The EU Lead Factory library submission tool has closed to new registrants and submissions. Sufficient library proposals have now been received to enable completion of the production of the Public Compound Collection in the closing stages of the consortium. We thank everybody for their contributions.

An eight people‐strong Library Selection Committee of respected chemists from industry and academia, all bound by confidentiality, have assessed the data and information provided in proposals from ELF participants and the crowdsourcing action. They have made a decision on viability and level of financial reward, based on six criteria:

  1. Molecular Properties: assessment of the library proposal for drug-relevant molecular properties. Some information on drug-relevant molecular properties may be found in the following papers: C. A. Lipinski et al, Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 1997, 23, 3; S. J. Teague et al, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 3743; W. P. Walters et al, J. Med. Chem. 2011, 54, 6405
  2. Structural Features: assessment of structural features that may constitute a liability in screening compounds, for example, alkylating agents, or potential intercalating compounds
  3. Novelty: assessment of novelty with respect to commercially-available compounds; patented compounds; and compounds based on previous submissions to the consortium. Please note that novelty with respect to the scientific literature is not assessed during the selection of library proposals.
  4. Diversity Potential: assessment of the value of the proposed approach for the synthesis of library of diverse compounds. It is usually preferable for variable groups to be introduced late in the synthetic sequence. Most libraries require at least two diversity points
  5. Synthetic Tractability: assessment of the likely synthetic accessibility of the library based on the precedent provided.
  6. Innovative Library Design: assessment of the rationale that has been used for the design of the library.  Many different approaches might be considered to be innovative; for example, natural product-inspired libraries, or libraries designed to address a particular class of protein target.


The Library Selection Committee agrees a score against each of these criteria. The possible scores are:

  • Unable to assess: Insufficient information was provided by the submitter to allow assessment of the proposal against this criterion
  • Exclude: Poor fit of the proposal to the criterion
  • (1) Some fit of the proposal to the criterion.
  • (2) Good fit of the proposal to the criterion.
  • (3) Excellent fit of the proposal to the criterion.

The outcome of the proposal is reached by tensioning all of the criteria against each other. However, a rating of "Exclude" against any criterion will lead to rejection of a library proposal.

Access to past submissions is still possible in the web-based submission portal.