Enhanced virtual screening by combined use of two docking methods: Getting the most on a limited budget

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 1017-1023

  Maiorov, Vladimir ^a   Sheridan, Robert P ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DRUG PRODUCTS; LEAD COMPOUNDS; OPTIMIZATION; SCREENING;

BINDING CAVITY; DOCKING PROGRAMS; STRUCTURE-BASED LEAD DISCOVERY PROCESSES; VIRTUAL LIGAND SCREENING;

MOLECULAR STRUCTURE;

LIGAND;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG SCREENING; ECONOMICS; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN BINDING; TIME;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; LIGANDS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PROTEIN BINDING; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 23844487874     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci050089y     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Taylor, R. D.; Jewsbury, P. J.; Essex, J. W. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 151-166.
2. Shoichet, B. K.; McGovern, S. L.; Wei, B.; Irwin, J. J. Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr. Opm. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 439-446.
3. Schneider, G.; Bohm, H. J. Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 64-70.
4. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
5. Lyne, P. D. Structure-based virtual screening: An overview. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1047-1055.
6. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 56, 234-249.
7. Bursulaya, B. D.; Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R.; Brooks, C. L., III. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 755-763.
8. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2001, 5, 375-382.
9. Miller, M. D.; Kearsley, S. K.; Underwood, D. J.; Sheridan, R. P. FLOG: A system to select 'quasi-flexible' ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 153-174.
10. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M.; Kuznetsov, D. ICM-a new method for protein modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem. 1994, 15, 488-506.
11. Abagyan, R.; Totrov, M. Biased probability Monte Carlo conformational searches and electrostatic calculations for peptides and proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1994, 235, 983-1002.
12. Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R. Flexible protein-ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates. Proteins 1997, 1 (Suppl.), 215-220.
13. Kuntz, I. D.; Blaney, J. M.; Oatley, S. J.; Langridge, R.; Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 1982, 161, 269-288.
14. Shoichet, B. K.; Kuntz, I. D. Matching chemistry and shape in molecular docking. Protein Eng. 1993, 6, 723-732.
15. Kearsley, S. K.; Underwood, D. J.; Sheridan, R. P.; Miller, M. D. Flexibases: A way to enhance the use of molecule docking methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 565-582.
16. Clark, R. D.; Strizhev, A.; Leonard, J. M.; Blake, J. F.; Matthew, J. B. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2002, 20, 281-295.
17. ICM-Pro, version 3.0; Molsoft, LLC: LaJolla, CA.
18. 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 Delivery Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
19. Herman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, J.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N.; Weissig. H.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
20. Pan, Y.; Huang, N.; Cho, S.; MacKerell, A. D. J. Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 267-272.
21. Hoffmann, D.; Kramer, B.; Washio, T.; Steinmetzer, T.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. Two-stage method for protein-ligand docking. J. Meet. Chem. 1999, 42, 4422-4433.
22. Wang, R.; Lai, L.; Wang, S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 11-26.
23. 2, version 4.6; Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA. http://www. accelrys.com.