But don't most pharma companies now use rational drug design based on crystal structures. I realise that RDD is not perfect and will probably not replace wet-lab efforts but aren't IT algorithms getting better. 5-6 years ago there were about 500 crystal structures available after decades of study but within the last few years this number has risen 10 fold. Why is this? Also most libraries (combinatorial or otherwise) are against 'older' drug targets that are functionally validated but not necessarily best in terms of safety or efficacy profiles. Will the newer, subtler targets being discovered now not necessitate structurally diverse classes of inhibitors? Adit.
On 1/10/07, Eugen Leitl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, typically having even a very good crystal structure doesn't buy you all that much. Most good drugs these days come from library screens, and typically, they're good libraries to start with. This has been mentioned already, and has generated some excitement.
