Chemical substructures in drug discovery

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 8, Issue 13, 2003, Pages 594-602

  Merlot, Cédric ^a   Domine, Daniel ^a   Cleva, Christophe ^a   Church, Dennis J ^a  

^a SERONO PHARMACEUTICAL RES INSTITUTE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Activity prediction; ADMET; High throughput screening; Statistical methods; Substructure analysis; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SELECTIVITY; LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MULTIPLE REGRESSION; PREDICTION; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICITY; VIRTUAL REALITY;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0038042482     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(03)02740-5     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Bajorath J. Rational drug discovery revisited: interfacing experimental programs with bio- and chemo-informatics. Drug Discov. Today. 6:2001;989-995.
2. Engels M.F.M., Ventkatarangan P. Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 4:2001;275-283.
3. Merlot C., et al. Fragment analysis in small molecule discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;391-399.
4. Boguslavsky J. Minimizing risk in hits to leads. Drug Discov. Devel. 4:2001;26-30.
5. Joseph-McCarthy, D. (2002) An overview of in silico design and screening: toward efficient drug discovery. Curr. Drug Discov. March, 20-23.
6. Manly C.J., et al. The impact of informatics and computational chemistry on synthesis and screening. Drug Discov. Today. 6:2001;1101-1110.
7. Rusinko A., et al. Analysis of a large structure/biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39:1999;1017-1026.
8. Jones-Hertzog D.K. Use of recursive partitioning in the sequential screening of G-protein-coupled receptors. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 42:1999;207-215.
9. Roberts G., et al. LeadScope: Software for exploring large sets of screening data. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;1302-1314.
10. Church, D.J. and Colinge, J. (2000) Method of operating a computer system to perform a discrete substructural analysis. Eur. Pat. Appl. EP 00/309114 PCT Int. Appl. WO 02, 2002.
11. Cleva, C. et al. (2002) Privileged substructure searching for focused set design. Presentation at the 224th ACS meeting, August 18-22, Boston.
12. Nicolaou, C. et al. (2000) Method and system for artificial intelligence directed lead discovery through multi-domain clustering. PCT Int. Appl. WO 00/049539.
13. Klopman G., Tu M. Diversity analysis of 14156 molecules tested by the National Cancer Institute for anti-HIV activity using the quantitative structure-activity relational expert system MCASE. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;992-998.
14. Livingstone D.J. The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;195-209.
15. Sheridan R.P., Kearsley S.K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;903-911.
16. Root D.E. Global analysis of large-scale chemical and biological experiments. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;355-360.
17. Bajorath J. Selected concepts and investigations in compound classification, molecular descriptor analysis, and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;233-245.
18. Bajorath, J. (2002) Virtual screening in drug discovery: methods, expectations and reality. Curr. Drug Discov. March, 24-28.
19. Langer T., Hoffmann R.D. Virtual screening: an effective tool for lead structure discovery? Curr. Pharm. Des. 7:2001;509-527.
20. 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. 36:1996;572-584.
21. Rhodes N., Willett P. Bit-string methods for selective compound acquisition. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;210-214.
22. MDL Information Systems Inc San Leandro, CA, USA. http://www.mdl.com.
23. MacGuish J., et al. Ties in proximity and clustering compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;134-146.
24. Cosgrove D.A., Willett P. SLASH: A program for analyzing the functional groups in molecules. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 16:1998;19-32.
25. Randic M., et al. On structural interpretation of several distance related topological indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;593-601.
26. Randic M., Zupan J. On interpretation of well-known topological indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;550-560.
27. Carhart R.E., et al. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definitions and applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 25:1985;64-73.
28. Nilakantan R. Topological torsions: a new molecular descriptor for SAR application comparison with other descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 27:1987;82-85.
29. Roberts G., et al. LeadScope: software for exploring large sets of screening data. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;1302-1314.
30. Johnson D.E. Chem-tox informatics: data mining using medicinal chemistry building block approach. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 4:2001;92-101.
31. Roche O. Development of virtual screening method for identification of 'frequent hitters' in compound libraries. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;137-142.
32. Nicolaou C.A., et al. Analysis of large screening data sets via adaptively grown phylogeneticlike trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;1069-1079.
