Structure-based virtual screening: An overview

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 7, Issue 20, 2002, Pages 1047-1055

  Lyne, Paul D ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR 10A; CARBONATE DEHYDRATASE II; DNA TOPOISOMERASE (ATP HYDROLYSING); ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; KINESIN; LIGAND; RETINOIC ACID RECEPTOR; THROMBIN; THYMIDYLATE SYNTHASE; TRANSFERASE; VIRUS RNA;

ANALYTIC METHOD; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA BASE; DNA RESPONSIVE ELEMENT; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SOLUBILITY; DRUG STABILITY; DRUG TARGETING; GENOMICS; LIPOPHILICITY; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; RELIABILITY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ANIMALS; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 0037107887     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(02)02483-2     Document Type: Review

References (73)

1. Myers S., Baker A. Drug discovery - an operating model for a new era. Nat. Biotechnol. 19:2001;727-730.
2. Dean N.M. Functional genomics and target validation approaches using antisense oligonucleotide technology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 12:2001;622-625.
3. Hertzberg R.P., Pope A.J. High-throughput screening: new technology for the 21st century. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 4:2000;445-451.
4. Otto S., et al. Dynamic combinatorial chemistry. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;117-125.
5. Li A.P. Screening for human ADME/Tox drug properties in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 6:2001;357-366.
6. Walters W.P., Murcko M.A. Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54:2002;255-271.
7. Carr R., Jhoti H. Structure-based screening of low-affinity compounds. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;522-527.
8. Diercks T.C.M., et al. Applications of NMR in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5:2001;285-291.
9. Walters W.P., et al. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 3:1998;160-178.
10. Mestres J., Knegtel R.M.A. Similarity versus docking in 3D virtual screening. Perspect. Drug Des. Discovery. 20:2000;191-207.
11. Mason J.S., et al. 3-D pharmacophores in drug discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 7:2001;567-597.
12. Srinivasan J., et al. Evaluation of a novel shape-based computational filter for lead evolution: Application to thrombin inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;2494-2500.
13. Halperin I., et al. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 47:2002;409-443.
14. Lipinski C.A., et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Discov. Res. 23:1997;3-25.
15. Palm K., et al. Correlation of drug absorption with molecular surface properties. J. Pharm. Sci. 85:1996;32-39.
16. Sadowski J. A hybrid approach for ring flexibility in 3D database searching. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 11:1997;53-60.
17. Gasteiger J., Marsili M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity - rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron. 36:1980;3219-3288.
18. Halgren T.A. Merck molecular force field. 2. MMFF94 van der Waals and electrostatic parameters for intermolecular interations. J. Comput. Chem. 17:1996;520-552.
19. Hendlich M. Databases for protein-ligand complexes. Acta Crystallogr. D. 54:1998;1178-1182.
20. Hooft R.W.W., et al. Errors in protein structures. Nature. 381:1996;272.
21. 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.
22. Lomber D.M., Shoichet B.K. Flexible ligand docking using configurational ensembles. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 7:1998;938-950.
23. McMartin C., Bohacek R.S. QXP: powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 11:1997;333-344.
24. Liu M., Wang S. MCDOCK: a Monte Carlo simulation approach to the molecular docking problem. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 13:1999;435-451.
25. Jones G., et al. Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. J. Mol. Biol. 245:1995;43-53.
26. Morris G.M., et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19:1998;1639-1662.
27. Abagyan R.A., et al. ICM - a new method for protein modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem. 15:1994;488-506.
28. Rarey M., et al. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 261:1996;470-489.
29. Ewing T.J.A., et al. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 15:2001;411-428.
30. Schnecke V., Kuhn L.A. Virtual screening with solvation and ligand-induced complementarity. Perspect. Drug Des. Discov. 20:2000;171-190.
31. Philippopoulos M., Lim C. Exploring the dynamic information content of a protein NMR structure: Comparison of a molecular dynamics simulation with NMR and X-ray structures of E. coli ribonuclease H1. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 36:1999;87-110.
32. Knegtel R.M.A., et al. Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 266:1997;424-440.
33. ClauBen H., et al. Efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. J. Mol. Biol. 308:2001;377-395.
34. Osterberg F., et al. Automated docking to multiple target structures: incorporation of protein mobility and structural water heterogeneity in AutoDock. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 46:2002;34-40.
35. Ajay A., Murcko M.A. Computational methods to predict binding free energy in ligand-receptor complexes. J. Med. Chem. 38:1995;4953-4967.
