Recent trends in computer-aided drug discovery

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 310-313

  Tropsha, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Biocomputing; Bioinformatics; Chemoinformatics; Computer aided drug discovery

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DATA BASE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG RESEARCH; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIGAND BINDING; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING;

EID: 0033944659     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Antel J: Integration of combinatorial chemistry and structure-based drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (1999)2:224-233. • An excellent review on drug discovery strategies based on structure-based library design.
2. Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, OH, USA. http-J/www.cas.org
3. National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD, USA. http^/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/GenBank/index.html
4. Drews J: Drug discovery: A historical perspective. Science (2000)287:1960-1964. •• An excellent survey of methods and applications in drug discovery.
5. Cummins DJ, Andrews CW, Bentley JA, Cory M: Molecular diversity in chemical databases: comparison of medicinal chemistry knowledge bases and databases of commercially available compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (1996)36:750-763. •• This paper provided one of the first examples of the comparative analysis of chemical databases demonstrating their remarkable similarity.
6. Zheng W, Tropsha A: Novel variable selection quantitative structure-property relationship approach based on the knearest-neighbor principle. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:185-194. • An example of a recent trend in developing non-linear variable selection QSAR methods.
7. Livingstone DJ: The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:195-209. •• An excellent review of molecular descriptors and associated optimization algorithms used in QSAR, chemical similarity and diversity studies.
8. Willett P: Chemoinformatics - similarity and diversity in chemical libraries. Curr Opin Biotechnol (2000) 11:85-88. • Presents a short overview of key methodologies employed in molecular diversity analyses.
9. Jamois EA, Hassan M, Waldman M: Evaluation of reagentbased and product-based strategies in the design of combinatorial library subsets. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:63-70. •• Addresses an important methodological issue in library design that has been a subject of many investigations and a point of discussion in the rational library design community.
10. Martin EJ, Critchlow RE: Beyond mere diversity: Tailoring combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Combinatorial Chem (1999) 1:32-45.
11. Ajay A, Walters WP, Murcko MA: Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'nondrug-like' molecules? J Med Chem (1998) 41:3314-3324. • One of the first papers that attempts to dissect chemical features that make a molecule a drug.
12. Sadowski J, Kubinyi H: A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J Med Chem (1998) 41:33253329. • See reference [11].
13. Wagener M, van Geerestein VJ: Potential drugs and nondrugs: Prediction and identification of important structural features. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:280-292. • Similar to references [10] and [11]. Reports a high success rate in discriminating drug versus non-drug molecules.
14. Darvas F, Dorman G, Papp A: Diversity measures for enhancing ADME admissibility of combinatorial libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:314-322. • An important recent example of a growing trend in drug discovery, which emphasizes the use of integral characteristics of drug action (ADME) in chemical library design.
15. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ: Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol (1990) 215:403-410.
16. Kim S-H: Shining a light on structural genomics. Nature Struct Biol (1998) 5:643-645. •• Describes the concept of 'basic folds', which is crucial for computational structural genomics projects.
17. Seartes D: Using bioinformatics in gene and drug discovery. Drug Discov Today (2000) 5:135-143.
18. Teichmann SA, Chothia C, Gerstein M: Advances in structural genomics. CurrOpin Struct Biol (1999) 9:390-399.
19. Brenner SE, Levitt M: Expectations from structural genomics. Protein Sei (2000) 9:197-200.
20. Murzin AG, Brenner SE, Hubbard T, Chothia C: SCOP: A structural classification of proteins database for the investigation of sequences and structures. J Mol Biol (1995)247:536-540.
21. Buriey SK, Almo SC, Bonanno JB, Capel M, Chance MR, Gaastertand T, Lin D, Sali A, Studier FW, Swaminathan S: Structural genomics: Beyond the human genome project. Nature Genet (1999) 23:151-157. •• This paper describes the main ideas of structural genomics and emphasizes the interplay between theory and experiment in establishing sequence-structure-function relationships.
22. Shapiro L, Harris T: Finding function through functional genomics. CurrOpinBiotechnol(2000) 11:31-35.
23. Stawiski EW, Baucom AE, Lohr SC, Gregore! LM: Predicting protein function from structure: unique structural features of proteases. Proc NatlAcadSci USA (2000) 97:3954-3958. • Structural analysis of proteases using several physical and chemical descriptors and neural nets affords function prediction from structure with > 86% accuracy.
24. Hwang KY, Chung JH, Kim SH, Han YS, Cho Y: Structurebased identification of a novel ' NTPase from Methanococcus jannaschii. Nature Struct Biol (1999) 6:691696. •• An important example illustrating the role of structural proteomics in identifying protein function.
25. Baxter CA, Murray CW, Waszkowycz B, U J, Sykes RA, Bone RG, Perkins TD, Wylie W: New approach to molecular docking and its application to virtual screening of chemical databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:254-262. • This paper presents a validation study using a novel flexible docking algorithm and illustrates the use of docking in virtual database mining.
26. Shi LM, Fan Y, Lee JK, Waltham M, Andrews DT, Scherf U, Paull KD, Weinstein JN: Mining and visualizing large anticancer drug discovery databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sei (2000) 40:367-379. •• A comprehensive survey of statistical methods used to analyze two-dimensional arrays of SAR data obtained when testing large quantities of compounds (dozens of thousands) against multiple (dozens) molecular targets.
27. Vaisman II: Virtual communities at Interdisciplinary boundaries. In: Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Hunter L, Klein TE (Eds), World Scientific, Singapore (1995):756-757.