Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 1, Issue 11, 2002, Pages 882-894

  Bajorath, Jürgen ^a,b  

^a ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH INC   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALPHA 1 ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR; AROMATASE INHIBITOR; CYTOCHROME P450; G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; LIGAND; MONOAMINE OXIDASE INHIBITOR; PARGYLINE; PROTEIN BCL XL; PROTEIN TYROSINE KINASE INHIBITOR;

ALGORITHM; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; CROSS REACTION; DATA BASE; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG CLEARANCE; DRUG FORMULATION; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; FILTRATION; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; PHARMACOPHORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE PROPERTY RELATION; REVIEW; VIRTUAL REALITY; DRUG DESIGN; PHARMACEUTICS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

DRUG DESIGN; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 0036835460     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd941     Document Type: Review

References (113)

1. Handen, J. S. High-throughput screening - challenges for the future. Drug Discov. World 47-50 (Summer 2002).
2. Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S. & Yund, M. A. High-throughput screening for drug discovery: continually transitioning into new technologies. J. Biomol. Screen. 4, 183-186 (1999).
3. Smith, A. Screening for drug discovery: the leading question. Nature 418, 453-459 (2002).
4. Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S., Sopchak, L. & Wang, H. Fine-tuning the technology strategies for lead finding. Drug Discov. World 24-30 (Summer 2002).
5. Bajorath, J. Rational drug discovery revisited: interfacing experimental programs with bio- and chemo-informatics. Drug Discov. Today 6, 989-995 (2001).
6. Drews, J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 287, 1960-1964 (2000).
7. Bajorath, J. Selected concepts and investigations in compound classification, molecular descriptor analysis, and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 233-245 (2001).
8. Bajorath, J. Virtual screening: methods, expectations, and reality. Curr. Drug Discov. 2, 24-28 (2002).
9. Brown, F. K. Chemoinformatics: what is it and how does it impact drug discovery. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem. 33, 375-384(1998).
10. Agrafiotis, D. K., Lobanov, V S. & Salemme, R. F. Combinatorial informatics in the post-genomics era. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 337-346 (2002).
11. Kuntz, I. D. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science 257, 1078-1082 (1992).
12. Halpering, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H. & Nussinov, R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47, 409-443 (2002).
13. Willett, P., Barnard, J. M. & Downs, G. M. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 983-996 (1998).
14. Livingstone, D. J. The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 195-209 (2000).
15. Cramer, R. D., Redl, G. & Berkoff, C. E. Substructural analysis. A novel approach to the problem of drug design. J. Med. Chem. 17, 533-535 (1974).
16. Barnard, J. M. Substructure searching methods. Old and new. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 33, 532-538 (1993).
17. Gund, P. in Progress in Molecular and Subcellular Biology Vol. 5 (ed. Hahn, F. E.) 117-142 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977).
18. Sheridan, R. P., Rusinko, A., Nilakantan, R. & Venkataraghavan, R. Searching for pharmacophores; in large coordinate databases and its use in drug design. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 86, 8156-8159 (1989).
19. Martin, Y. C. 3D database searching in drug design. J. Med. Chem. 35, 2145-2154 (1992).
20. Pearlman, R. S. Rapid generation of high quality approximate 3D molecular structures. Chem. Des. Auto. News 2, 1-7 (1987).
21. Gastelger, J., Rudolph, C. & Sadowski, J. Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron Comp. Method. 3, 537-547 (1990).
22. Cramer, R. D. et al. Prospective identification of biologically active structures by topomer similarity searching. J. Med. Chem. 42, 3919-3933 (1999).
23. Andrews K. M. & Cramer, R. D. Toward general methods for targeted library design: topomer shape similarity with diverse structures as queries. J. Med. Chem. 43, 1723-1740 (2000).
24. Hall, L. H. & Kier, L. B. The E-state as the basis for molecular structure space definition and structure similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 784-791 (2000).
25. Kier, L. B. & Hall, L. H. Database organization and searching with E-state indices. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 12, 55-74 (2001).
26. Hull, R. D. et al. Latent semantic structure indexing (LaSSI) for defining chemical similarity. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1177-1184 (2001).
27. Raymond, J. W. & Willett, P. Effectiveness of graph-based and fingerprint-based similarity measures for virtual screening of 2D chemical structure databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16, 59-71 (2002).
28. Cramer, R. D., Patterson, D. E. & Bunce, J. D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110, 5959-5967 (1988).
29. Hopfinger, A. J. et al. Construction of 3D-QSAR models using the 4D-QSAR analysis formalism. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 10509-10524 (1997).
