4 ms·
They only determined whether those specific molecules bind to the target. They didn't test if they are toxic, if they are able to actually get to the target, ho
by fabian2k 8y ago
They only determined whether those specific molecules bind to the target. They didn't test if they are toxic, if they are able to actually get to the target, how stable they are under real conditions, into which metabolites they are processed in humans, ...
This is the very first step towards developing potential drugs, it's very, very far from an actual drug. And drug development wasn't the goal of this paper anyway.
And the idea behind this paper was to find molecules that aren't in any catalogue, so you would still have to synthesize them yourself or pay someone to do a custom synthesis for you.
- daddylonglegs 8y agoI thought the point of the library of molecules used was the supplier (Enamine) has a systematic method of synthesizing the molecules they've listed. It appears that, in practice, they can supply 90% of the molecules they offer, synthesized on demand: > Of the 589 molecules selected, 549 (93%) were successfully synthesized (Supplementary Table 10 and Supplementary Data 11, 13) I fully agree your main points.
- fabian2k 8y agoThat's still custom synthesis and not off-the-shelf compounds. No idea how expensive they are in this case.
- daddylonglegs 8y agoAbout $100 apparently: > Over the past decade, Kiev-based Enamine Ltd has innovated an efficient pipeline to produce any of over a billion never-before-made drug-like compounds on demand — at a cost of about $100 per molecule — by combining any of tens of thousands of standard chemical building blocks with one another using over a hundred established chemical reactions.
- justtopost 8y ago'Per molecule' gives no real indication of cost, that appears to be a 'tooling' charge, to design the reaction chain. I doubt $100 will buy you any useful quantity of any research chemical, much less a custom mfg one.