Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 1134-1146

  Yang, Jinn Moon ^a   Chen, Yen Fu ^a   Shen, Tsai Wei ^a   Kristal, Bruce S ^b,c   Hsu, D Frank ^d,e  

^a NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b BURKE MEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL COLLEGE   (United States)

^d FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DATABASE SYSTEMS; DRUG PRODUCTS; ENZYMES; LEAD COMPOUNDS;

CONSENSUS SCORING; DATA FUSION; ESTROGEN; VIRTUAL SCREENING (VS);

SCREENING;

DIHYDROFOLATE REDUCTASE; ENZYME INHIBITOR; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; FOLIC ACID ANTAGONIST; LIGAND; THYMIDINE KINASE;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EFFECT; FACTUAL DATABASE; PROTEIN BINDING;

ALGORITHMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; ENZYME INHIBITORS; FOLIC ACID ANTAGONISTS; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; TETRAHYDROFOLATE DEHYDROGENASE; THYMIDINE KINASE;

EID: 23844555629     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci050034w     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. DiMasi, J. A.; Hansen, R. W.; Grabowski, H. G. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J. Health Econ. 2003, 22, 151-185.
2. Doman, T. N.; McGovern, S. L.; Witherbee, B. J.; Kasten, T. P.; Kurumbail, R.; Stallings, W. C.; Connolly, D. T.; Schoichet, B. K. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2213-2221.
3. Lyne, P. D. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1047-1055.
4. Shoichet, B. K.; McGovern, S. L.; Wei, B.; Irwin, J. Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 439-446.
5. Shoichet, B. K. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 2004, 432, 862-865.
6. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
7. Weiner, S. J.; Kollman, P. A.; Case, D. A.; Singh, U. C.; Ghio, C.; Alagona, G.; Profeta, S., Jr.; Weiner, P. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic acids and proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 765-784.
8. Gehlhaar, D. K.; Verkhivker, G. M.; Rejto, P.; Sherman, C. J.; Fogel, D. B.; Fogel, L. J.; Freer, S. T. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 1995, 2, 317-324.
9. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
10. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-67.
11. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5100-5109.
12. Ng, K. B.; Kantor, P. B. Predicting the effectiveness of naive data fusion on the basis of system characteristics. J. Am. Soc, Inf. Sci. 2000, 51, 1177-1189.
13. Belkin, N. J.; Kantor, P. B.; Fox, E. A.; Shaw, J. A. Combining evidence of multiple query representation for information retrieval. Inf. Process. Manage. 1995, 31, 431-448.
14. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1177-85.
15. Salim, N.; Holliday, J.; Willett, P. Combination of fingerprint-based similarity coefficients using data fusion. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 435-42.
16. Hsu, D. F.; Shapiro, J.; Taksa, I. Methods of data fusion in information retrieval: rank vs score combination. DIMACS Technical Report 2002, 58, 1-47.
17. Hsu, D. F.; Taksa, I. Comparing rank and score combination methods for data fusion in information retrieval. Inf. Retr. 2005, 8, 449-480.
18. Ewing, T. J.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. -Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 411-428.
19. Kramer, B.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. Evaluation of the flexX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins: Struct., Fund., Bioinf. 1999, 37, 228-241.
20. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C.; Leach, A. R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
21. Verdonk, M. L.; Berdini, V.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Mooij, W. T.; Murray, C. W.; Taylor, R. D.; Watson, P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 793-806.
22. Wang, R.; Wang, S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1422-6.
23. Chuang, H. Y.; Liu, H. F.; Chen, F. A.; Kao, C.-Y.; Hsu, D. F. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks (I-SPAN) 2004, 625-630.
24. Yang, J.-M.; Chen, C.-C. GEMDOCK: a generic evolutionary method for molecular docking. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2004, 55, 288-304.
25. van Lipzig, M. M.; ter Laak, A. M.; Jongejan, A.; Vermeulen, N. P.; Wamelink, M.; Geerke, D.; Meerman, J. H. Prediction of ligand binding affinity and orientation of xenoestrogens to the estrogen receptor by molecular dynamics simulations and the linear interaction energy method. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1018-1030.
26. Herman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N.; Weissig, H.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The Protein Data Bank. Nucl. Acids Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
27. Yang, J.-M.; Shen, T.-W.; Chen, Y.-F.; Chiu, Y.-Y. An evolutionary approach with pharmacophore-based scoring functions for virtual database screening. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2004, 3102, 481-492.
28. Yang, J.-M.; Shen, T.-W. A pharmacophore-based evolutionary approach for screening selective estrogen receptor modulators. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2005, 59, 205-220.
29. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. 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. Des. 1997, 11, 425-445.
30. Fisher, L. S.; Guner, O. F. Seeking novel leads through structurebased pharmacophore design. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2002, 13, 111-787.
31. Hsu, D. F.; Palumbo, A. In Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Parallel Architectures, Algorithms, and Networks (I-SPAN) 2004, 557-562.
32. Jain, A. N. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 499-511.