Small molecule docking and scoring

Reviews in Computational Chemistry

Volumn 17, Issue , 2001, Pages 1-60

  Muegge, Ingo ^a   Rarey, Matthias ^b  

^a BAYER CORPORATION   (United States)

^b FRAUNHOFER INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FIT   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035765452     PISSN: 10693599     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1002/0471224413.ch1     Document Type: Article

References (293)

1. A. T. Brünger, J. Kuryan, and M. Karplus, Science, 235, 458 (1987). Crystallographic R Factor Refinement by Molecular Dynamics.
2. S. Subbiah, Science, 252, 128 (1991). Low-Resolution Real Space Envelopes: An Approach to the Ab Initio Macromolecular Phase Problem.
3. W. Kühlbrandt, Q. Rev. Biophys., 25, 1 (1992). Two-Dimensional Crystallization of Membrane Proteins.
4. A. T. Brünger, Nature (London), 355, 472 (1992). A Novel Statistical Quantity for Assessing the Accuracy of Crystal Structures.
5. J. L. Markley, Methods Enzymol., 176, 12 (1989). Two-Dimensional Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy of Proteins: An Overview.
6. G. M. Clore and A. M. Gronenborn, Science, 252, 1390 (1991). Structures of Larger Proteins in Solution: Three- and Four-Dimensional Heteronuclear NMR Spectroscopy.
7. S. W. Fesik, J. Med. Chem., 34, 2937 (1991). NMR Studies of Molecular Complexes as a Tool in Drug Design.
8. A. Bax and S. Grzesiek, Acc. Chem. Res., 26, 131 (1993). Methodological Advances in Protein NMR.
9. F. C. Bernstein, T. F. Koetzle, G. J. B. Williams, E. F. Meyer Jr., M. D. Brice, J. R. Rodgers, O. Kennard, T. Shimanouchi, and M. Tasumi, Eur. J. Biochem., 80, 319 (1977). The Protein Data Bank. A Computer-Based Archival File for Macromolecular Structures.
10. H. M. Berman, J. Westbrook, Z. Feng, G. Gilliland, T. N. Bhat, H. Weissig, I. N. Shindyalov, and P. E. Bourne, Nucleic Acids Res., 28, 235 (2000). The Protein Data Bank.
11. T. P. Hubbard, A. M. Lesk, and A. Tramontano, Nature Struct. Biol., 3, 313 (1996). Gathering Them in to the Fold.
12. URL http://www.rcsb.org/pdb.
13. V. L. Nienaber, P. L. Richardson, V. Klighofer, J. J. Bouska, V. L. Giranda, and J. Greer, Nature Biotech., 18, 1105 (2000). Discovering Novel Ligands for Macromolecules Using X-Ray Crystallography Screening.
14. S. B. Shuker, P. J. Hajduk, R. P. Meadows, and S. W. Fesik, Science, 274, 1531 (1996). Discovering High-Affinity Ligands for Protein SAR by NMR.
15. J. M. Blaney and J. S. Dixon, Perspect. Drug Disc. Des., 15, 301 (1993). A Good Ligand Is Hard to Find: Automatic Docking Methods.
16. M. A. Murcko, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 1997, Vol. 11, pp. 1-66. Recent Advances in Ligand Design Methods.
17. C. Sander and R. Schneider, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 9, 56 (1991). Database of Homology-Derived Protein Structures and the Structural Meaning of Sequence Alignment.
18. T. L. Blundell, B. L. Sibanda, M. J. E. Sternberg, and J. M. Thornton, Nature (London), 326, 347 (1987). Knowledge-Based Prediction of Protein Structures and the Design of Novel Molecules.
19. A. Vedani, P. Zbinden, J. P. Snyder, and P. A. Greenidge, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 117, 4987 (1995). Pseudoreceptor Modeling: The Construction of Three-Dimensional Receptor Surrogates.
20. I. Muegge, Med. Chem. Res., 9, 490 (1999). The Effect of Small Changes in Protein Structure on Predicted Binding Modes of Known Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Neuraminidase: PMF-Scoring in DOCK4.
21. G. Jones, P. Willett, R. C. Glen, and A. R. Leach J. Mol. Biol., 267, 727 (1997). Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking.
22. 2 with the Inhibitor 1-Hexadecyl-3-(trifluoroethyl)-sn-glycero-2-phosphomethanol.
23. E. A. Sudbeck, M. J. Jedrzejas, S. Singh, W. J. Brouillette, G. M. Air, W. G. Laver, Y. S. Babu, S. Bantia, P. Chand, N. Chu, J. A. Montgomery, D. A. Walsh, and M. Luo, J. Mol. Biol., 267, 584 (1997). Guanidinobenzoic Acid Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Neuraminidase.
24. L. P. Ehrlich and R. C. Wade, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2001, Vol. 17, pp. 61-97. Protein-Protein Docking.
25. W. L. Jorgensen, Science, 254, 954 (1991). Rusting of the Lock and Key Model for Protein-Ligand Binding.
26. I. D. Kuntz, J. M. Blaney, S. J. Oatley, and R. L. Langridge, J. Mol. Biol., 161, 269 (1982). A Geometric Approach to Macromolecule-Ligand Interactions.
27. I. D. Kuntz, Science, 257, 1078 (1992). Structure-Based Strategies for Drug Design and Discovery.
28. T. J. A. Ewing and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 18, 1175 (1997). Critical Evaluation of Search Algorithms for Automated Molecular Docking and Database Screening.
29. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, T. Lengauer, and G. Klebe, J. Mol. Biol., 261, 470 (1996). A Fast Flexible Docking Method Using an Incremental Construction Algorithm.
30. B. Kramer, M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 1, 221 (1997). CASP2 Experiences with Docking Flexible Ligands Using FlexX.
31. B. Kramer, G. Metz, M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, Med. Chem. Res., 9, 463 (1999). Ligand Docking and Screening with FlexX.
32. W. Welch, J. Ruppert, and A. N. Jain, Chem. Biol., 3, 449 (1996). Hammerhead - Fast, Fully Automated Docking of Flexible Ligands to Protein Binding Sites.
33. D. S. Goodsell and A. J. Olson, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 8, 195 (1990). Automated Docking of Substrates to Proteins by Simulated Annealing.
34. M. D. Miller, S. K. Kearsley, D. J. Underwood, and R. P. Sheridan, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 153 (1994). FLOG: A System to Select Quasi-flexible Ligands Complementary to a Receptor of Known 3-Dimensional Structure.
35. T. I. Oprea and G. R. Marshall, Perspect. Drug Discovery Des., 9/10/11, 35 (1998). Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities.
36. H. J. Böhm and M. Stahl, Med. Chem. Res., 9, 445 (1999). Rapid Empirical Scoring Functions in Virtual Screening Applications.
37. P. S. Charifson, J. J. Corkery, M. A. Murcko, and W. P. Walters, J. Med. Chem., 42, 5100 (1999). Consensus Scoring: A Method for Obtaining Improved Hit Rates from Docking Databases of Three-Dimensional Structures into Proteins.
38. J. R. H. Tame, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 13, 99 (1999). Scoring Functions: A View from the Bench.
39. M. A. Gallop, R. W. Barrett, W. J. Dower, S. P. A. Fodor, and A. M. Gordon, J. Med. Chem., 37, 1233 (1994). Applications of Combinatorial Technologies to Drug Discovery. 1. Background and Peptide Combinatorial Libraries.
