Streamlining lead discovery by aligning in silico and high-throughput screening

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 343-351

  Davies, John W ^a   Glick, Meir ^a   Jenkins, Jeremy L ^a  

^a NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER MODEL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG INDUSTRY; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; REVIEW;

BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; GENOMICS;

EID: 33746058237     PISSN: 13675931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2006.06.022     Document Type: Review

References (78)

1. Schnecke V., and Bostrom J. Computational chemistry-driven decision making in lead generation. Drug Discov Today 11 (2006) 43-50. An excellent review article on modern in silico screening.
2. Shoichet B.K. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 432 (2004) 862-865
3. Chin D.N., Chuaqui C.E., and Singh J. Integration of virtual screening into the drug discovery process. Mini Rev Med Chem 4 (2004) 1053-1065
4. Young S.S., Lam R.L., and Welch W.J. Initial compound selection for sequential screening. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 5 (2002) 422-427
5. Baringhaus K.H., and Hessler G. Fast similarity searching and screening hit analysis. Drug Discov Today Technol 1 (2004) 197-202
6. Pearce B.C., Sofia M.J., Good A.C., Drexler D.M., and Stock D.A. An empirical process for the design of high-throughput screening deck filters. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 1060-1068
7. Walters W.P., and Namchuk M. Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2 (2003) 259-266
8. Lipinski C.A., Lombardo F., Dominy B.W., and Feeney P.J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 46 (2001) 3-26
9. Tan D.S. Current progress in natural product-like libraries for discovery screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 631-643
10. Clardy J., and Walsh C. Lessons from natural molecules. Nature 432 (2004) 829-837
11. Reayi A., and Arya P. Natural product-like chemical space: search for chemical dissectors of macromolecular interactions. Curr Opin Chem Biol 9 (2005) 240-247
12. Karnachi P.S., and Brown F.K. Practical approaches to efficient screening: information-rich screening protocol. J Biomol Screen 9 (2004) 678-686
13. Weaver D.C. Applying data mining techniques to library design, lead generation and lead optimization. Curr Opin Chem Biol 8 (2004) 264-270
14. Rogers D., Brown R.D., and Hahn M. Using extended-connectivity fingerprints with Laplacian-modified Bayesian analysis in high-throughput screening follow-up. J Biomol Screen 10 (2005) 682-686
15. Xia X., Maliski E.G., Gallant P., and Rogers D. Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 4463-4470. The first noted paper on the use of Baeysian modeling of HTS data.
16. Bender A., Mussa H.Y., Glen R.C., and Reiling S. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 1708-1718
17. Rusinko A., Farmen M.W., Lambert C.G., Brown P.L., and Young S.S. Analysis of a large structure/biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 39 (1999) 1017-1026
18. Vapnik V. Statistical Learning Theory (1998), Wiley, New York
19. Glick M., Jenkins J.L., Nettles J.H., Hitchings H., and Davies J.W. Enrichment of high-throughput screening data with increasing levels of noise using support vector machines, recursive partitioning, and Laplacian-modified naive Bayesian classifiers. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 193-200
20. Engels M.F., and Venkatarangan P. Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 4 (2001) 275-283
21. Shanmugasundaram V., Maggiora G.M., and Lajiness M.S. Hit-directed nearest-neighbor searching. J Med Chem 48 (2005) 240-248
22. Glick M., Klon A.E., Acklin P., and Davies J.W. Enrichment of extremely noisy high-throughput screening data using a naive Bayes classifier. J Biomol Screen 9 (2004) 32-36
23. Makino S., and Kuntz I.D. Automated flexible ligand docking method and its application for database search. J Comput Chem 18 (1997) 1812-1825
24. Rarey M., Kramer B., Lengauer T., and Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261 (1996) 470-489
25. Jones G., Willett P., Glen R.C., Leach A.R., and Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 267 (1997) 727-748
26. Friesner R.A., Banks J.L., Murphy R.B., Halgren T.A., Klicic J.J., Mainz D.T., Repasky M.P., Knoll E.H., Shelley M., Perry J.K., et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 1739-1749
27. Abagyan R., Totrov M., and 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 15 (1994) 488-506
28. Chen H., Lyne P.D., Giordanetto F., Lovell T., and Li J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 401-415
29. Wang R., and Wang S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41 (2001) 1422-1426
30. Klon A.E., Glick M., Thoma M., Acklin P., and Davies J.W. Finding more needles in the haystack: a simple and efficient method for improving high-throughput docking results. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 2743-2749
31. Klon A.E., Glick M., and Davies J.W. Application of machine learning to improve the results of high-throughput docking against the HIV-1 protease. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 2216-2224
32. Klon A.E., Glick M., and Davies J.W. Combination of a naive bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of high-throughput docking results. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 4356-4359
33. Deng Z., Chuaqui C., and Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 337-344
34. Deng Z., Chuaqui C., and Singh J. Knowledge-based design of target-focused libraries using protein-ligand interaction constraints. J Med Chem 49 (2006) 490-500
35. Doman T.N., McGovern S.L., Witherbee B.J., Kasten T.P., Kurumbail R., Stallings W.C., Connolly D.T., and Shoichet B.K. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. J Med Chem 45 (2002) 2213-2221
36. Fishman M.C., and Porter J.A. Pharmaceuticals: a new grammar for drug discovery. Nature 437 (2005) 491-493
37. Hert J., Willett P., Wilton D.J., Acklin P., Azzaoui K., Jacoby E., and Schuffenhauer A. New methods for ligand-based virtual screening: use of data fusion and machine learning to enhance the effectiveness of similarity searching. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 462-470
