Vast chemical library could yield trove of new medicines

It’s the drug discovery equivalent of looking for a book on Amazon versus at your local library. Researchers have scanned a chemical database containing some 170 million molecules—100 times larger than previous databases—to identify a handful of new compounds that could serve as starting points for novel antibiotics and antipsychotic medications. The resource is expected to grow to more than 1 billion molecules over the next year, making the technique increasingly powerful as time goes by.

more…

The number of possible druglike molecules —10 ⁶³ — is impossibly vast, similar to the number of atoms in the universe.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The number of possible druglike molecules —10 ⁶³ — is impossibly vast, similar to the number of atoms in the universe.

“At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe”

so atoms exceed possible druglike molecules by a factor of between 10^15 and 10^19.

Not very similar.

• The number of possible druglike molecules —10 63 — is impossibly vast, similar to the number of atoms in the universe.

Strange definition of the word “similar”…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The number of possible druglike molecules —10 ⁶³ — is impossibly vast, similar to the number of atoms in the universe.

“At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe”

so atoms exceed possible druglike molecules by a factor of between 10^15 and 10^19.

Not very similar.

Close enough for a physicist. Us engineers are far more stringent.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

The number of possible druglike molecules —10 ⁶³ — is impossibly vast, similar to the number of atoms in the universe.

“At this level, it is estimated that the there are between 10^78 to 10^82 atoms in the known, observable universe”

so atoms exceed possible druglike molecules by a factor of between 10^15 and 10^19.

Not very similar.

Close enough for a physicist. Us engineers are far more stringent.

True :)

Sometimes.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Vast chemical library could yield trove of new medicines

It’s the drug discovery equivalent of looking for a book on Amazon versus at your local library. Researchers have scanned a chemical database containing some 170 million molecules—100 times larger than previous databases—to identify a handful of new compounds that could serve as starting points for novel antibiotics and antipsychotic medications. The resource is expected to grow to more than 1 billion molecules over the next year, making the technique increasingly powerful as time goes by.

more…

I can’t help wondering how long it would take to test some 170 million molecules on people.

One each to 170 million people, and the results wouldn’t take long, the timescale then would be limited by synthesis speed.

Or test batches each containing 400 chemicals of 400 people. If nothing happens then increase the dose until something does happen. Discard batches where appropriate and try again with smaller batches on similar numbers of people.

Mathematical experiment design would be interesting.

mollwollfumble said:

Discard batches where appropriate

… and people.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Vast chemical library could yield trove of new medicines

It’s the drug discovery equivalent of looking for a book on Amazon versus at your local library. Researchers have scanned a chemical database containing some 170 million molecules—100 times larger than previous databases—to identify a handful of new compounds that could serve as starting points for novel antibiotics and antipsychotic medications. The resource is expected to grow to more than 1 billion molecules over the next year, making the technique increasingly powerful as time goes by.

more…

I can’t help wondering how long it would take to test some 170 million molecules on people.

One each to 170 million people, and the results wouldn’t take long, the timescale then would be limited by synthesis speed.

Or test batches each containing 400 chemicals of 400 people. If nothing happens then increase the dose until something does happen. Discard batches where appropriate and try again with smaller batches on similar numbers of people.

Mathematical experiment design would be interesting.

Well I got 71 on my back today. If everyone in Australia did the same that would be a 1775000000 start.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Discard batches where appropriate

… and people.

That is actually a valid point. How much increase in drug dose is permitted between “can’t detect any effect at all” and “one in a thousand risk of death”?

For people who are already at death’s door, eg. inoperable malignant cancer, a higher risk than one in a thousand might be acceptable.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Discard batches where appropriate

… and people.

That is actually a valid point. How much increase in drug dose is permitted between “can’t detect any effect at all” and “one in a thousand risk of death”?

For people who are already at death’s door, eg. inoperable malignant cancer, a higher risk than one in a thousand might be acceptable.

Even worse odds than that I imagine, palliative care is likely to be unpleasant anyway

I can’t help wondering how long it would take to test some 170 million molecules on people.

—

I’m not sure. TN will be up it for though.