40. E. M. Gordon, R. W. Barrett, W. J. Dower, S. P. A. Fodor, and M. A. Gallop, J. Med. Chem., 37, 1385 (1994). Applications of Combinatorial Technologies to Drug Discovery 2. Combinatorial Organic Synthesis, Library Screening Strategies, and Future Directions.
41. M. W. Lutz, J. A. Menius, T. D. Choi, R. G. Laskody, P. L. Domanico, A. S. Goetz, and D. L. Saussy, Drug Discovery Today, 1, 277 (1996). Experimental Design for High Throughput Screening.
42. R. F. Burns, R. M. A. Simmons, J. J. Howbert, D. C. Waters, P. G. Threlkeld, and B. D. Gitter, in Exploiting Molecular Diversity, Symposium Proceedings, Cambridge Healthtech Institute, San Diego, CA, Vol. 2, p. 6, January 23-25, 1995. Virtual Screening as a Tool for Evaluating Chemical Libraries.
43. W. P. Walters, M. T. Stahl, and M. A. Murcko, Drug Discovery Today, 3, 160 (1998). Virtual Screening - an Overview.
44. Y. C. Martin, Perspect. Drug Discovery Des., 7/8, 159 (1997). Challenges and Prospects for Computational Aids to Molecular Diversity.
45. I. Muegge, Y. C. Martin, P. J. Hajduk, and S. W. Fesik, J. Med. Chem., 42, 2498 (1999). Evaluation of PMF Scoring in Docking Weak Ligands to the FK506 Binding Protein.
46. T. J. Marrone, B. A. Luty, and P. W. Rose, Perspect. Drug Discovery Des., 20, 209 (2000). Discovering High-Affinity Ligands from the Computationally Predicted Structures and Affinities of Small Molecules Bound to a Target: A Virtual Screening Approach.
47. K. E. B. Platzer, F. A. Momany, and H. A. Scheraga, Int. J. Peptide Protein Res., 4, 187 (1972). Conformational Energy Calculations of Enzyme-Substrate Interactions. I. Computation of Preferred Conformation of Some Substrates of α-Chymotrypsin.
48. K. E. B. Platzer, F. A. Momany, and H. A. Scheraga, Int. J. Peptide Protein Res., 4, 201 (1972). Conformational Energy Calculations of Enzyme-Substrate Interactions. II. Computation of the Binding Energy for Substrates in the Active Site of α-Chymotrypsin.
49. W. C. Guida, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 4, 777 (1994). Software for Structure-Based Drug Design.
50. P. M. Colman, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 4, 868 (1994). Structure-Based Drug Design.
51. T. P. Lybrand, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 5, 224 (1995). Ligand-Protein Docking and Rational Drug Design.
52. R. Rosenfeld, S. Vajda, and C. DeLisi, Ann. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 24, 677 (1995). Flexible Docking and Design.
53. H. J. Böhm, Curr. Opin. Biotech., 7, 433 (1996). Current Computational Tools for De Novo Ligand Design.
54. T. Lengauer and M. Rarey, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 6, 402 (1996). Computational Methods for Biomolecular Docking.
55. F. S. Kuhl, G. M. Crippen, and D. K. Friesen, J. Comput. Chem., 5, 24 (1984). A Combinatorial Algorithm for Calculating Ligand Binding.
56. C. Bron and J. Kerbosch, Commun. Assoc. Computing Machinery, 16, 575 (1973). Finding All Cliques of an Undirected Graph.
57. F. M. Richards, Ann. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng., 6, 151 (1977). Areas, Volumes, Packing, and Protein Structure.
58. M. L. Connolly, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 16, 548 (1983). Analytical Molecular Surface Calculation.
59. M. L. Connolly, J. Appl. Crystallogr., 18, 499 (1985). Molecular Surface Triangulation.
60. E. E. Kim, C. T. Baker, M. D. Dwyer, M. A. Murcko, B. G. Rao, R. D. Tung, and M. A. Navia, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 117, 1181 (1995). Crystal Structure of HIV-1 Protease in Complex with VX-478, A Potent and Orally Bioavailable Inhibitor of the Enzyme.
61. B. K. Shoichet, R. M. Stroud, D. V. Santi, I. D. Kuntz, and K. M. Perry, Science, 259, 1445 (1993). Structure-Based Discovery of Inhibitors of Thymidylate Synthase.
62. B. K. Shoichet, D. L. Bodian, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 13, 380 (1992). Molecular Docking Using Shape Descriptors.
63. E. C. Meng, D. A. Gschwend, J. M. Blaney, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 17, 266 (1993). Orientational Sampling and Rigid-Body Minimization in Molecular Docking.
64. E. C. Meng, B. K. Shoichet, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 13, 505 (1992). Automated Docking with Grid-Based Energy Evaluation.
65. E. C. Meng, I. D. Kuntz, D. J. Abraham, and G. E. Kellogg, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 299 (1994). Evaluating Docked Complexes with the HINT Exponential Function and Empirical Atomic Hydrophobicities.
66. D. A. Gschwend and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 10, 123 (1996). Orientational Sampling and Rigid-Body Minimization in Molecular Docking Revisited - On-the-Fly Optimization and Degeneracy Removal.
67. B. K. Shoichet, A. R. Leach, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 34, 4 (1999). Ligand Solvation in Molecular Docking.
68. X. Q. Zou, Y. X. Sun, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 121, 8033 (1999). Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized-Born Model.
69. H.-J. Böhm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 6, 593 (1992). LUDI: Rule-Based Automatic Design of New Substituents for Enzyme Inhibitor Leads.
70. H. Böhm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 6, 61 (1992). The Computer Program LUDI: A New Method for the De Novo Design of Enzyme Inhibitors.
71. M. C. Lawrence and P. C. Davis, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 12, 31 (1992). CLIX: A Search Algorithm for Finding Novel Ligands Capable of Binding Proteins of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
72. M. Y. Mizutani, N. Tomioka, and A. Itai, J. Mol. Biol., 243, 310 (1994). Rational Automatic Search Method for Stable Docking Models of Protein and Ligand.
73. Y. Lamdan and H. J. Wolfson, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 1988, pp. 238-249. Geometric Hashing: A General and Efficient Model-Based Recognition Scheme.
74. D. Fischer, R. Norel, H. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 16, 278 (1993). Surface Motifs by a Computer Vision Technique: Searches, Detection and Implications for Protein-Ligand Recognition.
75. D. Fischer, S. L. Lin, H. L. Wolfson, and R. Nussinov, J. Mol. Biol., 248, 459 (1995). A Geometry-Based Suite of Molecular Docking Processes.
76. S. Linnainmaa, D. Harwood, and L. S. Davis, IEEE, Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 10, 634 (1988). Pose Determination of a Three-Dimensional Object Using Triangle Pairs.
77. M. Rarey, S. Wefing, and T. Lengauer, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 10, 41 (1996). Placement of Medium-Sized Molecular Fragments Into Active Sites of Proteins.
78. R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart, Pattern Classification and Scene Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1973.
79. T. I. Oprea, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 14, 251 (2000). Property Distribution of Drug-Related Chemical Databases.
80. S. K. Kearsley, D. J. Underwood, R. P. Sheridan, and M. D. Miller, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 153 (1994). Flexibases: A Way to Enhance the Use of Molecular Docking Methods.