30. Duca, J. S. & Hopfinger, A. J. Estimation of molecular similarity based on 4D-QSAR analysis: formalism and validation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1367-1387 (2001).
31. Hopfinger, A. J., Reaka, A., Venkatarangan, P, Duca, J. S. & Wang, S. Construction of a virtual high throughput screen by 4D-QSAR analysis: application to a combinatorial library of glucose inhibitors of glycogen phosphorylase b. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 1151-1160 (1999).
32. Xue, L., Godden, J. W. & Bajorath, J. Evaluation of descriptors and mini-fingerprints for the identification of molecules with similar activity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 1227-1234 (2000).
33. Xue, L., Stahura F. L., Godden, J. W. & Bajorath, J. Mini-fingerprints detect similar activity of receptor ligands previously recognized only by three-dimensional pharmacophore-based methods. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 394-401 (2001).
34. Mason, J. S. et al. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: overview over the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J. Med. Chem. 42, 3251-3264 (1999).
35. Mason, J. S. & Cheney, D. L. Library design and virtual screening using multiple point pharmacophore fingerprints. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 5, 576-587 (2000).
36. McGregor, M. J. & Muskal, S. M. Pharmacophore fingerprinting. 1. Application to QSAR and focused library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 569-574 (1999).
37. 1-adrenergic antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 43, 2770-2774 (2000).
38. Brown, R. D. & Martin, Y. C. Use of structure-activity data to compare structure-based clustering methods and descriptors for use in compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36, 572-584 (1996).
39. Brown, R. D. & Martin, Y. C. The information content of 2D and 3D molecular descriptors relevant to ligand-receptor binding. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37, 731-740 (1997).
40. Matter, H. Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 40, 1219-1229 (1997).
41. Willett, P, Wintermann, V. & Bawden, D. Implementation of non-hierarchic cluster analysis methods in chemical information systems: selection of compounds for biological testing and clustering of substructure search output. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 26, 109-118 (1986).
42. Barnard, J. M. & Downs, G. M. Clustering of chemical structures on the basis of two-dimensional similarity measures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 32, 644-649 (1992).
43. Pearlman, R. S. & Smith, K. M. Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect. Drug Discov. Design 9, 339-353 (1998).
44. Pearlman, R. S. & Smith, K. M. Metric validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 28-35 (1999).
45. Bayley, M. J. & Willett, P. Binning schemes for partition-based compound selection. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 17, 10-18 (1999).
46. Agrafiotis, D. K. & Rassokhin, D. N. A fractal approach for selecting an appropriate bin size for cell-based diversity estimation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 117-122 (2002).
47. 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, 801-809 (2000).
48. Xie, D., Tropsha, A. & Schlick, T. An efficient projection protocol for chemical databases: single value decomposition combined with truncated Newton minimization. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 167-177 (2000).
49. Godden, J. W., Xue, L. & Bajorath, J. Classification of biologically active compounds by median partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 1263-1269 (2002).
50. Sheridan, R. P. & Kearsley, S. K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 7, 903-911 (2002).
51. Walters, W. P., Stahl, M. T. & Murcko, M. A. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today 3, 160-178 (1998).
52. Hann, M., Hudson, B., Lifely, R., Miller, L. & Ramsden, N. Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 897-902 (1999).
53. Lipinski, C. A. Avoiding investments in doomed drugs. Curr. Drug Discov. 1, 17-19 (2001).
54. Sutter, J. M. & Jurs, P. C. Prediction of aqueous solubility for a diverse set of heteroatom-containing organic compounds using a quantitative structure-property relationship. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36, 100-107 (1996).
55. Huuskonen, J., Salo, M. & Taskinen, J. Aqueous solubility prediction of drugs based on molecular topology and neural network modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 450-456 (1998).
56. Klopman, G. & Zhao, H. Estimation of aqueous solubility of organic molecules by the group contribution approach. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 439-445 (2001).
57. Jorgensen, W. L. & Duffy, E. R. Prediction of drug solubility from structures. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev. 54, 355-366 (2002).
58. Wessel, M. D., Jurs, P. C., Tolan, J. W. & Muskal, S. M. Prediction of human intestinal absorption of drug compounds from molecular structure. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sol. 38, 726-735 (1998).
59. Egan, W. J., Merz, K. M. Jr & Baldwin, J. J. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J. Med Chem. 43, 3867-3877 (2000).
60. 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. 43, 3714-3717 (2000).
61. Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23, 3-25 (1997).
62. Bemis, G. W. & Murcko, M. A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39, 2887-2893 (1996).
63. Sheridan, R. P. The most common chemical replacements in drug-like compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 103-108 (2002).
64. Oprea, T. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14, 251-264 (2000).
65. Ghose, A. K., Viswanadhan, V. N. & Wendi J. J. A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative characterization of known drug databases. J. Comb. Chem. 1, 55-67 (1999).
66. Muegge, I., Heald, S. L. & Brittelli, D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1841-1846 (2001).
67. Gillet, V. J., Willett, P. & Bradshaw, J. Identification of biological activity profiles using substructural analysis and genetic algorithms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 165-179 (1998).
68. Ajay A., Walters, W. P. & Murcko, M. A. Can we learn to distinguish between 'drug-like' and 'nondrug-like' molecules? J. Med. Chem. 41, 3314-3324 (1998).
69. Sadowski, J. & Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme to distinguish between drugs and non-drugs. J. Med. Chem. 41, 3325-3329 (1998).
70. Norinder, U., Sjöberg, P. & Österberg, T. Theoretical calculation and prediction of blood-brain-barrier partitioning of organic solutes using MolSurf parameterization and PLS statistics. J. Pharm. Sci. 87, 952-959 (1998).
71. van de Waterbeemd, L., Camenisch, G., Folkers, G., Chretien, J. R. & Raevsky, O. A. Estimation of blood-brain barrier crossing of drugs using molecular size and shape, and H-bonding descriptors. J. Drug Target. 6, 151-165 (1998).
72. Kelder, J., Grootenhuis, P. D., Bayada, D. M., Delbressine, L. P. & Ploemen, J. P. Polar molecular surface as a dominating determinant for oral absorption and brain penetration of drugs. Pharm. Res. 16, 1514-1519 (1999).
73. Ajay, A., Bemis, G. W. & Murcko, M. A. Designing libraries with CNS activity. J. Med. Chem. 42, 4942-4951 (1999).
74. Caldwell, G. W., Ritchie, M. M., Masucci, J. A., Hagemann, W. & Yan, Z. The new pre-clinical paradigm: compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery. Curr. Topics Med. Chem. 1, 353-366 (2001).
75. Yoshida, F. & Topliss, J. G. QSAR model for drug human oral bioavailability. J. Med. Chem. 43, 2575-2585 (2000).
76. de Groot, M. J., Ackland, M. J., Horne, V. A., Alex, A. A. & Jones, B. C. A novel approach to predicting P450 mediated drug metabolism. CYP2D6 catalyzed N-dealkylation reactions and qualitative metabolite predictions using a combined protein and pharmacophore model for CYP2D6. J. Med. Chem. 42, 1515-1524 (1999).
77. Ekins, S. et al. Three- and four dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D/4D-QSAR) analyses of CYP2C9 inhibitors. Drug Metab. Dispos. 28, 994-1002 (2000).
78. Jones, J. P., Mysinger, M. & Korzekwa, K. R. Computational models for cytochrome P450: a predictive electronic model for aromatic oxidation and hydrogen atom abstraction. Drug Metab. Dispos. 30, 7-12 (2002).
79. Ahlberg, C. Visual exploration of HTS databases: bridging the gap between chemistry and biology. Drug Discov. Today 4, 370-376 (1999).
80. Engels, M. F., Wouters, L., Verbeeck, R. & Vanhoof, G. Outlier mining in high throughput screening experiments. J. Biomol. Screen. 7, 341-351 (2002).
81. Chen, X., Rusinko, A, & Young, S. S. Recursive partitioning analysis of a large structure-activity data set using three-dimensional descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 1054-1062 (1998).
82. Rusinko, A., Farmen, M. W., Lambert, C. G., Brown, P. L. & Young, S. S. Analysis of a large structure-biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 1017-1026 (1999).
83. Cho, S. J., Shen, C. F. & Hermsmeier, M. A. Binary formal inference-based recursive modeling using multiple atom and physicochemical property class pair and torsion descriptors as decision criteria. J. Chem. Inf. Comput Sci. 40, 668-680 (2000).
84. van Rhee, A. M. et al. Retrospective analysis of an experimental high-throughput screening data set by recursive partitioning. J. Comb. Chem. 3, 267-277 (2001).
85. Miller, D. A. Results of a new classification algorithm combining K nearest neighbors and recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 168-175 (2001).
86. Blower, P., Fligner, M., Verducci, J. & Bjoraker, J. On combining recursive partitioning and simulated annealing to detect groups of biologically active compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 393-404 (2002).
