LipE to plots of potency against lipophilicity in this type of analysis and if you're doing this you really should be citing R2009 rather than 29. 

I'll finish the commentary on LipE (or LLE if you prefer) with this statement made in the Editorial:

Emerging from an analysis of approved drugs, this rubric predicts a compound is more likely to be clinically developable when LipE > 5. [I don’t know what the authors of the Editorial mean by “rubric” (I'm not even sure that they do) but as a reviewer of the manuscript I would have pressed them to justify their claim. Specifically I would have been looking for a literature reference (for me, the choice of the word “emerging” does rather conjure up an image of hot gases and stoned priestesses at Delphi) and a coherent explanation for why a value of 5 yields a better rubric than values of 4 or 6.]

That’s all that I’ll be saying about LipE (or LLE if you prefer) and it’s time to take a look at the contributions of the third nominee for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine:

Finally, the development of Fsp3 by Frank Lovering in 2009 introduced a new principle for how molecular shape affects pharmaceutical properties and developability. [As a reviewer of the manuscript I would have pressed the authors to explicitly state the new principle that their third nominee for the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine had introduced in 2009. My view is that Fsp3 is a thoroughly unconvincing descriptor of molecular shape and I suggest readers consider the suggestion that cyclohexane (Fsp3 = 1) would have a better shape match with benzene (Fsp3 = 0) than with either methane (Fsp3 = 1) or adamantane (Fsp3 = 1).]

[10-Aug-2025 update: The authors of the CNM2025 study claim "we repeated an analysis similar to that of Lovering et al. to assess Fsp3 in drugs approved post-2009 and those in active clinical development as of mid-2024" and conclude "there appeared to be no clear relationship between highest phase reached and Fsp3, suggesting the key conclusion noted by Lovering et al. has not persisted". My view expressed in this 05-Aug-2025 post is that the analysis is not sufficiently similar to support this conclusion.] 

 

[04-Aug-2024 update: The Fsp3 descriptor had actually been used as i_ali in the YG2003 study (Prediction of Aqueous Solubility of Organic Compounds by Topological Descriptors) six years before the publication of 35:

The aliphatic indicator of a molecule (i_ali) is equal to the number of sp3 carbons divided by the total number of carbon atoms in the molecule.

The YG2003 study discussed prediction of aqueous solubility using i_ali (renamed as Fsp3 in 35) in conjunction with other topological descriptors. In contrast with the claims made in 35 for Fsp3 the YG2003 study made no suggestion that i_ali was a highly effective predictor of aqueous solvation when used by itself.]   

Before discussing the contributions of the third nominee for the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine I should stress that I certainly consider gratuitous use of aromatic rings to be a very bad thing in drug design (it was the data analysis in 35 that was criticized in KM2013 but not the eminently sensible suggestion that drug designers should look beyond what the authors referred to as ‘Flatland’). Having sp3 carbon atoms in a scaffold provides drug designers with a wider range of options for placement of substituents than would be the case for a fully aromatic scaffold and we stated in KM2013 that:   

One limitation of aromatic rings as components of drug molecules is that some regions above and below the plane defined by the atomic nuclear positions are not directly accessible to substituents. Molecular recognition considerations suggest a focus on achieving axial substitution in saturated rings with minimal steric footprint, for example by exploiting the anomeric effect or by substituting N-acylated cyclic amines at C2. 

My view is that deleterious effects of aromatic rings on aqueous solubility would be more plausibly explained by molecular interactions stabilizing the solid state than in terms of molecular shape (this point is discussed in more detail in HBD3). I also see saturated ring systems such as bicyclo[1.1.1]pentane and cubane as potentially more resistant to metabolism than benzene. 

There’s one point that I need to make before discussing 35 from the data analysis perspective which is that molecular structures with basic nitrogen atoms tend to have higher Fsp3 values than molecular structures that lack basic nitrogen atoms (see L2013). This means that you can’t tell whether the benefits of higher Fsp3 values are actually caused by the higher Fsp3 values or by the presence of basic nitrogen atoms.

The Editorial states:

Stemming from an analysis of discovery compounds, investigational drugs, and approved drugs, Fsp3 predicts a discovery compound is more likely to become a drug when Fsp3 > 0.40. [Figure 3 in 35 does not actually depict a significant difference between mean Fsp3 values for for discovery compounds and marketed drugs (the significant difference between mean Fsp3 values is for discovery and Phase 2 compounds).]  