81. T. F. Havel, I. D. Kuntz, and G. M. Grippen, J. Theoret. Biol., 104, 359 (1983). The Combinatorial Distance Geometry Approach to the Calculation of Molecular Conformation. 1. A New Approach to an Old Problem.
82. T. F. Havel, I. D. Kuntz, and G. M. Crippen, Bull. Math. Biol., 45, 665 (1983). The Theory and Practice of Distance Geometry.
83. G. M. Crippen and T. F. Havel, Distance Geometry and Molecular Conformation, Research Studies Press, Taunton, UK, 1988.
84. D. M. Lorber and B. K. Shoichet, Protein Sci., 7, 938 (1998). Flexible Ligand Docking Using Conformational Ensembles.
85. D. E. Clark, C. W. Murray, and J. Li, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 1997, Vol. 11, pp. 67-125. Current Issues in De Novo Molecular Design.
86. R. L. DesJarlais, R. P. Sheridan, J. S. Dixon, I. D. Kuntz, and R. Venkataraghavan, J. Med. Chem., 29, 2149 (1986). Docking Flexible Ligands to Macromolecular Receptors by Molecular Shape.
87. B. Sandak, R. Nussinov, and H. J. Wolfson, IEEE Workshop on Shape and Pattern Matching in Computational Biology, 41 (1994). 3-D Flexible Docking of Molecules.
88. B. Sandak, R. Nussinov, and H. J. Wolfson, Computer Applications in the Biosciences, 11, 87 (1995). An Automated Computer Vision and Robotics-Based Technique For 3-D Flexible Biomolecular Docking and Matching.
89. B. Sandak, R. Nussinov, and H. J. Wolfson, J. Comput. Biol., 5, 631 (1998). A Method for Biomolecular Structural Recognition and Docking Allowing Conformational Flexibility.
90. J. B. Moon and W. J. Howe, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 11, 314 (1991). Computer Design of Bioactive Molecules: A Method for Receptor-Based De Novo Ligand Design.
91. A. R. Leach and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 13, 730 (1992). Conformational Analysis of Flexible Ligands in Macromolecular Receptor Sites.
92. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, in Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Intelligent Systems in Molecular Biology, C. Rawlings, Ed., AAAI Press, Menlo Park, CA, 1995, pp. 300-308. Time-Efficient Docking of Flexible Ligands into Active Sites of Proteins.
93. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 11, 369 (1997). Multiple Automatic Base Selection - Protein-Ligand Docking Based on Incremental Construction Without Manual Intervention.
94. G. Klebe and T. Mietzner, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 583 (1994). A Fast and Efficient Method to Generate Biologically Relevant Conformations.
95. F. H. Allen, S. Bellard, M. D. Brice, B. A. Cartwright, A. Doubleday, H. Higgs, T. Hummelink-Peters, O. Kennard, W. D. S. Motherwell, J. R. Rodgers, and D. G. Watson, Acta Crystallogr., B35, 2331 (1979). The Cambridge Crystallographic Data Center: Computer-Based Search, Retrieval, Analysis and Display of Information.
96. J. Gasteiger, C. Rudolph, and J. Sadowski, Tetrahedron Computer Methodology, 3, 537 (1990). Automatic Generation of 3D-Atomic Coordinates for Organic Molecules.
97. J. Sadowski, J. Gasteiger, and G. Klebe, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 34, 1000 (1994). Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-Ray Structures.
98. H.-J. Böhm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8, 243 (1994). The Development of a Simple Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Constant for a Protein-Ligand Complex of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
99. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, Bioinformatics, 15, 243 (1999). Docking of Hydrophobic Ligands with Interaction-Based Matching Algorithms.
100. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 34, 17 (1999). The Particle Concept: Placing Discrete Water Molecules During Protein-Ligand Docking Predictions.
101. S. Makino and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 18, 1812 (1997). Automated Flexible Ligand Docking Method and Its Application for Database Search.
102. S. J. Weiner, P. A. Kollman, D. A. Case, U. C. Singh, C. Ghio, G. Alagona, S. Profeta Jr., and P. Weiner, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 106, 765 (1984). A New Force Field for Molecular Mechanical Simulation of Nucleic Acids and Proteins.
103. S. J. Weiner, P. A. Kollman, D. T. Nguyen, and D. A. Case, J. Comput. Chem., 7, 230 (1986). New Force Field for Simulations of Proteins and Nucleic Acids.
104. D. A. Pearlman, D. A. Case, J. W. Caldwell, W. S. Ross, T. E. Cheatham III, S. DeBolt, D. Ferguson, G. Seibel, and P. Kollman, Comput. Phys. Commun., 91, 1 (1995). AMBER, a Package of Computer Programs for Applying Molecular Mechanics, Normal Mode Analysis, Molecular Dynamics and Free Energy Calculations to Simulate the Structural and Energetic Properties of Molecules.
105. G. Jones, P. Willett, and R. C. Glen, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 9, 532 (1995). A Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Molecular Overlay and Pharmacophore Elucidation.
106. C. M. Oshiro, I. D. Kuntz, and J. S. Dixon, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 9, 113 (1995). Flexible Ligand Docking Using a Genetic Algorithm.
107. K. P. Clark and Ajay, J. Comput. Chem., 16, 1210 (1995). Flexible Ligand Docking Without Parameter Adjustment Across Four Ligand-Receptor Complexes.
108. D. K. Gehlhaar, G. M. Verkhivker, P. A. Rejto, D. B. Fogel, L. J. Fogel, and S. T. Freer, in Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Conference on Evolutionary Programming, J. R. McDonnell, R. G. Reynolds, and D. B. Fogel, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995, pp. 615-627. Docking Conformationally Flexible Small Molecules into a Protein Binding Site Through Evolutionary Programming.
109. G. M. Morris, D. S. Goodsell, R. S. Halliday, R. Huey, W. E. Hart, R. K. Belew, and A. J. Olson, J. Comput. Chem., 19, 1639 (1998). Automated Docking Using a Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm and an Empirical Binding Free Energy Function.
110. D. E. Goldberg, Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1989.
111. R. Judson, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1997, Vol. 10, pp. 1-73. Genetic Algorithms and Their Use in Chemistry.
112. D. K. Gehlhaar, G. M. Verkhivker, P. A. Rejto, C. J. Sherman, D. B. Fogel, L. J. Fogel, and S. T. Freer, Chem. Biol., 2, 317 (1995). Molecular Recognition of the Inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 Protease - Conformationally Flexible Docking by Evolutionary Programming.
113. S. Kirkpatrik, C. D. J. Gelatt, and M. P. Vecchi, Science, 220, 671 (1983). Optimization by Simulated Annealing.
114. G. M. Morris, D. S. Goodsell, R. Huey, and A. J. Olson, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 10, 293 (1996). Distributed Automated Docking of Flexible Ligands to Proteins: Parallel Applications of AutoDock 2.4.
115. D. S. Goodsell, G. M. Morris, and A. J. Olson, J. Mol. Recognit., 9, 1 (1996). Automated Docking of Flexible Ligands: Applications of AutoDock.
116. P. J. Goodford, J. Med. Chem., 28, 849 (1985). A Computational Procedure for Determining Energetically Favorable Binding Sites on Biologically Important Macromolecules.
