Novel technologies for virtual screening

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 27-34

  Lengauer, Thomas ^a   Lemmen, Christian ^b   Rarey, Matthias ^c   Zimmermann, Marc ^d  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR INFORMATICS   (Germany)

^b BioSolveIT GmbH   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

^d Scientific Computing SCAI   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Chemistry space; Combinatorial library; Drug Discovery; High throughput screening; Ligand superposition; Molecular descriptor; Pharmaceutical Science; Techniques Methods; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; ORGANIC COMPOUND;

ACCURACY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PHARMACOPHORE; PROTEIN TARGETING; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; TECHNIQUE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0842349389     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1359-6446(04)02939-3     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Schneider G., Böhm H.J. Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;64-70.
2. Abagyan R., Totrov M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5:2001;375-382.
3. 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.
4. Taylor R.D., et al. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16:2002;151-166.
5. Brooijmans N., Kuntz I.D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 32:2003;335-373.
6. Lyne P.D. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 7:2002;1047-1055.
7. Halperin I., et al. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins. 47:2002;409-443.
8. Good A.C., et al. High-throughput and virtual screening: core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. Drug Discov. Today. 5:(Suppl 1):2000;61-69.
9. Patel Y., et al. A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16:2002;653-681.
10. Lemmen C., et al. FLEXS: a method for fast flexible ligand superposition. J. Med. Chem. 41:1998;4502-4520.
11. Rarey M., et al. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 261:1996;470-489.
12. Lemmen, C. and Lengauer, T. (1999) Fragment-Based Screening of Ligand Databases. In Molecular Modelling and Prediction of Bioactivity, (Gundertofte, K. and Jorgensen, F.S., eds), p. 169-174, Plenum Press, New York.
13. Lemmen C., et al. Multiple molecular superpositioning as an effective tool for virtual database screening. Perspect. Drug Des. Discovery. 20:2000;43-62.
14. Jones G., et al. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9:1995;532-549.
15. 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.
16. Mestres J., et al. A molecular field-based similarity approach to pharmacophoric pattern recognition. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 15:1997;114-121.
17. Carbo R., et al. How similar is a molecule to another? An electron density measure of similarity between two molecular structures. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 17:1980;1185-1189.
18. Good A.C., et al. The utilization of Gaussian functions for the rapid evaluation of molecular similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 32:1992;188-191.
19. Goodford P.J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 28:1985;849-857.
20. Krmer A., et al. Fast 3D molecular superposition and similarity search in databases of flexible molecules. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17:2003;13-18.
21. Pitman M.C., et al. FLASHFLOOD: a 3D field-based similarity search and alignment method for flexible molecules. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15:2001;587-612.
22. Hahn M. Three-dimensional shape-based searching of conformationally flexible compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37:1997;80-86.
23. Putta S., et al. A novel shape-feature based approach to virtual library screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;1230-1240.
24. Putta S., et al. A novel subshape molecular descriptor. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43:2003;1623-1635.
25. Bures, M.G. (1997) Recent techniques and applications in pharmacophore mapping. In Practical Application of Computer-Aided Drug Design (Charifson, P.S., ed.), pp. 39-72, Marcel Dekker, New York.
26. Lemmen C., Lengauer T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14:2000;215-232.
27. Lipinski C.A., et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46:2001;3-26.
28. Tong W., et al. Evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationship methods for large-scale prediction of chemicals binding to the estrogen receptor. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38:1998;669-677.
29. 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 substructures. J. Med. Chem. 42:1999;3251-3264.
30. Willett P., et al. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38:1998;983-996.
31. Sheridan R.P., et al. Chemical similarity using geometric atom pair descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36:1996;128-136.
32. Good A.C., Kuntz I.D. Investigating the extension of pairwise distance pharmacophore measures to triplet-based descriptors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9:1995;373-379.
33. Matter H. Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 40:1997;1219-1229.
34. 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.
35. Brown R.D., Martin Y.C. The information of 2D and 3D structural descriptors relevant to ligand-receptor binding. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37:1997;1-9.
36. Cruciani G., et al. Suitability of molecular descriptors for database mining. A comparative analysis. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;2685-2694.
37. Rarey M., Dixon J.S. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12:1998;471-490.
38. Gillet V.J., et al. Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 13. Reduced graph generation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 31:1991;260-270.
39. Gillet V.J., et al. Similarity searching using reduced graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43:2003;338-345.
40. Barker E.J., et al. Further development of reduced graphs for identifying bioactive compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43:2003;346-356.
41. Matter, H. and Rarey, M. (1999) Design and diversity analysis of compound libraries for lead discovery. In Combinatorial Organic Chemistry, (Jung, G., ed.), pp. 409-439, Wiley-VCH.
42. Cruciani G., et al. VolSurf: a new tool for the pharmacokinetic optimization of lead compounds. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 11:(Suppl 2):2000;S29-S39.
43. Kauvar L.M., et al. Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. Chem. Biol. 2:1995;107-118.
44. Briem H., Lessel U. In vitro and in silico affinity fingerprints: finding similarity beyond structural classes. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 20:2000;231-244.
45. Lewell X.Q., et al. RECAP-retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38:1998;511-522.
46. Schneider G., et al. De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drug-derived building blocks. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14:2000;487-494.
47. Andrews K.M., Cramer R.D. Toward general methods of targeted library design: topomer shape similarity searching with diverse structures as queries. J. Med. Chem. 43:2000;1723-1740.
48. Rarey M., Stahl M. Similarity searching in large combinatorial chemistry spaces. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 15:2001;497-520.
49. Bajorath J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1:2002;882-894.
50. Warmuth M.K., et al. Active learning with support vector machines in the drug discovery process. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43:2003;667-673.
51. Engels M.F., et al. CerBeruS: a system supporting the sequential screening process. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;241-245.
52. Engels M.F., Venkatarangan P. Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 4:2001;275-283.
53. Klopman G., Tu M. Diversity analysis of 14 156 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.
54. Nicolaou C.A., et al. Analysis of large screening data sets via adaptively grown phylogenetic-like trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;1069-1079.
55. Rabow A.A., et al. Mining the National Cancer Institute's tumor-screening database: identification of compounds with similar cellular activities. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;818-840.
56. Roberts G., et al. LeadScope: software for exploring large sets of screening data. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;1302-1314.
57. Chen X., Reynolds C.H. Performance of similarity measures in 2D fragment-based similarity searching: comparison of structural descriptors and similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42:2002;1407-1414.
58. Shi L.M., et al. Mining and visualizing large anticancer drug discovery databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40:2000;367-379.
59. Tamura S.Y., et al. Data analysis of high-throughput screening results: application of multidomain clustering to the NCI anti-HIV data set. J. Med. Chem. 45:2002;3082-3093.
60. Voigt J.H., et al. Comparison of the NCI open database with seven large chemical structural databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41:2001;702-712.
61. Zimmermann, M. et al. (2003) Extracting knowledge from high-throughput screening data: towards the generation of biophore models. In 14th European Symposium on Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships, (Van de Waterbeemd, H. ed.), Blackwell Publishing.