87. Nicolaou, C. A., Tamura, S. Y., Kelley, B. P., Bassett, S. I. & Nutt, R. F. Analysis of large screening data sets via adaptively grown phylogenetic-like trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 1069-1079 (2002).
88. Tamura, S. Y., Bacha, P. A., Gruver, H. S. & Nutt, R. F. Data analysis of high-throughput screening results: application of multidomain clustering to the NCI anti-HIV. J. Med. Chem. 45, 3082-3093 (2002).
89. Menard, P. R., Lewis, R. A. & Mason, J. S. Rational screening set design and compound selection: cascaded clustering. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 497-505 (1998).
90. Rosenkranz, H. S. et al. Development, characterization and application of predictive-toxicology models. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 10, 277-298 (1999).
91. Roberts, G., Myatt, G. J., Johnson, W. P., Cross, K. P. & Blower, P. LeadScope: software for exploring large sets of screening data. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 1302-1314 (2000).
92. Labute, P. Binary QSAR: a new method for the determination of quantitative structure activity relationships. Pac. Symp. Biocomput. 4, 444-455 (1999).
93. Gao, H. Application of BCUT metrics and genetic algorithm in binary QSAR analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 402-407 (2001).
94. Gao, H., Williams, C., Labute, P. & Bajorath, J. Binary quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis of estrogen receptor ligands. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 164-168 (1999).
95. Stahura, F. L., Godden, J. W., Xue, L. & Bajorath, J. Distinguishing between natural products and synthetic molecules by Shannon descriptor entropy analysis and binary QSAR calculations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 1245-1252 (2000).
96. Stahura, F. L., Godden, J. W. & Bajorath, J. Differential Shannon entropy analysis identifies molecular descriptors that predict aqueous solubility of synthetic compounds with high accuracy in binary QSAR calculations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 550-558 (2002).
97. Harper, G., Bradshaw, J., Gittin, J. C., Green, D. V. S. & Leach, A. R. Prediction of biological activity for high-throughput screening using binary kernel discrimination. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1295-1300 (2001).
98. Doman, T. N. et al. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2213-2221 (2002).
99. 1 antagonists using in silico screening. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2988-2993 (2002).
100. Grüneberg, S., Stubbs, M. T. & Klebe, G. Successful virtual screening for novel inhibitors of human carbonic anhydrase: strategy and experimental confirmation. J. Med. Chem. 45, 3588-3602 (2002).
101. Stahura, F. L., Xue, L., Godden, J. W. & Balorath, J. Methods for compound selection focused on hits and application in drug discovery. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20, 439-446 (2002).
102. Manallack, D. T. et al. Selecting screening candidates for kinase and G protein-coupled receptor targets using neural networks. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 1256-1262 (2002).
103. Valler, M. J. & Green, D. Diversity screening versus focused screening in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 5, 286-293 (2000).
104. Martin, Y. C., Kofron, J. L. & Traphagen, L. M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem. 45, 4350-4358 (2002).
105. Engels, M. F. M. & Venkatarangan, P. Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Develop. 4, 275-283 (2001).
106. Engels, M. F. M., Thielemans, T., Verbinnen, D., Tollenaere, J. P. & Verbeeck, R. CerBeruS: a system supporting the sequential screening process. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 241-245 (2000).
107. Jones-Hertzog, D. K., Mukhopadhyay, P., Keefer, C. E. & Young, S. S. Use of recursive partitioning in the sequential screening of G protein-coupled receptors. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 42, 207-215 (1999).
108. Kauvar, L. M. et al. Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. Chem. Biol. 2, 107-118 (1995).
109. Dixon, S. L. & Villar, H. O. Bioactive diversity and screening library selection via affinity fingerprinting. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 1192-1203 (1998).
110. McGovern, S. L., Caselli, E., Grigorieff, N. & Shoichet, B. K. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1712-1722 (2002).
111. Powers, R. A., Morandi, F. & Shoichet, B. K. Structure-based discovery of a novel, noncovalent inhibitor AmpC β-lactamase. Structure 10, 1013-1023 (2002).
112. Sotriffer, C. A., Gohlke, H. & Klebe, G. Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: a comparative evaluation of DrugScore. J. Med. Chem. 45, 1967-1970 (2002).
113. Wei, B., Baase, W., Weaver, L., Matthews & Shoichet, B. K. A model binding site for testing scoring functions in molecular docking. J. Mol. Biol. 322, 339-355 (2002).