117. S. Yue, Protein Eng., 4, 177 (1990). Distance-Constrained Molecular Docking by Simulated Annealing.
118. T. P. Lybrand, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 295-320. Computer Simulation of Biomolecular Systems Using Molecular Dynamics and Free Energy Perturbation Methods.
119. A. R. Leach, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1991, Vol. 2, pp. 1-55. A Survey of Methods for Searching the Conformational Space of Small and Medium-Sized Molecules.
120. U. Dinur and A. T. Hagler, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1991, Vol. 2, pp. 99-164. New Approaches to Empirical Force Fields.
121. T. P. Straatsma, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1996, Vol. 9, pp. 81-127. Free Energy by Molecular Simulation.
122. I. Pettersson and T. Liljefors, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1996, Vol. 9, pp. 167-189. Molecular Mechanics Calculated Conformational Energies of Organic Molecules: A Comparison of Force Fields.
123. H. Meirovitch, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 1998, Vol. 12, pp. 1-74. Calculation of the Free Energy and the Entropy of Macromolecular Systems by Computer Simulation.
124. A. Di Nola, D. Roccatano, and H. Berendsen, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 19, 174 (1994). Molecular Dynamics Simulation of the Docking of Substrates to Proteins.
125. R. Mangoni, D. Roccatano, and A. Di Nola, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 35, 153 (1999). Docking of Flexible Ligands to Flexible Receptors in Solution by Molecular Dynamics Simulation.
126. J. A. Given and M. K. Gilson, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 33, 475 (1998). A Hierarchical Method for Generating Low-Energy Conformers of a Protein-Ligand Complex.
127. T. N. Hart and R. J. Read, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 13, 206 (1992). A Multiple-Start Monte Carlo Docking Method.
128. C. McMartin and R. S. Bohacek, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 11, 333 (1997). QXP: Powerful, Rapid Computer Algorithms for Structure-Based Drug Design.
129. A. Wallqvist and D. G. Covell, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 25, 403 (1996). Docking Enzyme-Inhibitor Complexes Using a Preference-Based Free-Energy Surface.
130. R. Abagyan, M. Totrov, and D. Kuznetsov, J. Comput. Chem., 15, 488 (1994). ICM - A New Method for Protein Modeling and Design: Applications to Docking and Structure Prediction from the Distorted Native Conformation.
131. J. Apostolakis, A. Pluckthun, and A. Caflisch, J. Comput. Chem., 19, 21 (1998). Docking Small Ligands in Flexible Binding Sites.
132. J. D. Madura, M. E. Davis, M. K. Gilson, R. C. Wade, B. A. Luty, and J. A. McCammon, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1994, Vol. 5, pp. 229-267. Biological Applications of Electrostatic Calculations and Brownian Dynamics Simulations.
133. J. Y. Trosset and H. A. Scheraga, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95, 8011 (1998). Reaching the Global Minimum in Docking Simulations: A Monte Carlo Energy Minimization Approach Using Bezier Splines.
134. J. Y. Trosset and H. A. Scheraga, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 412 (1999). PRODOCK: Software Package for Protein Modeling and Docking.
135. J. Y. Trosset and H. A. Scheraga, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 244 (1999). Flexible Docking Simulations: Scaled Collective Variable Monte Carlo Minimization Approach Using Bezier Splines, and Comparison with a Standard Monte Carlo Algorithm.
136. J. Y. Trosset and H. A. Scheraga, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 8011 (1998). Reaching the Global Minimum in Docking Simulations: A Monte Carlo Energy Minimization Approach Using Bezier Splines.
137. A. E. Torda and W. F. van Gunsteren, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1992, Vol. 3, pp. 143-172. Molecular Modeling Using NMR Data.
138. J. M. Blaney and J. S. Dixon, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1994, Vol. 5, pp. 299-335. Distance Geometry in Molecular Modeling.
139. A. Dress and T. F. Havel, Discrete Applied Mathematics, 19, 129 (1988). Shortest Path Problems and Molecular Conformation.
140. P. L. Easthope and T. F. Havel, Bull. Math. Biol., 51, 173 (1989). Computational Experience with an Algorithm for Tetrangle Inequality Bound Smoothing.
141. A. K. Ghose and G. M. Crippen, J. Comput. Chem., 6, 350 (1985). Geometrically Feasible Binding Modes of a Flexible Ligand Molecule at the Receptor Site.
142. M. Billeter, T. F. Havel, and I. D. Kuntz, Biopolymers, 26, 777 (1987). A New Approach to the Problem of Docking Two Molecules: The Ellipsoid Algorithm.
143. A. S. Smellie, G. M. Crippen, and W. G. Richards, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 31, 386 (1991). Fast Drug-Receptor Mapping by Site-Directed Distances: A Novel Method of Predicting New Pharmacological Leads.
144. V. Sobolev, R. C. Wade, G. Vriend, and M. Edelman, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 25, 120 (1996). Molecular Docking Using Surface Complementarity.
145. C. A. Baxter, C. W. Murray, D. E. Clark, D. R. Westhead, and M. D. Eldridge, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 33, 367 (1998). Flexible Docking Using Tabu Search and an Empirical Estimate of Binding Affinity.
146. J. Wang, P. A. Kollman, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 36, 1 (1999). Flexible Ligand Docking: A Multistep Strategy Approach.
147. D. Hoffmann, B. Kramer, T. Washio, T. Steinmetzer, M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, J. Med. Chem., 42, 4422 (1999). Two-Stage Method for Protein-Ligand Docking.
148. CHARMm22, Molecular Simulations Inc./Accelrys, San Diego, CA. URL www.msi.com.
149. B. R. Brooks, R. E. Bruccoleri, B. D. Olafson, D. J. States, S. Swaminathan, and M. Karplus, J. Comput. Chem., 4, 187 (1983). CHARMM: A Program for Macromolecular Energy, Minimization, and Dynamics Calculations.
150. D. Hoffmann, T. Washio, K. Gessler, and J. Jacob, in Proceedings of the Workshop on Monte Carlo Approach to Biopolymers and Protein Folding, P. Grassberger, G. Barkema, and W. Nadler, Eds., World Scientific, Singapore, 1998, pp. 153-170. Tackling Concrete Problems in Molecular Biophysics Using Monte Carlo and Related Methods: Glycosylation, Folding, Solvation.
151. B. A. Luty, Z. R. Wasserman, P. Stouten, C. N. Hodge, M. Zacharias, and J. A. McCammon, J. Comput. Chem., 16, 454 (1995). A Molecular Mechanics/Grid Method for Evaluation of Ligand-Receptor Interactions.
152. Z. R. Wasserman and C. N. Hodge, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 24, 227 (1996). Fitting an Inhibitor into the Active Site of Thermolysin: A Molecular Dynamics Case Study.
153. A. R. Leach, J. Mol. Biol., 235, 345 (1994). Ligand Docking to Proteins with Discrete Side-Chain Flexibility.
154. N. J. Nielsson, Principles of Artificial Intelligence, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1982.
155. R. M. A. Knegtel, I. D. Kuntz, and C. M. Oshiro, J. Mol. Biol., 266, 424 (1997). Molecular Docking to Ensembles of Protein Structures.
156. V. Schnecke, C. A. Swanson, E. D. Getzoff, J. A. Tainer, and L. A. Kuhn, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 33, 74 (1998). Screening a Peptidyl Database for Potential Ligands to Proteins with Side-Chain Flexibility.