36. Cornell W.D., et al. A second generation force-field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids and organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117:1995;5179-5197.
37. MacKerell A.D., et al. All-atom empirical potential for molecular modeling and dynamics studies of proteins. J. Phys. Chem. B. 102:1998;3586-3616.
38. Kollman P.A. Free energy calculations: application to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem. Rev. 93:1993;2395-2417.
39. Bohm H.J. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant of a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 8:1994;243-256.
40. Head R.D., et al. VALIDATE: a new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 118:1996;3959-3969.
41. Eldridge M.D., et al. Empirical scoring functions. 1. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 11:1997;425-445.
42. Bohm H.J. The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 6:1992;61-78.
43. Gehlhaar D.K., et al. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease - conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 2:1995;317-324.
44. Sippl M. Knowledge-based potentials for proteins. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 5:1995;229-235.
45. Muegge I. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug Des. Discov. 20:2000;99-114.
46. Mitchell J.B.O., et al. Bleep - potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data. J. Comp. Chem. 20:1999;1177-1185.
47. Ishchenko A.V., Shakhnovich E.I. Small molecule growth 2001 (SMoG2001): An improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;2770-2780.
48. Gohlke H., et al. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 295:2000;337-356.
49. Pearlman D.A., Charifson P.S. Are free energy calculations useful in practice? A comparison with rapid scoring functions for the p38 MAP kinase protein system. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;3417-3423.
50. Sotriffer C.A., et al. Docking into knowledge-based potential fields: a comparitive evaluation of DrugScore. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;1967-1970.
51. 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.
52. Bissantz C., et al. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 43:2000;4759-4767.
53. Stahl M., Rarey M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 44:2001;1035-1042.
54. Wang R.X., Wang S.M. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;1422-1426.
55. Dixon, J.S. (1997) Evaluation of the CASP2 docking section. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. (Suppl. 1), 198-204
56. Honig B., Nicholls A. Classical electrostatics in biology and chemistry. Science. 268:1995;1144-1149.
57. Grant J.A., et al. A smooth permitivity function for Poisson-Boltzman solvation methods. J. Comp. Chem. 22:2001;608-640.
58. Shoichet B.K., et al. Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 34:1999;4-16.
59. Stahl M., Bohm H.J. Development of filter functions for protein-ligand docking. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 16:1998;121-132.
60. Lam P.Y.S., et al. Rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors. Science. 263:1994;380-384.
61. Goodford P.J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favourable binding sites on biologically important molecules. J. Med. Chem. 28:1985;849-857.
62. Miranker A., Karplus M. Functionality maps of binding sites: a multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 11:1991;29-34.
63. Verdonk M.L., et al. Superstar: a knowledge-based approach for identifying interaction sites on proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 289:1999;1093-1108.
64. Gruneberg S., et al. Subnanomolar inhibitors from computer screening: a model study using human carbonic anhydrase II. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 40:2001;389-393.
65. Doman T.N., et al. Molecular docking and high throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;2213-2221.
66. Baxter C.A., et al. New approach to molecular docking and its application to virtual screening of chemical databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;254-262.
67. Tondi D., et al. Structure-based discovery and in-parallel optimization of novel competitive inhibitors of thymidylate synthase. Chem. Biol. 6:1999;319-331.
68. Schapira M., et al. Rational discovery of novel nuclear hormone receptor antagonists. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 97:2000;1008-1013.
69. Perola E., et al. Successful virtual screening of a chemical database for farnesyltransferase inhibitor leads. J. Med. Chem. 43:2000;401-408.
70. Hopkins S.C., et al. Inhibitors of kinesin activity from structure-based computer screening. Biochemistry. 39:2000;2805-2814.
71. Aronov A.M., et al. Rational design of selective submicromolar inhibitors of Tritrichmonas foetus hypoxanthine-guanine-xanthine phosphoribosyltransferase. Biochemistry. 39:2000;4684-4691.
72. Boehm H-J., et al. Novel inhibitors of DNA gyrase: 3D structure based biased needle screening. Hit validation by biophysical methods, and 3D guided optimization. A promising alternative to random screening. J. Med. Chem. 43:2000;2664-2674.
73. Filikov A.V., et al. Identification of ligands for RNA targets via structure-based virtual screening: HIV-1 TAR. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design. 14:2000;593-610.