RECAP - Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure: A powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry

Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 511-522

  Lewell, Xiao Qing ^a   Judd, Duncan B ^a   Watson, Stephen P ^a   Hann, Michael M ^a  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG;

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; SYNTHESIS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 0032058905     PISSN: 00952338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci970429i     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Young, S. S.; Farmen, M.; Rusinko III, A. Random Versus Rational-Which is better for General Compound Screening, Network Science, Feature 9, Aug 1996. http://www.awod.com/netsci/Science/ Screening/feature09.html.
2. Warr, W. A. Commercial Software Systems for Diversity Analysis, Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1997, 7/8, 115-130.
3. Leach, A. R. Molecular Modelling, Principles and Applications; ISBN 0-582-23933-8, Addison-Wesley Longman Limited: 1996.
4. Baggio, R.; Shi, Y.-Q.; Wu, Y.-q.; Abeles, R. H. From Poor Substrates to Good Inhibitors: Design of Inhibitors for Serine and Thiol Proteases. Biochemistry 1996, 35(11), 3351-3.
5. Klopman, G. Artificial Intelligence Approach to Structure-Activity Studies. Computer Automated Structure Evaluation of Biological Activity of Organic Molecules, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 7315-7321.
6. Muskal, S. M. Enriching Combinatorial Libraries with Features of Known Drugs, C. Divisions, 20th ACS National Meeting (American Chemical Society, Anaheim, CA, 1995; Vol. 1, p 029.
7. Fujita, T. Concept and features of EMIL, a system for lead evolution of bioactive compounds. Trends QSAR Mol. Modell. 92, Proc. Eur. Symp. Struct.-Act. Relat.: QSAR Mol. Modell., 9th 1993, Meeting Date 1992, pp 143-59. Wermuth, C-G., Eds.; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, CODEN: 59XTAS. CAN 121: 169406.
8. Corey, E. J. Computer-assisted analysis of complex synthetic problems. Quart. Rev. Chem. Soc. 1971, 25(4), 455-82.
9. Myatt, G.; Baber, J. C.; Johnson, A. P. New developments in the caesa system for estimation of synthetic accesibility. Book of Abstracts, 21st ACS National Meeting, Chicago, IL, August 20-24 1995; American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., Issue Pt. 1, COMP-007 CODEN: 61XGAC. AN 1995:920276.
10. Gasteiger, J.; Marsili, M.; Hutchings, M. G.: Saller, H.; Loew, P.; Roese, P.; Rafeiner, K. Models for the representation of knowledge about chemical reactions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1990, 30(4), 467-76.
11. Ridings, J. E.; Barratt, M. D.; Cary, R.; Earnshaw, C. G.; Eggington, C. E.; Ellis, M. K.; Judson, P. N.; Langowski, J. J.; Marchant, C. A. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: an update on the DEREK system. Toxicology 1996, 106(1-3) 267-79.
12. Lewell, X. Q.; Smith, R. Drug Motif Based Diverse Monomer Selection - Method and Application in Combinatorial Chemistry; J. Mol. Graphics Model. 1997, 15, 43-48.
13. Derwent Information Ltd., Derwent House, 14 Great Queen Street, London, WC2B 5DF, UK. Web address: http://www.derwent.co.uk/.
14. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc., 27401 Los Altos, Suite #370, Mission Viejo, CA 92691. Web address: http://www.daylight/ com/.
15. DAYLIGHT SMILES and SMARTS notations to represent chemical structures or fragments. Taking advantage of the isotopic notation of the SMARTS notation, 3 was chosen to represent an amine bond type. [3N] therefore represents an amine nitrogen. For all other isotopic representations, see Figure 2.
16. SPRESI93. A chemical substances database extracted by the Academy of Science, USSR and marketed by InfoChem GmbH. A DAYLIGHT version is available from DAYLIGHT.
17. Spearman, C. Am. J. Psych. 1904, 15, 88.
18. Ward, J. H. Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function. J. Am. Statistical Assoc. 1963, 58, 236-244.
19. Matzke, M.; Beckermann, B.; Fruchtmann, R.; Burkhard, F.; Gardiner, P. J.; Goossens, J.; Hatzelmann, A.; Junge, B.; Keldehnich, J. et al. Leukotriene synthesis inhibitors of the quinoline type: parameters for the optimization of efficacy. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 30(Suppl., Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Medicinal Chemistry, 1994), 441s-51s.
20. Shemetulskis, N. E.; Weininger, D.; Blankley, C. J.; Yang, J. J.; Humblet, C. Stigmata: An Algorithm To Determine Structural Commonalities in Diverse Datasets. J. Chem. Inf. Camput. Sci. 1996, 36(4), 862-871.
21. Jarvis, R. A.; Patrick, E. A. Clustering using a similarity measure based on shared near neighbors. IEEE Trans Computers, 1973, C22, 1025-1034.
22. Bemis, G. W.; Murcko, M. A. The properties of Known Drugs, 1, Molecular Frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2887-2893.
23. Gillet, V. J.; Johnson, A. P.; Mata, P.; Sike, S.; William, P. SPROUT: A Program for Structure Generation. J. Comput-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 127-153.