157. H. Claussen, C. Buning, M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, J. Mol. Biol., 308, 377 (2001). FlexE: Efficient Molecular Docking Considering Protein Structure Variations.
158. H. Kubinyi, Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel., 1, 16 (1998). Combinatorial and Computational Approaches in Structure-Based Drug Design.
159. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, C. Bernd, and T. Lengauer, in Biocomputing: Proceedings of the 1996 Pacific Symposium, L. Hunter and T. Klein, Eds., World Scientific Publishing Co, Singapore, 1996, Time-Efficient Docking of Similar Flexible Ligands. URL http://www.cgl.ucsf.edu/ psb/psb96/proceedings/eproceedings.html.
160. S. Makino and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 19, 1834 (1998). ELECT++: Faster Conformational Search Method for Docking Flexible Molecules Using Molecular Similarity.
161. C. W. Murray, D. E. Clark, T. R. Auton, M. A. Firth, J. Li, R. A. Sykes, B. Waszkowycz, D. R. Westhead, and S. C. Young, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 11, 193 (1997). PRO_SELECT: Combining Structure-Based Drug Design and Combinatorial Chemistry for Rapid Lead Discovery. 1. Technology.
162. Y. Sun, T. J. A. Ewing, A. G. Skillman, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 12, 597 (1998). CombiDOCK: Structure-Based Combinatorial Docking and Library Design.
163. M. Rarey and T. Lengauer, Perspect. Drug Disc. Des., 20, 63 (2000). A Recursive Algorithm for Efficient Combinatorial Library Docking.
164. E. K. Kick, D. C. Roe, A. G. Skillman, G. C. Liu, T. J. A. Ewing, Y. Sun, I. D. Kuntz, and J. A. Ellman, Chem. Biol., 4, 297 (1997). Structure-Based Design and Combinatorial Chemistry Yield Low Nanomolar Inhibitors of Cathepsin D.
165. D. C. Roe and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 9, 269 (1995). Builder V2 - Improving the Chemistry of a De Novo Design Strategy.
166. H. J. Böhm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 623 (1994). On the Use of LUDI to Search the Fine Chemicals Directory for Ligands of Proteins of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
167. H. J. Böhm, D. W. Banner, and L. Weber, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 13, 51 (1999). Combinatorial Docking and Combinatorial Chemistry: Design of Potent Non-Peptide Thrombin Inhibitors.
168. A. Caflisch, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 10, 372 (1996). Computational Combinatorial Ligand Design: Application to Human Alpha-Thrombin.
169. A. Miranker and M. Karplus, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 11, 29 (1991). Functionality Maps of Binding Sites: A Multiple Copy Simultaneous Search Method.
170. S. Makino, T. J. A. Ewing, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 13, 513 (1999). DREAM++: Flexible Docking Program for Virtual Combinatorial Libraries.
171. J. E. Ladbury and B. Z. Chowdhry, Chem. Biol., 3, 791 (1996). Sensing the Heat: The Application of Isothermal Titration Calorimetry to Thermodynamic Studies of Biomolecular Interactions.
172. P. B. Garland, Q. Rev. Biophys., 29, 91 (1996). Optical Evanescent Wave Methods for the Study of Biomolecular Interactions.
173. G. Farber, Pharmacol. Ther., 84, 327 (1999). New Approaches to Rational Drug Design.
174. Ajay and M. A. Murcko, J. Med. Chem., 38, 4953 (1995). Computational Methods to Predict Binding Free Energy in Ligand-Receptor Complexes.
175. A. E. Mark and W. F. van Gunsteren, J. Mol. Biol., 240, 167 (1994). Decomposition of the Free Energy of a System in Terms of Specific Interactions. Implications for Theoretical and Experimental Studies.
176. A. Warshel, A. Papazyan, and I. Muegge, J. Biol. Inorg. Chem., 2, 143 (1997). Microscopic and Semimacroscopic Redox Calculations - What Can and Cannot Be Learned from Continuum Models?
177. A. Warshel and J. Aqvist, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem., 20, 267 (1991). Electrostatic Energy and Macromolecular Function.
178. J. D. Dunitz, Chem. Biol., 2, 709 (1995). Win Some, Lose Some: Enthalpy-Entropy Compensation in Weak Intermolecular Interactions.
179. P. Kollman, Chem. Rev., 7, 2395 (1993). Free Energy Calculations-Applications to Chemical and Biological Phenomena.
180. I. Muegge, U. Ermler, G. Fritzsch, and E. W. Knapp, J. Phys. Chem., 99, 17917 (1995). Free Energy of Cofactors at the Quinone Q(a) Site of the Photosynthetic Reaction Center of Rhodobacter sphaeroides Calculated by Minimizing the Statistical Error.
181. M. S. Searle, D. H. Williams, and U. Gerhard, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 114, 10697 (1992). Partitioning of Free Energy Contributions in the Estimate of Binding Constants: Residual Motions and Consequences for Amide-Amide Hydrogen Bond Strengths.
182. M. S. Searle and D. H. Williams, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 114, 10690 (1992). The Cost of Conformational Order: Entropy Changes in Molecular Associations.
183. F. S. Lee, Z. T. Chu, and A. Warshel, J. Comput. Chem., 14, 161 (1993). Microscopic and Semimicroscopic Calculations of Electrostatic Energies in Proteins by the POLARIS and ENZYMIX Programs.
184. J. Aqvist, C. Medina, and J. E. Samuelsson, Protein Eng., 7, 386 (1994). New Method for Predicting Binding Affinity in Computer-Aided Drug Design.
185. M. K. Holloway, Perspect. Drug Disc. Des., 9/10/11, 63 (1998). A Priori Prediction of Ligand Affinity by Energy Minimization.
186. M. K. Holloway, J. M. Wai, T. A. Halgren, P. M. D. Fitzgerald, J. P. Vacca, B. D. Dorsey, R. B. Levin, W. J. Thompson, L. J. Chen, S. J. deSolms, N. Gaffin, A. K. Ghosh, E. A. Giuliani, S. L. Graham, J. P. Guare, R. W. Hungate, T. A. Lyle, W. M. Sanders, T. J. Tucker, M. Wiggins, C. M. Wiscount, O. W. Woltersdorf, S. D. Young, P. L. Darke, and J. A. Zugay, J. Med. Chem., 38, 305 (1995). A Priori Prediction of Activity for HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors Employing Energy Minimization in the Active Site.
187. C. Zhang, V. Vasmatzis, J. Cornette, and C. DeLisi, J. Mol. Biol., 267, 707 (1997). Determination of Atomic Desolvation Energies from the Structures of Crystallized Proteins.
188. N. Horton and M. Lewis, Protein Sci., 1, 169 (1992). Calculation of the Free Energy of Association for Protein Complexes.
189. H. J. Böhm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 12, 309 (1998). Prediction of Binding Constants of Protein Ligands - A Fast Method for the Prioritization of Hits Obtained from De Novo Design or 3D Database Search Programs.
190. M. D. Eldridge, C. W. Murray, T. R. Auton, G. V. Paolini, and R. P. Mee, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 11, 425 (1997). Empirical Scoring Functions. I. The Development of a Fast Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Affinity of Ligands in Receptor Complexes.
191. R. D. Head, M. L. Smythe, T. I. Oprea, C. L. Waller, S. M. Green, and G. M. Marshall, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 118, 3959 (1996). VALIDATE: A New Method for the Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Novel Ligands.
