Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures

Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 1177-1185

  Hert, Jérôme ^a   Willett, Peter ^a   Wilton, David J ^a   Acklin, Pierre ^b   Azzaoui, Kamal ^b   Jacoby, Edgar ^b   Schuffenhauer, Ansgar ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b Discovery Technology   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; MOLECULES; ONLINE SEARCHING; PROBABILITY; SENSORS;

BIOACTIVE REFERENCE STRUCTURES; FINGER-BASED METHODS; TANIMOTO COEFFICIENT; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

SCREENING;

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; REVIEW;

MOLECULAR STRUCTURE;

EID: 2942700377     PISSN: 00952338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci034231b     Document Type: Review

References (36)

1. Carhart, R. E.; Smith, D. H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1985, 25, 64-73.
2. Willett, P.; Winterman, V.; Bawden, D. Implementation of nearest neighbour searching in an online chemical structure search system. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1986, 26, 36-41.
3. Willett, P.; Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 983-996.
4. Sheridan, R. P.; Kearsley, S. K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 2002, 7, 903-911.
5. Rower, D. R. On the properties of bit-string based measures of chemical similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 379-386.
6. Godden, J. W.; Xue, L.; Bajorath, J. Combinatorial preferences affect molecular similarity/diversity calculations using binary fingerprints and Tanimoto coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 163-166.
7. Schuffenhauer, A.; Zimmermann, J.; Stoop, R.; van der Vyver, J.-J.; Lecchini, S.; Jacoby, E. An ontology for pharmaceutical ligands and its application for in silico screening and library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 947-955.
8. Schuffenhauer, A.; Floersheim, P.; Acklin, P.; Jacoby, E. Similarity metrics for ligands reflecting the similarity of the target proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 391-405.
9. Holliday, J. D.; Salim, N.; Whittle, M.; Willen, P. Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 819-828.
10. Sheridan, R. P. Finding multiactivity substructures by mining databases of drug-like compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1037-1050.
11. 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. 2002, 42, 1407-1414
12. Fligner, M. A.; Verducci, I. S.; Blower, P. E. A modification of the Jaccard-Tanimoto similarity index for diverse selection of chemical compounds using binary strings. Technometrics 2002, 44, 110-119.
13. Mason, J. S.; Morize, I.; Menard, P. R.; Cheney, D. L.; Hulme, C.; Labaudiniere, R. F. A 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. 1999, 42, 3251-3264.
14. Singh, S. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Fluder, E. M.; Hull, R. D. Mining the chemical quarry with joint chemical probes: an application of latent semantic indexing (LaSSI) and TOPOSIM (Dice) to chemical database mining. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1564-1575.
15. Raymond, J. W.; Willett, P. Effectiveness of graph-based and fingerprint-based similarity measures for virtual screening of 2D chemical structure databases. J. Comput.-Aided. Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 59-71.
16. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity; Johnson, M. A., Maggiora, G. M., Eds.; Wiley: New York, 1990.
17. Patterson, D. E.; Cramer, R. D.; Ferguson, A. M.; Clark, R. D.; Weinberger, L. E. Neighbourhood behaviour: a useful concept for validation of " molecular diversity" descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 3049-3059.
18. Martin, Y. C.; Kofron, J. L.; Traphagen, L. M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 4350-4358.
19. Xue, L.; Stahura, F. L.; Godden, J. W.; Bajorath, J. Fingerprint scaling increases the probability of identifying molecules with similar activity in virtual screening calculations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 746-753.
20. Xue, L.; Godden, J. W.; Stahura, F. L.; Bajorath, J. Profile scaling increases the similarity search performance of molecular fingerprints containing numerical descriptors and structural keys. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1218-1225.
21. Pharmacophore Perception, Development and Use in Drug Design; Guner, O., Ed.; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, 2000.
22. Shemetulskis, N. E.; Weininger, D.; Blankey, C. J.; Yang, J. J.; Humblet, C. Stigmata: an algorithm to determine structural commonalities in diverse data sets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36, 862-871.
23. Klein, L. A. Sensor and Data Fusion Concepts and Applications, 2nd ed.; SPIE The International Society for Optical Engineering: Bellingham, WA, 1999.
24. Ginn, C. M. R.; Willett, P.; Bradshaw, J. Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 1-16.
25. Charifsen, 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.
26. Wang, R.; Wang, S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1422-1426.
27. Salim, N.; Holliday, J. D.; Willett, P. Combination of fingerprint-based similarity coefficients using data fusion. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 435-442.
28. Cramer, R. D.; Redl, G.; Berkoff, C. E. Substructural analysis. A novel approach to the problem of drug design. J. Med. Chem. 1974, 17, 533-535.
29. Ormerod, A.; Willett, P.; Bawden, D. Comparison of fragment weighting schemes for substructural analysis. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1989, 8, 115-129.
30. Readings in Information Retrieval; Spark Jones, K., Willett, P., Eds.; Morgan Kaufman: San Francisco, 1997.
31. Wilton, D. J.; Willett, P.; Lawson, K.; Mullier, G. Comparison of ranking methods for virtual screening in lead-discovery programs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 469-474.
32. Harper, G.; Bradshaw, J.; Gittins, J. C.; Green, D. V. S.; Leach, A. R. Prediction of biological activity for high-throughput screening using binary kernel discrimination. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1295-1300.
33. The MDL Drug Data Report database is available from MDL Information Systems Inc. at http://www.mdli.com.
34. Tripos Inc. is at http://www.tripos.com.
35. Barnard Chemical Information Ltd.is at http://www.bci.gb.com/.
36. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc. is at http:// www.daylight.com.