Global analysis of large-scale chemical and biological experiments

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2002, Pages 355-360

  Root, David E ^a   Kelley, Brian P ^a   Stockwell, Brent R ^a  

^a WHITEHEAD INSTITUTE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemical genetics; Chemical genomics; Descriptors; High throughput; Informatics; Transcription profiling

Indexed keywords

DNA; GENOMIC DNA; RNA;

CHEMICAL GENETICS; DATA BASE; DNA SEQUENCE; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; GENOMICS; INFORMATION SYSTEM; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; GENOMICS; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS;

EID: 0036589826     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Stockwell BR: Chemical genetics: Ligand-based discovery of gene function. Nat Rev Genet (2000) 1:116-125. A comprehensive review of the history, promise and current state of chemical genetics.
2. Mills JC, Roth KA, Cagan RL, Gordon JI: DNA microarrays and beyond: Completing the journey from tissue to cell. Nat Cell Biol (2001) 3:E175-E178.
3. Smit WA, Bochkov F, Caple R (Eds): Organic Synthesis: The Science Behind the Art. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK (1998).
4. Jorgensen AMM, Pedersen JT: Structural diversity of small molecule libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:338-345.
5. Xu J, Stevenson J: Drug-like index: A new approach to measure drug-like compounds and their diversity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:1177-1187.
6. Reynolds CH, Tropsha A, Pfahler LB, Druker R, Chakravorty S, Ethiraj G, Zheng W: Diversity and coverage of structural sublibraries selected using the SAGE and SCA algorithms. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1470-1477.
7. Barone R, Chanon M: A new and simple approach to chemical complexity. Application to the synthesis of natural products. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:269-272. Reviews quantitative indices of structural complexity, and introduces refinements.
8. Hann MM, Leach AR, Harper G: Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:856-864. Presents an interesting model for the optimal complexity of small molecules to be used in high-throughput screens.
9. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD: Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1308-1315. Analyzes the differences in complexity between lead molecules and drugs.
10. Ertl P, Rohde B, Selzer P: Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. J Med Chem (2000) 43:3714-3717.
11. Anzali S, Barnickel G, Cezanne B, Krug M, Filimonov D, Poroikov V: Discriminating between drugs and nondrugs by prediction of activity spectra for substances (PASS). J Med Chem (2001) 44:2432-2437.
12. Muegge I, Heald SL, Brittelli D: Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J Med Chem (2001) 44:1841-1846.
13. Frimurer TM, Bywater R, Naerum L, Lauritsen LN, Brunak S: Improving the odds in discriminating "drug-like" from "non drug-like" compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40:1315-1324.
14. Schreiber SL: Target-oriented and diversity-oriented organic synthesis in drug discovery. Science (2000) 287:1964-1969. Comprehensive review of the new field of diversity-oriented organic synthesis.
15. Blackwell HE, Perez L, Stavenger RA, Tallarico JA, Cope Eatough E, Foley MA, Schreiber SL: A one-bead, one-stock solution approach to chemical genetics: Part 1. Chem Biol (2001) 8:1167-1182. Describes an industrialized process for synthesizing complex molecules on solid phase using split-pool synthesis.
16. Bajorath J: Selected concepts and investigations in compound classification, molecular descriptor analysis, and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:233-245. An excellent overview of compound classification and molecular descriptor analysis.
17. MacCuish J, Nicolaou C, MacCuish NE: Ties in proximity and clustering compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:134-146. First demonstration that database hash keys have poor information content and that their use can compromise clustering results.
18. Flower DR: On the properties of bit string-based measures of chemical similarity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1998) 38:379-386.
19. Estrada E, Molina E, Perdomo-Lopez I: Can 3D structural parameters be predicted from 2D (topological) molecular descriptors? J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1015-1021.
20. Golbraikh A, Bonchev D, Tropsha A: Novel chirality descriptors derived from molecular topology. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:147-158.
21. Lukovits I, Linert W: A topological account of chirality. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41:1517-1520.
22. Godden J, Bajorath J: Chemical descriptors with distinct levels of information content and varying sensitivity to differences between selected compound databases identified by SE-DSE analysis. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42:87-93. Develops a measure of the usefulness of various molecular descriptors.
23. Wyrick JJ, Aparicio JG, Chen T, Bamett JD, Jennings EG, Young RA, Bell SP, Aparicio OM: Genome-wide distribution of ORC and MCM proteins in S. cerevisiae. High-resolution mapping of replication origins. Science (2001) 294:2357-2360. An excellent example of the use of chromosomal location information in a global analysis to identify the distribution of origins of replication throughput in the genome of yeast cells.
24. Konu OO, Li MD: Correlations Between mRNA expression levels and GC contents of coding and untranslated regions of genes in rodents. J Mol Evol (2002) 54:35-41.
25. Bernstein BE, Tong JK, Schreiber SL: Genomewide studies of histone deacetylase function in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97:13708-13713.
26. Haykin S (Ed): Neural Networks: A Comprehensive Foundation, 2nd Edition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA (1999).
27. Vapnik VN (Ed): The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer-Vedag, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (1995).
28. Koza J, Banzhaf W, Chellapilla K, Deb K, Dorigo M, Fogel D, Garzon M, Goldberg D, Iba H, Riolo R (Eds): Genetic Programming 1998. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA (1998).
29. Rusinko R III, Farmen MW, Lambert CG, Brown PL, Young SS (Eds): Analysis of a large structure/biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39:1017-1026.
30. Engels MFM, Venkatarangan P: Smart screening: Approaches to efficient HTS. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2001) 4:275-283.
31. Brown RD, Martin YC: The information content of 2D and 3D structural descriptors relevant to ligand-receptor binding. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1997) 37:1-9.
32. Kohonen T (Ed): Self-Organizing Maps. Springer Series in Information Sciences, Volume 30. Springer, Bedin, Heidelberg, Germany (2001).
33. 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.
34. Stanton DT, Morris TW, Roychoudhury S, Parker CN: Application of nearest-neighbor and cluster analyses in pharmaceutical lead discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39:21-27.
35. Staunton JE, Slonim DK, Coller HA, Tamayo P, Angelo MJ, Park J, Scherf U, Lee JK, Reinhold WO, Weinstein JN, Mesirov JP, Lander ES, Golub TR: Chemosensitivity prediction by transcriptional profiling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2001) 98:10787-10792. An excellent example of a global analysis that uses chemical screening data, transcription profiling data and a statistical classifier. The results demonstrate that gene expression profiles of untreated tumor cells can be used to predict their sensitivity to many chemical agents.