192. A. N. Jain J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 10, 427 (1996). Scoring Noncovalent Protein-Ligand Interactions: A Continuous Differentiable Function Tuned to Compute Binding Affinities.
193. A. Alex and P. Finn, J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM), 398-399, 551 (1997). Fast and Accurate Prediction of Relative Binding Energies.
194. R. S. DeWitte and E. I. Shakhnovich, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 118, 11733 (1996). SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence.
195. H. Gohlke, M. Hendlich, and G. Klebe, J. Mol. Biol., 295, 337 (2000). Knowledge-Based Scoring Function to Predict Protein-Ligand Interactions.
196. R. L. Jernigan and I. Bahar, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 6, 195 (1996). Strucure-Derived Potentials and Protein Simulations.
197. J. B. O. Mitchell, R. A. Laskowski, A. Alex, and J. M. Thornton, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1165 (1999). BLEEP-Potential of Mean Force Describing Protein-Ligand Interactions. I. Generating Potential.
198. I. Muegge and Y. C. Martin, J. Med. Chem., 42, 791 (1999). A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach.
199. G. Verkhivker, K. Appelt, S. T. Freer, and J. E. Villafranca, Protein Eng., 8, 677 (1995). Empirical Free Energy Calculations of Ligand-Protein Crystallographic Complexes. I. Knowledge-Based Ligand-Protein Interaction Potentials Applied to the Prediction of Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 Protease Binding Affinity.
200. A. Wallqvist, R. L. Jernigan, and D. G. Covell, Protein Sci., 4, 1881 (1995). A Preference-Based Free Energy Parameterization of Enzyme-Inhibitor Binding. Application to HIV-1-Protease Inhibitor Design.
201. T. R. Stouch and P. C. Jurs, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 26, 4 (1986). A Simple Method for the Representation, Quantification, and Comparison of the Volumes and Shapes of Chemical Compounds.
202. M. C. Nicklaus, S. Wang, J. S. Driscoll, and G. W. A. Milne, Bioorg. Med. Chem., 3, 411 (1995). Conformational Changes of Small Molecules Binding to Proteins.
203. J. Bostrom, P. O. Norrby, and T. Liljefors, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 12, 383 (1998). Conformational Energy Penalties of Protein Bound Ligands.
204. R. X. Wang, L. Liu, L. H. Lai, and Y. Q. Tang, J. Mol. Model., 4, 379 (1998). SCORE: A New Empirical Method for Estimating the Binding Affinity of a Protein-Ligand Complex.
205. D. R. Flower, J. Mol. Graphics Modell., 15, 238 (1998). SERF: A Program for Accessible Surface Area Calculations.
206. J. S. Dixon, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., Suppl., 1, 198 (1997). Evaluation of the CASP2 Docking Section.
207. B. Lee and F. M. Richards, J. Mol. Biol., 55, 379 (1971). Interpretation of Protein Structure - Estimation of Static Accessibility.
208. R. S. Bohacek and C. McMartin, J. Med. Chem., 35, 1671 (1992). Definition and Display of Steric, Hydrophobic, and Hydrogen-Bonding Properties of Ligand Binding Sites in Proteins Using Lee and Richards Accessible Surface: Validation of a High-Resolution Graphical Tool for Drug Design.
209. B. K. Shoichet and I. D. Kuntz, Protein Eng., 6, 723 (1993). Matching Chemistry and Shape in Molecular Docking.
210. P. H. Walls and M. J. E. Sternberg, J. Mol. Biol., 228, 277 (1992). New Algorithm to Model Protein-Protein Recognition Based on Surface Complementarity.
211. D. Eisenberg and A. D. McLachlan, Nature (London), 319, 199 (1986). Solvation Energy in Protein Folding and Binding.
212. V. N. Viswanadhan, M. R. Reddy, A. Wlodawer, M. D. Varney, and J. N. Weinstein, J. Med. Chem., 39, 705 (1996). An Approach to Rapid Estimation of Relative Binding Affinities of Enzyme Inhibitors: Application to Peptidomimetic Inhibitors of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease.
213. V. N. Viswanadhan, A. K. Ghose, G. R. Revankar, and R. K. Robins, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 29, 163 (1989). Atomic Physicochemical Parameters for Three Dimensional Structure Directed Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships. 4. Additional Parameters for Hydrophobic and Dispersive Interactions and Their Application for an Automated Superposition of Certain Naturally Occurring Nucleoside Antibiotics.
214. L. A. Kuhn, C. A. Swanson, M. E. Pique, J. A. Tainer, and E. D. Getzoff, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 23, 536 (1995). Atomic and Residue Hydrophilicity in the Context of Folded Protein Structures.
215. P. Burkhard, P. Taylor, and M. D. Walkinshaw, J. Mol. Biol., 277, 449 (1998). An Example of a Protein Ligand Found by Database Mining: Description of the Docking Method and Its Verification by a 2.3 Å X-Ray Structure of a Thrombin-Ligand Complex.
216. B. B. Goldman and W. T. Wipke, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 38, 79 (2000). QSD Quadratic Shape Descriptors. 2. Molecular Docking Using Quadratic Shape Descriptors (QSDock).
217. I. Muegge, T. Schweins, R. Langen, and A. Warshel, Structure, 4, 475 (1996). Electrostatic Control of GTP and GDP Binding in the Oncoprotein P21(Ras).
218. I. Muegge, H. Tao, and A. Warshel, Protein Eng., 10, 1363 (1997). A Fast Estimate of Electrostatic Group Contributions to the Free Energy of Protein-Inhibitor Binding.
219. P. D. J. Grootenhuis and P. J. M. van Galen, Acta Crystallogr., D51, 560 (1995). Correlation of Binding Affinities with Non-Bonded Interaction Energies of Thrombin-Inhibitor Complexes.
220. N. S. Blom and J. Sygusch, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 27, 493 (1997). High Resolution Fast Quantitative Docking Using Fourier Domain Correlation Techniques.
221. N. Tomioka and A. Itai, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 8, 347 (1994). GREEN: a Program Package for Docking Studies in Rational Drug Design.
222. K. A. Sharp and B. Honig, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biophys. Chem., 19, 301 (1990). Electrostatic Interactions in Macromolecules.
223. G. Jones, P. Willett, and R. C. Glen, J. Mol. Biol., 254, 43 (1995). Molecular Recognition of Receptor Sites Using a Genetic Algorithm with a Description of Solvation.
224. M. Liu and S. M. Wang, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 13, 435 (1999). MCDOCK: A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach to the Molecular Docking Problem.
225. V. Nauchatel, M. C. Villaverde, and F. Sussman, Protein Sci., 4, 1356 (1995). Solvent Accessibility as a Predictive Tool for the Free Energy of Inhibitor Binding to the HIV-1 Protease.
226. N. Majeux, M. Scarsi, J. Apostolakis, C. Ehrhardr, and A. Caflisch, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 37, 88 (1999). Exhaustive Docking of Molecular Fragments with Electrostatic Solvation.
227. B. R. Brooks, R. E. Bruccoleri, B. D. Olafson, D. J. States, S. Swaminathan, and M. Karplus, J. Comput. Chem., 4, 187 (1983). CHARMM: A Program for Macromolecular Energy, Minimization, and Dynamics Calculations.