33. Blower P., et al. On combining recursive partitioning and simulated annealing to detect groups of biologically active compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;393-404.
34. Sauer, W. et al. (2001) Cost-effective discovery using predictive substructural analysis. Presentation at the Drug Discovery Technology meeting, Boston.
35. Valler M.J., Green D. Diversity screening versus focused screening in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 5:2000;286-293.
36. Domine, D. et al. (2001) High-throughput lead discovery using predictive substructural analysis. 221st ACS Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA COMP-099.
37. McGovern S.L., et al. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;1712-1722.
38. Cho S.J., et al. 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. 40:2000;668-680.
39. Young S.S., et al. Initial compound selection for sequential screening. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;422-427.
40. Abt M., et al. A sequential approach for identifying lead compounds in large chemical databases. Stat. Sci. 16:2001;154-168.
41. Kubinyi H. High throughput in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;707-709.
42. Walters W.P., et al. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 3:1998;169-178.
43. Nilakantan R., et al. A novel approach to combinatorial library design. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 5:2002;105-110.
44. Hecht, P. (2002) High-throughput screening: beating the odds with informatics-driven chemistry. Curr. Drug Discov. January, 21-24.
45. Ritchie T.J. Chemoinformatics: manipulating chemical information to facilitate decision-making in drug-discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 6:2001;813-814.
46. Tropsha A., Zheng W. Rational principles of compound selection for combinatorial library design. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 5:2002;111-123.
47. Beroza P., et al. Chemoproteomics as basis for post-genomic drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;807-814.
48. Bohacek R.S., et al. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 16:1996;3-50.
49. Augen J. The evolving role of information technology in the drug discovery process. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;315-323.
50. Lahana R. Cheminformatics - decision making in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;898-900.
51. Clark D.E., et al. Progress in computational methods for the prediction of ADMET properties. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;382-390.
52. Teague S.J., et al. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 38:1999;3743-3748.
53. Oprea T.I., et al. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;1308-1315.
54. van Dongen M. Structure-based screening and design in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;471-478.
55. Viswanadhan V.N. Knowledge-based approaches in the design and selection of compound libraries for drug-discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;400-406.
56. Williams D.P., Naisbitt D.J. Toxicophores: groups and metabolic routes associated with increased safety risks. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;104-115.
57. Barratt M.D., Rodford R.A. The computational prediction of toxicity. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5:2001;383-388.
58. Schwetz, BA et al. (1999) Science at the FDA: improving the scientific basis of regulation through collaboration with 'stakeholders' http://www.fda.gov/oc/oha/fdascience.htm.
59. On the World Wide Web URL: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/May02/051002/ 99N-2079_emc-000002-01.pdf.
60. Benz, D. Presentation at the 22nd Annual Meeting of the American College of Toxicology. Washington, DC. &-Nov-01.
61. Durham S.K., Pearl G.M. Computational methods to predict drug safety liabilities. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 4:2001;110-115.
62. Lyne P.D. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;1047-1055.
63. van de Waterbeemd H. High-throughput and in silico techniques in drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;33-43.
64. Waszkowycz B. Structure-based approaches to drug design and virtual screening. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 5:2002;407-413.
65. Engkvist O., Wrede P. High-throughput, in silico prediction of aqueous solubility based on one- and two-dimensional descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;1247-1249.
66. Raevsky O.A., et al. SLIPPER-2001 - Software for predicting molecular properties on the basis of physicochemical descriptors and structural similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;540-549.
67. Advanced Chemistry Development. On the World Wide Web URL: http://www.acdlabs.com/products/phys_chemlab/aqsol.
68. Klopman G., Zhu H. Estimation of the aqueous solubility of organic molecules by the group contribution approach. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;439-445.
69. Cramer R.D., et al. Substructural analysis. A novel approach to the problem of drug design. J. Med. Chem. 17:1974;533-535.
70. Engkvist O., et al. Prediction of CNS activity of compound libraries using substructure analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43:2003;155-160.
71. Lee, P.W. (2001) Metabolism expert system: Management of metabolism information and knowledge. Presentation at the 222th ACS meeting, August 26-30, Chicago.