It’s not clear (at least to me) where the figure of 0.40 comes from and I would argue that that compound X (IC₅₀ against therapeutic target = 50 μM; Fsp3 = 0.80) would actually be less likely to become a drug than compound Y (IC₅₀ against therapeutic target = 10 nM; Fsp3 = 0.20). I’m assuming that what the Editorial refers to as “analysis of discovery compounds, investigational drugs, and approved drugs” is what is shown by Figure 3 in 35. Presenting data in this manner hides the variation in Fsp3 for the compounds at each stage of development and makes the trends look much stronger than they actually are (this is verboten according to current J Med Chem author guidelines which state "If average values are reported from computational analysis, their variance must be documented.") I would challenge the suggestion that what is shown in Figure 3 in 35 can be used to calculate the probability that an arbitrary compound will become a drug (my view is that it’s not feasible to even define the probability that a compound will become a drug in a meaningful manner). Analyses of success in clinical development are generally more convincing when comparisons are made between compounds that pass or fail in individual phases of clinical development than between compounds in different phases of clinical development. 

The Editorial continues:        

This observation was ascribed to increased Fsp3 leading to increased aqueous solubility, a critical physiochemical property for successful drug discovery.

I’m assuming that what the Editorial refers to as “increased Fsp3 leading to increased aqueous solubility” is the trend shown by Figure 5 of 35 (this featured prominently in the KM2013 correlation inflation article) which claims to show the relationship between Fsp3 and log S (aqueous solubility expressed as a logarithm).  This claim is not accurate because the log S values have been binned and the relationship is actually between centre point of bin and mean log S value for bin. The authors of 35 used public domain aqueous solubility data for their analysis and we showed (KM2013; see Figure 5) that the Pearson correlation coefficient for the relationship between log S and Fsp3 is only 0.25 (the corresponding value for the binned data is 0.97).  I consider the suggestion that such a weak correlation could have any relevance whatsoever to the the likelihood of success in clinical trials to be wild and uninformed conjecture.      

I'll finish my commentary on Fsp3 by reproducing this claim made in the Editorial:

Much like the Rof5 and LipE, Fsp3 has proven to be enduringly useful for the design of compounds with improved chances of clinical success. (37) [My view is there is insufficient evidence to justify this claim and I'm perplexed by the citation of 37. In any case, members of the Nobel committee are likely to focus more on whether or not Fsp3 is usefully predictive than on the endurance of this molecular descriptor.]  

It’s now time to summarise what has been a long and at times pedantic blog post, and I thank all readers who’ve stayed with me. I don’t consider any of the three studies (22 | 29 | 35) that form the basis of the Nobel Prize nomination to have reported significant scientific discoveries and I would also challenge the claim made in the Editorial that these studies introduced new principles. I’m aware that 22 is heavily cited and I certainly agree that it is common to see values of LipE and Fsp3 quoted in the drug discovery literature. Nevertheless, I would argue that that the Editorial failed to provide even a single convincing example of the Rof5, LipE or Fsp3 making a critical contribution to the discovery of a marketed drug (this should be quite sufficient to rule out the award of a share in the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine to any of these nominees). Furthermore, the Editorial doesn’t provide any convincing evidence that the Rof5, LipE or Fsp3 are usefully predictive in drug discovery projects.

Aside from the failure of the Editorial to demonstrate significant impact for the Rof5, LipE and Fsp3, I do have some scientific concerns about this Nobel Prize nomination. First, the Rof5 is not actually supported by data in the form that it is stated. Second, LipE had already been discussed, although not named, in the drug discovery literature when 29 was published. Third, Fsp3 had been already been introduced (as i_ali) for aqueous solubility prediction and the data analysis in 35 would fail to comply with current J Med Chem author guidelines.

Archbishop Ussher's guide to efficient selection of development candidates

One piece of advice I gave in NoLE is that “drug designers should not automatically assume that conclusions drawn from analysis of large, structurally-diverse data sets are necessarily relevant to the specific drug design projects on which they are working” and the L2021 study that I’m reviewing in this post will give you a good idea of what I was getting at when I wrote that. I see a fair amount of relatively harmless “stamp collecting” in L2021 but there are also some rather less harmless errors of the type that you really shouldn’t be making if cheminformatics is your day job.  