228. D. Qui, P. S. Shenkin, E. P. Hollinger, and W. C. Still J. Phys. Chem., 101, 3005 (1997). The GB/SA Continuum Model for Solvation. A Fast Analytical Method for the Calculation of Approximate Born Radii.
229. P. F. W. Stouten, C. Frommel, H. Nakamura, and C. Sander, Mol. Simul., 10, 97 (1993). An Effective Solvation Term Based on Atomic Occupancies for Use in Protein Simulations.
230. S. Vajda, Z. Weng, R. Rosenfeld, and C. DeLisi, Biochemistry, 33, 13977 (1994). Effect of Conformational Flexibility and Solvation on Receptor-Ligand Binding Free Energies.
231. M. Vieth, J. D. Hirst, A. Kolinski, and C. L. Brooks III, J. Comput. Chem., 14, 1612 (1998). Assessing Energy Functions for Flexible Docking.
232. D. R. Westhead, D. E. Clark, and C. W. Murray, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 11, 209 (1997). A Comparison of Heuristic Search Algorithms for Molecular Docking.
233. C. W. Murray, C. A. Baxter, and A. D. Frenkel J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 13, 547 (1999). The Sensitivity of the Results of Molecular Docking to Induced Fit Effects: Application to Thrombin, Thermolysin and Neuraminidase.
234. C. W. Murray, T. R. Auton, and M. D. Eldridge, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 12, 503 (1998). Empirical Scoring Functions. II. The Testing of an Empirical Scoring Function for the Prediction of Ligand-Receptor Binding Affinities and the Use of Bayesian Regression to Improve the Quality of the Model.
235. Available Chemicals Directory (ACD) is available from MDL Information Systems Inc., San Leandro, CA 94577, and contains specialty bulk chemicals from commercial sources. URL www.mdli.com.
236. M. J. Sippl, J. Mol. Biol., 213, 859 (1990). Calculation of Conformational Ensembles from Potentials of Mean Force.
237. M. J. Sippl, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 7, 473 (1993). Boltzmann's Principle, Knowledge-Based Mean Fields and Protein Folding. An Approach to the Computational Determination of Protein Structures.
238. M. J. Sippl, M. Ortner, M. Jaritz, P. Lackner, and H. Flöckner, Folding Design, 1, 289 (1996). Helmholtz Free Energies of Atom Pair Interactions in Proteins.
239. D. T. Jones, W. R. Taylor, and J. M. Thornton, Nature (London), 358, 86 (1992). A New Approach to Protein Fold Recognition.
240. A. Godzik, A. Kolinski, and J. Skolnick J. Mol. Biol., 227, 227 (1992). Topology Fingerprint Approach to the Inverse Protein Folding Problem.
241. C. Ouzounis, C. Sander, M. Scharf, and R. Schneider, J. Mol. Biol., 232, 805 (1993). Prediction of Protein Structure by Evaluation of Sequence-Structure Fitness.
242. I. Bahar and R. L. Jernigan J. Mol. Biol., 266, 195 (1997). Interresidue Potentials in Globular Proteins and the Dominance of Highly Specific Hydrophilic Interactions at Close Separation.
243. A. Ben-Naim J. Chem. Phys., 107, 3698 (1997). Statistical Potentials Extracted from Protein Structures: Are these Meaningful Potentials?
244. P. D. Thomas and K. Dill, J. Mol. Biol., 257, 457 (1996). Statistical Potentials Extracted from Protein Structures: What Is Wrong with Them?
245. W. A. Koppensteiner and M. J. Sippl, Biochemistry (Moscow), 63, 247 (1998). Knowledge-Based Potentials - Back to the Roots.
246. I. Muegge J. Comput. Chem., 22, 418 (2001). Effect of Ligand Volume Correction on PMF-Scoring.
247. I. Muegge, Perspect. Drug Discovery Des., 20, 99 (2000). A Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions: Probing the Reference State.
248. S. Ha, R. Andreani, A. Robbins, and I. Muegge J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 14, 435 (2000). Evaluation of Docking/Scoring Approaches: A Comparative Study Based on MMP-3 Inhibitors.
249. J. B. O. Mitchell, R. A. Laskowski, A. Alex, M. J. Forster, and J. M. Thornton, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1177 (1999). BLEEP-Potential of Mean Force Describing Protein-Ligand Interactions. II. Calculation of Binding Energies and Comparison with Experimental Data.
250. R. M. A. Knegtel, D. M. Bayada, R. A. Engh, W. von der Saal, V. J. van Geerestein, and P. D. J. Grootenhuis, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 13, 167 (1999). Comparison of Two Implementations of the Incremental Construction Algorithm in Flexible Docking of Thrombin Inhibitors.
251. M. Stahl, Perspect. Drug Discovery Des., 20, 83 (2000). Modifications of the Scoring Function in FlexX for Virtual Screening Applications.
252. M. Stahl and H. J. Böhm, J. Mol. Graphics Modell., 16, 121 (1998). Development of Filter Functions for Protein-Ligand Docking.
253. T. A. Halgren, J. Comput. Chem., 17, 520 (1996). Merck Molecular Force Field. II. MMFF94 Van der Waals and Electrostatic Parameters for Intermolecular Interactions.
254. B. Honig and A. Nicholls, Science, 268, 1144 (1995). Classical Electrostatics in Biology and Chemistry.
255. SYBYL, version 6.6, Tripos Associates, St. Louis, MO. URL www.tripos.com.
256. M. Hendlich, F. Rippman, and G. Barnickel, J. Mol. Graphics Modell., 15, 359 (1997). LIGSITE: Automatic and Efficient Detection of Potential Small Molecule Binding Sites in Proteins.
257. MDL Information Systems, Inc., San Leandro, CA. URL www.mdli.com.
258. J. Gasteiger, C. Rudolph, and J. Sadowski, Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol., 3, 537 (1990). Automatic Generation of 3D-Atomic Coordinates for Organic Molecules.
259. R. S. Pearlman, Chem. Design Automation News, 2(1) (1987). Rapid Generation of High Quality Approximate 3D Molecular Structures. Information about CONCORD is available at www.tripos.com.
260. URL www.epm.ornl.gov/pvm/.
261. W. P. Walters, Ajay, and M. A. Murcko, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 3, 384 (1999). Recognizing Molecules with Drug-Like Properties.
262. B. L. Podlogar, I. Muegge, and L. J. Brice, Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Devel., 4, 102 (2001). Current Computational Methods to Estimate Drug Development Parameters for Use in Drug Discovery: A Zero Infrastructure Approach.
263. E. J. Martin, J. M. Blaney, M. A. Siani, D. C. Spellmeyer, A. K. Wong, and W. H. Moos, J. Med. Chem., 38, 1431 (1995). Measuring Diversity. Experimental Design of Combinatorial Libraries for Drug Discovery.
264. R. A. Lewis, S. D. Pickett, and D. E. Clark, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2000, Vol. 16, pp. 1-51. Computer-Aided Molecular Diversity Analysis and Combinatorial Library Design.
265. E. J. Martin, D. C. Spellmeyer, R. E. Critchlow Jr., and J. M. Blaney, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1997, Vol. 10, pp. 75-100. Does Combinatorial Chemistry Obviate Computer-Aided Drug Design?
