Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods?

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 7, Issue 17, 2002, Pages 903-911

  Sheridan, Robert P ^a   Kearsley, Simon K ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEINASE INHIBITOR;

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CLASSIFICATION; DATA BASE; DRUG RESEARCH; HISTOGRAM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PREDICTION; REVIEW; SCREENING; TECHNIQUE;

DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0036740917     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(02)02411-X     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Walters W.P., et al. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 3:1998;160-178.
2. Waszkowycz B., et al. Large-scale virtual screening for discovery leads in the postgenomic era. IBM Systems J. 40:2001;360-376.
3. Miller M.A. Chemical database techniques in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1:2002;220-227.
4. Johnson M.A., Maggiora G.M. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. 1990;John Wiley & Sons New York.
5. Downs G.M., Willett P. Similarity searching in databases of chemical structures. Rev. Comput. Chem. 7:1995;1-66.
6. Willett P., et al. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38:1998;983-996.
7. Bajorath J. Selected concepts and investigations in compound classification, molecular descriptor analysis and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;233-245.
8. Cheng A., et al. Computation of the physio-chemical properties and data mining of large molecular collections. J. Comput. Chem. 23:2002;172-183.
9. Patterson D.E., et al. Neighborhood behavior: a useful concept for validation of 'molecular diversity' descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 39:1996;3049-3059.
10. Brown R.D., Martin Y.C. Use of structure-activity data to compare clustering methods and descriptors for use in compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;572-584.
11. Brown R.D., Martin Y.C. The information content of 2D and 3D structural descriptors relevant to ligand-receptor binding. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37:1997;1-9.
12. Hagadone T.R. Molecular substructure similarity searching: efficient retrieval in two-dimensional structure databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 32:1992;515-521.
13. Rarey M., Dixon J.S. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 12:1998;471-490.
14. Wild D.J., Willett P. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures. Alignment of molecular electrostatic potential fields with a genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;159-167.
15. Mestres J., et al. MIMIC: a molecular field matching program. Exploiting applicability of molecular similarity approaches. J. Comput. Chem. 18:1997;934-954.
16. Kearsley S.K., Smith G.M. An alternative method for the alignment of molecular structures: maximizing electrostatic and steric overlap. Tetrahedron Comput. Method. 3:1990;615-633.
17. Perry N.C., Geerestein V.J. Database searching on the basis of three-dimensional molecular similarity using the SPERM program. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 32:1992;607-616.
18. Miller M.D., et al. SQ: a program for rapidly producing pharmacologically relevant molecular superpositions. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;1505-1514.
19. Mount J., et al. Icepick: a flexible surface-based system for molecular diversity. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;60-66.
20. Lemmen C., Lengauer T. Computational methods for structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 14:2000;215-232.
21. Jain A.N. Morphological similarity: a 3D molecular similarity method correlated with protein-ligand recognition. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 14:2000;199-213.
22. Dixon S.L., Merz K.M. One-dimensional molecular representations and similarity calculations: methodology and validation. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;3795-3809.
23. Schurr J.H., et al. The coding of three-dimensional structure of molecules by molecular transforms and its application to structure-spectra correlations and studies of biological activity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;334-344.
24. Ginn C.M.R., et al. Combination of molecular similarity using data fusion. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 20:2000;1-16.
25. Menard P.R., et al. Chemistry space metrics in diversity analysis, library design, and compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Sci. 38:1998;1204-1213.
26. Pearlman R.S., Smith K.M. Metric validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39:1999;28-35.
27. Schnur D. Design and diversity analysis of large combinatorial libraries using cell-based methods. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39:1999;36-45.
28. Livingstone D.J. The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;195-209.
29. Daylight Chemical Information Systems INC/2740 Los altos, Suite #360, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, USA (http://www.daylight.com)
30. Heritage, T.W. and Lowis, D.R. (1999) Molecular hologram QSAR. In Rational Drug Design: Novel Methodology and Practical Applications, American Chemical Society Symposium Series 719, (Parrill, A.L. and Reddy, M.R., eds), pp. 212-225
31. McGregor M.J., Pallai P.V. Clustering large databases of compounds: using the MDL 'keys' as structural descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37:1997;443-448.
32. Pickett S.D., et al. Diversity profiling and design using 3D pharmacophores: pharmacophore-derived queries (PDQ). J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;1214-1223.
33. Mason J.S., et al. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged structures. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;3251-3264.
34. Kearsley S.K., et al. Chemical similarity using physiochemical property descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;118-127.
35. Shemetulskis N.E., et al. STIGMATA: an algorithm to determine structural commonalities in diverse subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;862-871.
36. Xue L., Bajorath J. Molecular descriptors for effective classification of biologically active compounds based on principal component analysis identified by a genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;801-809.
37. Xue L., et al. Fingerprint scaling increases the probability of identifying molecules with similar activity in virtual screening calculations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;746-753.
38. Hull R.D., et al. Latent semantic indexing (LaSSI) for defining chemical similarity. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;1177-1184.
39. Hull R.D., et al. Chemical similarity searches using latent semantic structural indexing (LaSSI) and comparison to TOPOSIM. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;1185-1191.
40. Singh S.B., et al. Mining the chemical quarry with joint chemical probes: An application of latent semantic structure indexing (LaSSI) and TOPOSIM (Dice) to chemical database mining. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;1564-1575.
41. Sheridan R.P. The centroid approximation for mixtures: calculating similarity and deriving structure-activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;1456-1469.
42. Charifson P.S., et al. Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;5100-5109.
43. Lewis, R.A. et al. (2000) Computer-aided molecular diversity analysis and combinatorial library design. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry 16, (Lipkowitz, K.B. and Boyd, D.B. eds), pp. 1-51
44. Edgar S.J., et al. Effectiveness of retrieval in similarity searches of chemical databases: a review of performance measures. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 18:2000;343-357.
45. MDL Drug Data report licensed by Molecular Design, San Leandro, CA, USA (http://www.mdli.com)
46. Carhart R.E., et al. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and application. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 25:1985;64-73.
47. Nilakantan R., et al. Topological torsions: a new molecular descriptor for SAR applications. comparison with other descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 27:1987;82-85.
48. Bush B.L., Sheridan R.P. PATTY: a programmable atom typer and language for automatic classification of atoms in molecular databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 33:1993;756-762.
49. Kearsley S.K., et al. Flexibases: a way to enhance the use of molecular docking methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 8:1994;565-582.
50. Feuston B.P., et al. Comparison of knowledge-based and distance geometry approaches for generation of molecular conformations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;754-763.
51. Sheridan R.P., et al. Extending the trend vector: the trend matrix and sample-based partial least squares. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 8:1994;323-340.
52. Berman H.M., et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:2000;235-242.
53. Miller M.D., et al. FLOG: a system to select quasi-flexible ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 8:1994;153-174.
54. Matter H., Potter T. Comparing 3D pharmacophore triplets and 2D fingerprints for selecting diverse compound subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39:1999;1211-1225.
55. Schuffenhauer A., et al. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structues: analysis of the BIOSTER database using two-dimensional fingerprints and molecular field descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;295-307.
56. Makara G.M. Measuring molecular similarity and diversity: total pharmacophore diversity. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;3563-3571.
57. Andrews K.M., Cramer R.D. Toward general methods of targeted library design: topomer shape similarity scoring with diverse structures as queries. J. Med. Chem. 43:2000;1723-1740.
58. Sheridan R.P., et al. Protocols for bridging the peptide to nonpeptide gap in topological similarity searches. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;1395-1406.
59. Flower D.R. On the properties of bit string-based measures of chemical similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38:1998;379-386.