I’ll start the review of L2021 with annotation of the abstract:

"Physicochemical descriptors commonly used to define ‘drug-likeness’ and ligand efficiency measures are assessed for their ability to differentiate marketed drugs from compounds reported to bind to their efficacious target or targets. [I would argue that differentiating an existing drug from existing compounds that bind to the same target is not something that medicinal chemists need to be able to do. It is also incorrect to describe efficiency metrics such as LE and LLE as physicochemical descriptors because they are derived from biological activity measurements such as binding affinity or potency.] Using ChEMBL version 26, a data set of 643 drugs acting on 271 targets was assembled, comprising 1104 drug−target pairs having ≥100 published compounds per target. Taking into account changes in their physicochemical properties over time, drugs are analyzed according to their target class, therapy area, and route of administration. Recent drugs, approved in 2010−2020, display no overall differences in molecular weight, lipophilicity, hydrogen bonding, or polar surface area from their target comparator compounds. Drugs are differentiated from target comparators by higher potency, ligand efficiency (LE), lipophilic ligand efficiency (LLE), and lower carboaromaticity. [I may be missing something but stating that drugs tend to differ in potency from non-drugs that hit the same targets does rather seem to be stating the obvious. The same point can also be made about efficiency metrics such as LE and LLE since these are derived, respectively, by scaling potency with respect to molecular size and offsetting potency with respect to lipophicity (LLE).] Overall, 96% of drugs have LE or LLE values, or both, greater than the median values of their target comparator compounds.” [What is the corresponding figure for potency?]

I must admit to never having been a fan of drug-likeness studies such as L2021 (when I first encountered analyses of time dependency of drug properties about 20 years ago I was left with an impression that some senior medicinal chemists had a bit too much time on their hands) and it is now ten years since the term "Ro5 envy" was introduced in a notorious JCAMD article. My view is that the data analysis presented in L2021 has minimal relevance to drug discovery so I’ll be saying rather less about the data analysis than I’d have done had J Med Chem asked me to review the study.

The L2021 study examines property differences between marketed drugs and compounds reported to bind to efficacious target(s) of each drug. Specifically, the property differences are quantified by difference between the value of the property for the drug and the median of the values of property for the target comparator compounds. If doing this then you really do need to account for the spread in the distribution if you’re going to interpret property differences like these (a large difference in values of a property for the drug and the median property for the target may simply reflect a wide spread in the property distribution for the target).  However, I would argue that a more sensible starting point for analysis like this would be to locate (e.g., as a percentile) the value of each drug property within the corresponding property distribution for the target comparator compounds.

Let’s take a look now at how the authors of L2021 suggest their study be used.  

“This study, like all those looking at marketed drug properties, is necessarily retrospective. Nevertheless, those small molecule drug properties that show consistent differentiation from their target compounds over time, namely, potency, ligand efficiencies (LE and LLE), and the aromatic ring count and lipophilicity of carboaromatic drugs, are those that are most likely to remain future-proof. Candidate drugs emerging from target-based discovery programs should ideally have one, or preferably both, of their LE and LLE values greater than the median value for all other compounds known to be acting at the target.”

I would argue that the L2021 study has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the selection of compounds for development since the team will have data available that enables them to rule out the vast majority of the project compounds for nomination.  A discovery team nominating a compound for development will have achieved a number of challenging objectives (including potency against target and in one or more cell-based assays) and the likely response of team members to a suggestion that they calculate medians for LE and LLE for comparison with nomination candidate(s) is likely to be bemused eye-rolling. In general, a discovery team nominating a development candidate has access to a lot of unpublished potency measurements (which won’t be in ChEMBL) and it’s usually a safe assumption that the development candidate will be selected from the most potent compounds (LE and LLE values for these compounds are also likely to be above average). In the extremely unlikely event that the discovery team nominates a compound with LE or LLE values below the magic median values then you can be confident that the decision has been based on examination of measured data (consider the likelihood of the discovery team members acting on a suggestion that they should pick another compound with LE or LLE value above the magic median values because doing so will increase the probability of success in clinical development).   

As the start of the post, I did mention some errors that you don’t want to be making if cheminformatics is your day job and regular readers of this blog will have already guessed that I’m talking about ligand efficiency (LE). I should point out l that the problem is with the ligand efficiency metric and not the ligand efficiency concept which is both scientifically sound and useful, especially in fragment-based design where molecular size often increases significantly in the hit-to-lead phase. 

The problem with the LE metric is that perception of efficiency changes when you express affinity (or potency) using a different unit and this is shown clearly in Table 1 in NoLE. Expressing a quantity using a different unit doesn’t change the quantity so any change in perception is clearly physical nonsense. That’s why I appropriate a criticism (it’s not even wrong) usually attributed to Pauli when taking gratuitous pot shots at the LE metric.  The change in perception is also cheminformatic nonsense and that’s why it’s rather unwise to use the LE metric if cheminformatics is your day job. L2021 does cite NoLE but simply notes the LE metric’s “scientific basis and application have provoked a literature debate”.

