Multi-objective optimization methods in novel drug design

Introduction: In multi-objective drug design, optimization gains importance, being upgraded to a discipline that attracts its own research. Current strategies are broadly classified into single - objective optimization (SOO) and multi-objective optimization (MOO).Areas covered: Starting with SOO and the ways used to incorporate multiple criteria into it, the present review focuses on MOO techniques, their comparison, advantages, and restrictions. Pareto analysis and the concept of dominance stand in the core of MOO. The Pareto front, Pareto ranking, and limitations of Pareto-based methods, due to high dimensions and data uncertainty, are outlined. Desirability functions and the weighted sum approaches are described as stand-alone techniques to transform the MOO problem to SOO or in combination with pareto analysis and evolutionary algorithms. Representative applications in different drug research areas are also discussed.Expert opinion: Despite their limitations, the use of combined MOO techniques, as well as being complementary to SOO or in conjunction with artificial intelligence, contributes dramatically to efficient drug design, assisting decisions and increasing success probabilities. For multi-target drug design, optimization is supported by network approaches, while applicability of MOO to other fields like drug technology or biological complexity opens new perspectives in the interrelated fields of medicinal chemistry and molecular biology.

Determination and validation of LJ-2698, a potent human A3 adenosine receptor antagonist, in rat plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and its application in pharmacokinetic study

LJ-2698, a highly potent human A₃ adenosine receptor antagonist with nucleoside structure, was designed to have a minimal species dependence. For further pre-clinical studies, analytical method for the detection of LJ-2698 in rat plasma was developed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass. Plasma samples were processed by protein precipitation method with acetonitrile, using losartan as the internal standard (IS). Chromatographic separation was carried out using a Kinetex C18 column (100 × 4.6 mm; 100 Å; 2.6 μ) with acetonitrile/water with 0.2% (v/v) formic acid (65:35, v/v) in the isocratic mode at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min. Mass spectrometric detection in multiple reaction monitoring mode was performed with positive electrospray ionization. The mass transitions of LJ-2698 and IS were m/z 412.3 → 294.1 and m/z 423.1 → 207.2, respectively. The calibration curves were linear in the range 5.00-5000 ng/mL (r ² ≥ 0.998). The lower limit of quantification was established as 5.00 ng/mL. Within- and between-run precisions were <7.01%, as relative standard deviation; and accuracies were in the range 3.37-3.64%, as relative error. The validated method was successfully applied to its pharmacokinetic evaluation after intravenous and oral administration in rats, and the dose-dependent pharmacokinetic behavior of LJ-2698 was elucidated for the first time.