BioPharmaTrend
Latest News
All Topics
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • NeuroTech
  • Premium Content
  • Knowledge Center
Interviews
Companies
  • Company Directory
  • Sponsored Case Studies
  • Create Company Profile
More
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Advisory Board
  • Citations and Press Coverage
  • Partner Events Calendar
  • Advertise with Us
  • Write for Us
Subscribe
Login/Join

How Latest Drug Candidates Were Discovered? (Retrospective Review, 2016-2017)

by Andrii Buvailo, PhD  (contributor )   •   June 26, 2018  

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed by Contributors are their own and do not represent those of their employers, or BiopharmaTrend.com.
Contributors are fully responsible for assuring they own any required copyright for any content they submit to BiopharmaTrend.com. This website and its owners shall not be liable for neither information and content submitted for publication by Contributors, nor its accuracy.

   Biopharma insight   
Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook  Send by email

Recently D.G.Brown and J.Boström of AstraZeneca published an insightful analysis, where they reviewed lead generation research strategies behind 66 small molecule clinical candidates published over 2016-2017 in Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.  

Below is a brief summary of some key statistics and ideas outlined in the work (I encourage reading the original paper, it contains a ton of valuable insights and a strong list of references).

#advertisement
AI in Drug Discovery Report 2025

Lead generation strategies

The authors found that 43% of drug candidates were ideated out of previously known starting points from literature, patent specifications, or previous programs.

Random screening (HTS) of large compounds collections (up to millions compounds) was second most efficacious category having produced 29% of clinical candidates, while focused screening and fragment-based lead generation approaches generated only 8 and 5% of drug candidates, respectively.

Knowing the 3D structure of a protein target is always a substantial advantage and so structure based drug design (SBDD) helped produce as much as 14% of clinical lead candidates (not taking into account general in silico efforts used in most other hit-generation strategies).

DNA-encoded library screening (DEL) approach, which included screening of the largest chemical libraries up to a billion of molecules with DNA-tags attached to them, is largely falling behind other research strategies with only 1% of clinical lead candidates produced in this period (which is quite in accordance with the fact that DEL is available to a very limited number of pharma and CROs, and also there are some technical issues in the way to be yet solved.)   

Continue reading

This content available exclusively for BPT Mebmers

 BPT Membership 
Share:   Share in LinkedIn  Share in Bluesky  Share in Reddit  Share in Hacker News  Share in X  Share in Facebook  Send by email
#advertisement
ThermoFisher Scientific: Integrated genetic technologies for cell therapy development
#advertisement
Webinar: AI in Clinical Trials

BiopharmaTrend.com

Where Tech Meets Bio
mail  Newsletter
in  LinkedIn
x  X
gnews  Google News
rss  RSS Feed

About


  • What we do
  • Citations and Press Coverage
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Disclaimer

We Offer


  • Premium Content
  • BioTech Scout
  • Interviews
  • Partner Events
  • Case Studies

Opportunities


  • Membership
  • Advertise
  • Submit Company
  • Write for Us
  • Contact Us

© BPT Analytics LTD 2025
We use cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website. Read more details in our cookies policy.