The L2021 study asserts that “the absolute LE value of a drug candidate is less important” but the problem is that even differences in LE change when you express affinity (or potency) using a different concentration unit. This is shown in Table 2 in NoLE and the problem is that there is no objective way to select a particular concentration unit as ‘better’ than all the other concentration units.  To conclude, can we say that a medicinal chemistry leader’s choice of concentration unit (1 M) is any better (or any worse) than that of Archbishop Ussher (4.004 μM)?  

Why fragments?

Paramin panorama

Crystallographic fragment screens have been run recently against the main protease (at Diamond) and the Nsp3 macrodomain (at UCSF and Diamond) of SARS-Cov-2 and I thought that it might be of interest to take a closer look at why we screen fragments. Fragment-based lead discovery (FBLD) actually has origins in both crystallography [V1992 | A1996] and computational chemistry [M1991 | B1992 | E1994]. Measurement of affinity is important in fragment-to-lead work because it allows fragment-based structure-activity relationships to be established prior to structural elaboration. Affinity measurement is typically challenging when fragment binding has been detected using crystallography although affinity can be estimated by observation of the response of occupancy to concentration (the ∆G° value of −3.1 kcal/mol reported for binding of pyrazole to protein kinase B was derived in this manner).

Although fragment-based approaches to lead discovery are widely used, it is less clear why fragment-based lead discovery works as well as it appears to. While it has been stated that “fragment hits form high-quality interactions with the target”, the concept of interaction quality is not sufficiently well-defined to be useful in design. I ran a poll which asked about the strongest rationale for screening fragments.  The 65 votes were distributed as follows: ‘high ligand efficiency’ (23.1%), ‘enthalpy-driven binding’ (16.9%), ‘low molecular complexity’ (26.2%) and ‘God loves fragments’ (33.8%). I did not vote.

The belief is that fragments are especially ligand-efficient has many adherents in the drug discovery field and it has been asserted that “fragment hits typically possess high ‘ligand efficiency’ (binding affinity per heavy atom) and so are highly suitable for optimization into clinical candidates with good drug-like properties”. The fundamental problem with ligand efficiency (LE), as conventionally calculated, is that perception of efficiency varies with the arbitrary concentration unit in which affinity is expressed (have you ever wondered why Kd , Ki or IC50 has to be expressed in mole/litre for calculation of LE?). This would appear to be an rather undesirable characteristic for a design metric and LE evangelists might consider trying to explain why it’s not a problem rather than dismissing it as a “limitation” of the metric or trying to shift the burden of proof is onto the skeptics to show that the evangelists’ choice of concentration unit for calculation of LE is not useful.

The problems associated with the arbitrary nature of the concentration unit used to express affinity were first identified in 2009 and further discussed in 2014 and 2019. Specifically, it was noted that LE has a nontrivial dependency on the concentration,  C°, used to define the standard state. If you want to do solution thermodynamics with concentrations defined then you do need to specify a standard concentration. However, it is important to remember that the choice of standard concentration is necessarily arbitrary if the thermodynamic analysis is to be valid. If your conclusions change when you use a different definition of the standard state then you’ll no longer be doing thermodynamics and, as Pauli might have observed, you’ll not even be wrong. You probably don't know it, but when you use the LE metric, you’re making the sweeping assumption that all values of Kd, Ki and IC50 tend to a value of 1 M in the limit of zero molecular size. Recalling the conventional criticism of homeopathy, is there really a difference between a solute that is infinitely small and a solute that is infinitely dilute?

I think that’s enough flogging of inanimate equines for one blog post so let’s take a look at enthalpy-driven binding. My view of thermodynamic signature characterization in drug discovery is that it’s, in essence, a solution that’s desperately seeking a problem. In particular, there does not appear to be any physical basis for claims that the thermodynamic signature is a measure of interaction quality.  In case you’re thinking that I’m an unrepentant Luddite, I will concede that thermodynamic signatures could prove useful for validating physics-based models of molecular recognition and in, in specific cases, they may point to differences in binding mode within congeneric series. I should also stress that the modern isothermal calorimeter is an engineering marvel and I'd always want this option for label-free, affinity measurement in any project.

