Relationships between molecular complexity, biological activity, and structural diversity

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 525-535

  Schuffenhauer, Ansgar ^a   Brown, Nathan ^a   Selzer, Paul ^a   Ertl, Peter ^a   Jacoby, Edgar ^a  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOCHEMISTRY; CONFORMAL MAPPING; ENZYMES; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PATTERN RECOGNITION; SET THEORY;

BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; LIGAND MOLECULE; MOLECULAR COMPLEXITY; STRUCTURAL DIVERSITY;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

LIGAND;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG DESIGN; IC 50; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DRUG DESIGN; INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION 50; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 33646237094     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0503558     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (44)

1. Maggiora, G. M.; Johnson, M. A. Concepts and applications of molecular similarity; John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1990; pp 99-117.
2. Martin Y. C.; Kofron, J. L.; Traphagen L. M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 4350-4358.
3. Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A.; Acklin, P. The contribution of molecular informatics to chemogenomics. Knowledge-based discovery of biological targets and chemical lead compounds. Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry; 2004; Vol. 22 (Chemogenomics in drug discovery), pp 139-166.
4. Van Drie, J. H. Pharmacophore discovery-lessons learned. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003, 9, 1649-1664.
5. Kitchen, D. B.: Decornez, H.; Furr, J. R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 935-949.
6. Gillet, V. J. De novo molecular design. Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry; 2000; Vol. 8 (Evolutionary Algorithms in Molecular Design), pp 49-69.
7. Schneider, G.; Fechner, U. Computer-based de novo design of druglike molecules. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2005, 4, 649-63.
8. Bohacek, R. S.; McMartin, C.; Guida, W. C. The art and practice of structure based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 1996, 16, 3-50.
9. Villar, H. O.; Koehler R. T. Comments on the design of chemical libraries for screening. Mol. Divers. 2000, 5, 13-24.
10. Schuffenhauer, A.; Popov, M.; Schopfer, U.; Acklin, P.; Stanek, J.; Jacoby, E. Molecular diversity management strategies for building and enhancement of diverse and focused lead discovery compound screening collections. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 2004, 7, 771-781.
11. Lewis, R. A.; Pickett, S. D.; Clark, D. E. Computer-aided molecular diversity analysis and combinatorial library design. Rev. Comput. Chem. 2000, 16, 1-51.
12. Martin, Y. C. Diverse viewpoints on computational aspects of molecular diversity. J. Comb. Chem. 2001, 3, 231-250.
13. Perez J. J. Managing molecular diversity. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2005, 34. 143-152.
14. Hann, M. M.; Leach, A. R.; Harper, G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 856-864.
15. Hann, M. M.; Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8, 225-263.
16. Hann, M. M.: Leach, A. R.; Green, D. V. S. Computational chemistry, molecular complexity and screening set design. Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry; 2005; Vol. 23 (Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery), pp 43-57.
17. Goodnow, R. A., Jr.; Gillespie, P.; Bleicher, K. Chemoinformatic tools for library design and the hit-to-lead process: a user's perspective. Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry, 2005; Vol. 23 (Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery), pp 381-435.
18. Selzer, P.; Roth H. J.; Ertl, P.; Schuffenhauer, A. Complex molecules - do they add value? Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2005, 9, 1-7.
19. Flower, D. R. On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 379-386.
20. Holliday, J. D.; Salim, N.; Whittle, M.; Willett, P. Analysis and Display of the Size Dependence of Chemical Similarity Coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 819-828.
21. Clark, R. D. OptiSim: An extended dissimilarity selection method for finding diverse representative subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 1181-1188.
22. Tripos, Inc. is at http://www.tripos.com.
23. Pipeline Pilot is a product of SciTegic, Inc. is at http://www.scitegic-. com.
24. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2, 3256-3266.
25. Steinbach, M.; Karypis, G.; Kumar, V. A. Comparison of Document Clustering Techniques; Technical Report 00-034; Department of Computer Science & Engineering: University of Minnesota, 2000.
26. Bocker, A.; Derksen, S.; Schmidt, E.; Teckentrup, A.; Schneider, G. A Hierarchical Clustering Approach for Large Compound Libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 807-815.
27. BCI (Barnard Chemical Information Ltd.) is at http://www.bci.gb.com.
28. Allu, T. K.; Oprea, T. I. Rapid Evaluation of Synthetic and Molecular Complexity for in Silico Chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2005, in press, doi 10.1021/ci0501387.
29. Takaoka, Y.; Endo, Y.; Yamanobe, S.; Kakinuma, H.; Okubo, T.; Shimazaki, Y.; Ota, T.; Sumiya, S.; Yoshikawa, K. Development of a method for evaluating drug-likeness and ease of synthesis using a data set in which compounds are assigned scores based on chemists' intuition. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1269-1275.
30. 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.
31. Kuntz, I. D.; Chen, K.; Sharp, K. A.; Kollman, P. A. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96, 9997-10002.
32. Hopkins, A. L.; Groom, C. R. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discovery Today 2004, 9, 430-431.
33. Hemmer, M. C.; Steinhauer, V.; Gasteiger, J. Deriving the 3D structure of organic molecules from their infrared spectra. Vib. Spectrosc. 1999, 19, 151-164.
34. Gasteiger, J.; Rudolph, C.; Sadowski, J. Automatic Generation of 3D- Atomic Coordinates for Organic Molecules. Tetrahedron Comput. Method. 1990, 3, 537-547.
35. CORINA is a product of Molecular Networks, GmbH at www.mol-net.de.
36. Zupan, J.; Gasteiger, J. Neural Networks in Chemistry and Drug Design; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 1999.
37. Yan, A.; Gasteiger, J. Prediction of Aqueous Solubility of Organic Compounds Based on a 3D Structure Representation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 429-434.
38. Bemis, G. W.; Murcko, M. A. The Properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2887-2893.
39. Rees, D. C.; Congreve, M.; Murray C. W.; Carr, R. Fragment based lead discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discovery 2004, 3, 550-672.
40. Erlanson, D. A.; McDowell, R. S.; O'Brien, T. Fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3463-3482.
41. Schuffenhauer, A.; Ruedisser, S.; Marzinzik, A. L.; Jahnke, W.; Blommers, M.; Selzer, P.; Jacoby, E. Library Design for Fragment Based Screening, Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2005, 5, 751-762.
42. Engels, F. M.; Venkatarangan, P. Smart screening: Approaches to efficient HTS. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2001, 4, 275-283.
43. Baringhaus, K.-H.; Hessler, G. Fast similarity searching and screening hit analysis. Drug Discovery Today: Technol. 2004, 1, 197-202.
44. Glick, M.; Klon, A. E.; Acklin, P.; Davies, J. W. Enrichment of Extremely Noisy High-Throughput Screening Data Using a Naïve Bayes Classifier. J. Biomol. Screen. 2004, 9, 32-36.