Designing screens: How to make your hits a hit

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 2, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 259-266

  Walters, W Patrick ^a   Namchuk, Mark ^a  

^a VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG; PROTEIN KINASE; DRUG; PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITOR;

ANALYTIC METHOD; BIOTECHNOLOGY; CHEMICAL PARAMETERS; CHEMICAL PROCEDURES; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; DRUG SCREENING; ENZYME LINKED IMMUNOSORBENT ASSAY; FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS; FLUORESCENCE POLARIZATION; HYDROGEN BOND; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MOLECULAR WEIGHT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; DRUG DESIGN; GENETICS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOLOGY, CLINICAL; PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITORS; PROTEIN KINASES;

EID: 0037394124     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd1063     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Kapur, R. Fluorescence imaging and engineered biosensors functional and activity-based sensing using high content screening. Ann, NY Acad. Sci. 961, 196-197 (2002).
2. Bleicher, K. H. Chemogenomics: bridging a drug discovery gap. Curr. Med. Chem. 23, 2077-2084 (2002).
3. Namchuk, M. Finding the molecules to fuel chemogenomics. Targets 1, 125-129 (2002).
4. Zhang, J. H., Chung, T. D. & Oldenburg, K. R. A simple statistical parameter for use in evaluation and validation of high throughput screening assays. J. Biomol. Screen. 4, 27-32 (1999).
5. Miller, A. Discovery of cytolkine mimics using cell-based systems. Drug Discov. Today 5, 77-83 (2000).
6. Selvin, P. R. Principles and biophysical applications of lanthanide-based probes. Annu. Rev Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 31, 275-302 (2002).
7. Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F, Dominy, B. W. & Feeney, P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeablity in drug discovery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23, 3-25 (1997).
8. Ghose, A. K., Viswanadhan, V. N. & Wendelowski, J. J. A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative characterization of known drug databases. J. Comb. Chem. 1, 55-67 (1999).
9. Oprea, T.I. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14, 251-264. (2000).
10. Walters, W. P., Ajay, A. & Murcko, M. A. Recognizing molecules with drug-like properties. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 3, 384-387 (1999).
11. Egan, W. J. & Lauri, G. Prediction of intestinal permeability. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54, 273-289 (2002).
12. Clark, D. E. & Grootenhuis, P. D. J. Progress in computational methods for the predicition of ADMET properties. Curr. Opin. Drug. Discov Devel. 5, 382-390 (2002).
13. Hann, M. M., Leach, A. R.& Harper G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. lnf. Comput. Sci. 41, 856-864 (2001).
14. Oprea, T.I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16, 325-34 (2002).
15. Muegge, I., Heald, S. L. & Brittelli, D. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1841-1846 (2001).
16. Mitchell, T. M. Machine Learning (McGraw-Hill, New York, NY 1997).
17. Zupan, J. & Gasteiger, J. Neural Networks for Chemists (VCH, Weinheim, 1993).
18. 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).
19. Sadowski, J. & Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J. Med. Chem. 41, 3325-3329 (1998).
20. Aronov, A. M., Munagala, N. R., Kuntz, I. D. & Wang, C. C. Virtual screening of combinatorial libraries accross a gene family: in search of inhibitors of Giardia lamblia guanine phosphorribosyltransferase. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 45, 2571-2576 (2001).
21. Diller, D. J. & Merz, K. M. High throughput docking for library design and library prioritization. Proteins 43, 113-124 (2001).
22. Stahura, F. L, Xue, L., Gooden, J. W. & Bajorath, J. Molecular scaffold-based design and comparison of combinatorial libraries focused on the ATP-binding site of protein kinases. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 17, 1-9 (1999).
23. Balakin, K. V. et al. Property-based design of GPCR-targeted library. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 1332-1342 (2002).
24. Muegge, I. & Rarey, M. in Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 17 (eds Lipkowitz, K. B. & Boyd, D. B.) 1-60 (Wiley-VCH, New York, 2001).
25. Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A. & Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved nit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42, 5100-5109 (1999).
26. Ajay, A. & Murcko, M. A. Computational methods to predict binding free energy in ligand-receptor complexes. J. Med. Chem. 38, 4953-4967 (1995).
27. Hull, R. D. et al. Chemical similarity searches using latent semantic structural indexing (LaSSI) and comparison to TOPOSIM. J. Med. Chem. 44, 1185-1191 (2001).
28. Kearsley, S. K, & Sheridan, R. P. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 7, 903-911 (2002).
29. Fox, T. et al. A single amino acid substitution makes ERK2 susceptible to pyridinyl imidazole inhibitors of p38 MAP kinase. Protein Sci. 7, 2249-2255 (1998).
30. Stills, M. et al. Comparison of assay technologies for tyrosine kinase assay generates different results in high throughput screening. J. Biomol. Screen. 7, 191-214 (2002).
31. Lipinski, C. A. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 44, 235-249 (2000).
32. Segal, I. Enzyme Kinetics: Behavior and Analysis of Rapid Equilibrium and Steady-State Enzyme Systems. 465-504 (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1993).
33. Motalsky, H. Analysing Data with Graphpad Prism, 173-174 (1998).