266. P. D. Grootenhuis, P. A. Kollman, G. L. Seibel, R. L. DesJarlais, and I. D. Kuntz, Anticancer Drug Des., 5, 237 (1990). Computerized Selection of Potential DNA Binding Compounds.
267. R. L. DeJarlais, G. L. Seibel, I. D. Kuntz, P. S. Furth, J. C. Alvarez, P. R. Ortiz DeMontellano, D. L. DeCamp, L. M. Babe, and C. S. Craik, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87, 6644 (1990). Structure-Based Design of Nonpeptide Inhibitors Specific for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 Protease.
268. C. S. Ring, E. Sun, J. H. McKerrow, G. K. Lee, P. J. Rosenthal, I. D. Kuntz, and F. E. Cohen, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 90, 3538 (1993). Structure-Based Inhibitor Design by Using Protein Models for the Development of Antiparasitic Agents.
269. B. Kramer, M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 37, 228 (1999). Evaluation of the FlexX Incremental Construction Algorithm for Protein-Ligand Docking.
270. C. A. Baxter, C. W. Murray, B. Waszkowycz, J. Li, R. A. Sykes, R. G. A. Bone, T. D. J. Perkins, and W. Wylie, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 40, 254 (2000). New Approach to Molecular Docking and Its Application to Virtual Screening of Chemical Databases.
271. M. Stahl, M. Rarey, and G. Klebe, in Bioinformatics, T. Lengauer, Ed., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2001, Vol. 2, in press. Screening of Drug Databases.
272. World Drug Index is available from Derwent Information, London, UK. URL www. denvent.com.
273. J. H. Toney, P. M. D. Fitzgerald, N. Grover-Sharma, S. H. Olson, W. J. May, J. G. Sundelof, D. E. Vanderwall, K. A. Cleary, S. K. Grant, J. K. Wu, J. W. Kozarich, D. L. Pompliano, and G. G. Hammond, Chem. Biol., 5, 185 (1998). Antibiotic Sensitization Using Biphenyl Tetrazoles as Potent Inhibitors of Bacteroides fragilis Metallo-β-lactamase.
274. D. Horvath, J. Med. Chem., 40, 2412 (1997). A Virtual Screening Approach Applied to the Search for Trypanothione Reductase Inhibitors.
275. E. Perola, K. Xu, T. M. Kollmeyer, S. H. Kaufmann, F. G. Prendergast, and Y. P. Pang, J. Med. Chem., 43, 401 (2000). Successful Virtual Screening of a Chemical Database for Farnesyltransferase Inhibitor Leads.
276. D. L. Kirkpatrick, S. Watson, and S. Ulhaq, Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening, 2, 211 (1999). Structure-Based Drug Design: Combinatorial Chemistry and Molecular Modeling.
277. R. E. Cachau, K. Fidelis, and A. E. Roitberg, a Web page formerly at URL http://uqbar. ncifcrf.gov/∼catfee/index.html.
278. URL http://predict.sanger.ac.uk/casp2/.
279. T. P. Maduskule Jr., K. J. McNamara, Y. Ru, R. M. Knabb, and P. F. W. Stouten, J. Med. Chem., 41, 53 (1998). Rational Design and Synthesis of Novel, Potent Bis-phenylamidine Carboxylate Factor Xa Inhibitors.
280. M. von Itzstein, W. Wu, G. B. Kok, M. S. Pegg, J. C. Dyason, B. Jin, T. V. Phan, M. L. Smythe, H. F. White, J. M. Woods, R. C. Bethell, V. J. Hotham, J. M. Cameron, and C. R. Penn, Nature (London), 363, 418 (1993). Rational Design of Potent Sialidase-Based Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Replication.
281. M. N. Janakiraman, C. L. White, W. G. Laver, G. M. Air, and M. Luo, Biochemistry, 33, 8172 (1994). Structure of Influenza Virus Neuraminidase B/Lee/40 Complexed with Sialic Acid and a Dehydro Analog at 1.8 Å Resolution: Implications for the Catalytic Mechanism.
282. S. Singh, M. J. Jedrzejas, G. M. Air, M. Luo, W. G. Laver, and W. J. Brouillette, J. Med. Chem., 38, 3217 (1995). Structure-Based Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Sialidase. A Benzoic Acid Lead with Novel Interaction.
283. M. K. Gilson, A. Rashin, R. Fine, and B. Honig, J. Mol. Biol., 184, 503 (1985). On the Calculation of Electrostatic Interactions in Proteins.
284. I. Klapper, R. Hagstrom, R. Fine, K. Sharp, and B. Honig, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 1, 47 (1986). Focusing of Electric Fields in the Active Site of Cu-Zn Superoxide Dismutase: Effects of Ionic Strength and Amino-Acid Modification.
285. i, Calculations for Neuraminidase Aromatic Inhibitors Designed on the Basis of the Active Site Structure of Influenza Virus Neuraminidase.
286. J. A. Landro, I. C. A. Taylor, W. G. Stirtan, D. G. Osterman, J. Kristie, E. J. Hunnicutt, P. M. M. Rae, and P. M. Swectnam, J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Meth., 44, 273 (2000). HTS in the New Millennium. The Role of Pharmacology and Flexibility.
287. W. P. Walters (Vertex Pharmaceuticals), personal communication, 2000.
288. C. Vose, Lecture given at the Clinical Pharmacology, Bayer North America 10th Anniversary Symposium "Clinical Pharmacology in the Next Millennium", Bayer Research Center, West Haven, CT, December 21, 2000. Role of Clinical Pharmacology in Go/No Go Decision-Making.
289. Note added after this chapter entered production: In regard to our section on consensus scoring, a number of additional references have appeared. See, e.g., C. Bissantz, G. Folkers, D. Rognan, J. Med. Chem., 43, 4759 (2000).
290. Protein-Based Virtual Screening of Chemical Databases. 1. Evaluation of Different Docking/Scoring Combinations. The ETH Zürich group compares DOCK4.01, FlexX1.8, and GOLD1.1 for docking and ChemScore, DOCK, FlexX, GOLD, PMF, Fresno, and SCORE for consensus scoring. The program Fresno is described by D. Rognan, S. L. Laumoeller, A. Holm, S. Buus, and V. Tschinke, J. Med. Chem., 42, 4650 (1999).
291. Predicting Binding Affinities of Protein Ligands from Three-Dimensional Coordinates: Application to Peptide Binding to Class I Major Histocompatibility Proteins. SCORE is described in Ref. 204. In the section of our chapter on Docking Calculations, the use of workstation clusters is mentioned. Recently, groups of Oxford University and GlaxoSmithKline disclosed independently developed systems for distributing docking and related drug design calculations on a potentially vast array of personal computers. See: W. G. Richards and D. D. Robinson, Abstracts of 221nd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, San Diego, CA, April 1-5, 2001, COMP 27.
292. Pattern Recognition Techniques in Drug Discovery; C. E. Keefer, E. C. Bigham, S. S. Young, Abstracts of 222nd National Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Chicago, IL, August 26-30, 2001, COMP 97.
293. Pharmacophore Identification Using Massive Distributed Computing. With respect to our section on MD simulation techniques for molecular docking, we would like to point out recent efforts to decrease simulation time using generalized effective potentials described by Y. Pak and S. Wang, J. Phys. Chem. B, 104, 354 (2000). Application of a Molecular Dynamics Simulation Method with a Generalized Effective Potential to the Flexible Molecular Docking Problems.