It is common to see statements in the thermodynamic signature literature to the effect that binding is ‘enthalpy-driven’ or ‘entropy-driven’ although it was noted in 2009 (coincidentally, in the same article that highlighted the nontrivial dependence of LE on C°) that these terms are not particularly meaningful. The problems start when you make comparisons between the numerical values of ∆H (which is independent of C°) and T∆S° (which depends on C°). If I’d presented such a comparison in physics class at high school (I was taught by the Holy Ghost Fathers in Port of Spain), I would have been caned with a ferocity reserved for those who’d dozed off in catechism class.  I’ll point you toward an article which asserts that, “when compared with many traditional druglike compounds, fragments bind more enthalpically to their protein targets”. I have a number of issues with this article although this is not the place for a comprehensive review (although I’ll probably pick it up in ‘The Nature of Lipophilic Efficiency’ when that gets written).

While I don’t believe that the authors have actually demonstrated that fragments bind more enthalpically than ligands of greater molecular size, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that gains in affinity over the course of a fragment-to-lead (F2L) campaign had come more from entropy than enthalpy. First, the lost translation entropy (the component of ∆S° that endows it with its dependence on C°) is shared over greater number of intermolecular contacts for structurally-elaborated compounds and this article is relevant to the discussion. Second, I’d expect the entropy of any water molecule to increase when it is moved to bulk solvent from contact with molecular surface of ligand or target (regardless of polarity of the molecular surface at the point of contact). Nevertheless, this is something that you can test easily by examining the response of (∆H + T∆S°) to ∆G° (best to not to aggregate data for different targets and/or temperatures when analyzing isothermal titration calorimetry data in this manner). But even if F2L affinity gains were shown generally to come more from entropy than enthalpy, would that be a strong rationale for screening fragments?

This gets us onto molecular complexity and this article by Mike Hann and GSK colleagues should be considered essential reading for anybody thinking about selecting of compounds for screening. The Hann model is a conceptual framework for molecular complexity but it doesn’t provide much practical guidance as to how to measure complexity (this is not a criticism since the thought process should be more about frameworks and less about metrics). I don’t believe that it will prove possible to quantify molecular complexity in an objective manner that is useful for designing compound libraries (I will be delighted to be proven wrong on this point). The approach to handling molecular complexity that I’ve used in screening library design is to restrict extent of substitution (and other substructural features that can be considered to be associated with molecular complexity) and this is closer to ‘needle screening’ as described by Roche scientists in 2000 than to the Hann model.

Had I voted in the poll, ‘low molecular complexity’ would have got my vote.  Here’s what I said in NoLE (it’s got an entire section on fragment-based design and a practical suggestion for redefining ligand efficiency so that perception does not change with C°):

"I would argue that the rationale for screening fragments against targets of interest is actually based on two conjectures. First, chemical space can be covered most effectively by fragments because compounds of low molecular complexity [18, 21, 22] allow TIP [target interaction potential] to be explored [70,71,72,73,74] more efficiently and accurately. Second, a fragment that has been observed to bind to a target may be a better starting point for design than a higher affinity ligand whose greater molecular complexity prevents it from presenting molecular recognition elements to the target in an optimal manner."

To be fair, those who advocate the use of LE and thermodynamic signatures in fragment-based design do not deny the importance of molecular complexity. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that interaction quality can actually be defined and is quantified by the LE value and/or the thermodynamic signature for binding of compound to target. While these are massive assumptions, LE values and thermodynamic signatures are still effects rather than causes.

The last option for poll was ‘God loves fragments’ and more respondents (33.8%) voted for this than any of the first three options. I would interpret a vote for ‘God loves fragments’ in three ways. First, the respondent doesn’t consider any one of the first three options to be a stronger rationale for screening fragments than the other two. Second, the respondent doesn’t consider any of the first three options to be a valid rationale for screening fragments. Third, the respondent considers fragment-based approaches to have been over-sold.

This is a good place to wrap up. While I remain an enthusiast for fragment-based approaches to lead discovery, I do also believe that they have been somewhat oversold. The sensitivity of LE evangelists to criticism of their metric may stem from the use of LE to sell fragment-based methods to venture capitalists and, internally, to skeptical management. A shared (and serious) deficiency in the conventional ways in which LE and thermodynamic signature are quantified is that perception changes when the arbitrary concentration,  C°, that defines the standard state is changed. While there are ways in which this deficiency can be addressed for analysis, it is important that the deficiency be acknowledged if we are to move forward. Drug design is difficult and if we, as drug designers, embrace shaky science and flawed data analysis then those who fund our activities may conclude that the difficulties that we face are of our own making.