38. Good A.C., Hermsmeier M.A., and Hindle S.A. Measuring CAMD technique performance: a virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 18 (2004) 529-536
39. Renner S., and Schneider G. Fuzzy pharmacophore models from molecular alignments for correlation-vector-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 4653-4664
40. Jilek R.J., and Cramer R.D. Topomers: a validated protocol for their self-consistent generation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 1221-1227
41. Harper G., Bravi G.S., Pickett S.D., Hussain J., and Green D.V. The reduced graph descriptor in virtual screening and data-driven clustering of high-throughput screening data. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 2145-2156
42. Jenkins J.L., Glick M., and Davies J.W. A 3D similarity method for scaffold hopping from known drugs or natural ligands to new chemotypes. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 6144-6159
43. Bender A., Mussa H.Y., Gill G.S., and Glen R.C. Molecular surface point environments for virtual screening and the elucidation of binding patterns (MOLPRINT 3D). J Med Chem 47 (2004) 6569-6583
44. Haigh J.A., Pickup B.T., Grant J.A., and Nicholls A. Small molecule shape-fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 45 (2005) 673-684
45. Low C.M., Buck I.M., Cooke T., Cushnir J.R., Kalindjian S.B., Kotecha A., Pether M.J., Shankley N.P., Vinter J.G., and Wright L. Scaffold hopping with molecular field points: identification of a cholecystokinin-2 (CCK2) receptor pharmacophore and its use in the design of a prototypical series of pyrrole- and imidazole-based CCK2 antagonists. J Med Chem 48 (2005) 6790-6802
46. Zhang Q., and Muegge I. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. J Med Chem 49 (2006) 1536-1548
47. Barker E.J., Buttar D., Cosgrove D.A., Gardiner E.J., Kitts P., Willett P., and Gillet V.J. Scaffold hopping using clique detection applied to reduced graphs. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 503-511
48. Stiefl N., Watson I.A., Baumann K., and Zaliani A. ErG: 2D pharmacophore descriptions for scaffold hopping. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 208-220
49. Renner S., and Schneider G. Scaffold-hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. Chem Med Chem 1 (2006) 181-185
50. Hert J., Willett P., Wilton D.J., Acklin P., Azzaoui K., Jacoby E., and Schuffenhauer A. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 1177-1185
51. ter Haar E., Walters W.P., Pazhanisamy S., Taslimi P., Pierce A.C., Bemis G.W., Salituro F.G., and Harbeson S.L. Kinase chemogenomics: targeting the human kinome for target validation and drug discovery. Mini Rev Med Chem 4 (2004) 235-253
52. Vieth M., Higgs R.E., Robertson D.H., Shapiro M., Gragg E.A., and Hemmerle H. Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. Biochim Biophys Acta 1697 (2004) 243-257. This work underscores the idea that chemical similarity of small-molecule inhibitors may be more useful than protein sequences to determine target family phylogeny, at least from a lead discovery perspective.
53. Jimonet P., and Jager R. Strategies for designing GPCR-focused libraries and screening sets. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 7 (2004) 325-333
54. Cases M., Garcia-Serna R., Hettne K., Weeber M., van der Lei J., Boyer S., and Mestres J. Chemical and biological profiling of an annotated compound library directed to the nuclear receptor family. Curr Top Med Chem 5 (2005) 763-772
55. Fliri A.F., Loging W.T., Thadeio P.F., and Volkmann R.A. Biological spectra analysis: linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 261-266. In the tradition of affinity fingerprints, biological activity spectra from single point assays are utilized to group compounds in a predictive manner.
56. Koch M.A., Schuffenhauer A., Scheck M., Wetzel S., Casaulta M., Odermatt A., Ertl P., and Waldmann H. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102 (2005) 17272-17277
57. Nobeli I., Spriggs R.V., George R.A., and Thornton J.M. A ligand-centric analysis of the diversity and evolution of protein-ligand relationships in E. coli. J Mol Biol 347 (2005) 415-436. Further advancing the idea of using cheminformatics to judge protein relationships, the authors explore the chemical similarity of endogenous ligands for protein families.
58. Sheridan R.P., and Shpungin J. Calculating similarities between biological activities in the MDL drug data report database. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 727-740. By measuring activity-activity similarities via chemical similarity, the authors demonstrate how chemogenomics databases can be better organized by automated methods.
59. Wallqvist A., Huang R., Covell D.G., Roschke A.V., Gelhaus K.S., and Kirsch I.R. Drugs aimed at targeting characteristic karyotypic phenotypes of cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther 4 (2005) 1559-1568
60. Nidhi N., Glick M., Davies J.W., and Jenkins J.L. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 1124-1133. One of the first papers on chemogenomic-based target fishing.
61. Hamon J., Azzaoui K., Whiteberad S., Urban L., Jacoby E., and Faller B. In vitro safety pharmacology profiling. Eur Pharm Rev 1 (2006) 60-63
62. Fink T., Bruggesser H., and Reymond J.L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 44 (2005) 1504-1508
63. Schuffenhauer A., Popov M., Schopfer U., Acklin P., Stanek J., and Jacoby E. Molecular diversity management strategies for building and enhancement of diverse and focused lead discovery compound screening collections. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 771-781. This work thoroughly covers all aspects of diverse and focused screening collections.
64. Lipinski C., and Hopkins A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 432 (2004) 855-861
65. Bleicher K.H., Bohm H.J., Muller K., and Alanine A.I. Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2 (2003) 369-378
66. Nilakantan R., Immermann F., and Haraki K. A novel approach to combinatorial library design. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 5 (2002) 105-110
67. Weber L. Current Status of Virtual Combinatorial Library Design (2005), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.
68. Orry A.J., Abagyan R.A., and Cavasotto C.N. Structure-based development of target-specific compound libraries. Drug Discov Today 11 (2006) 261-266
69. DeSimone R.W., Currie K.S., Mitchell S.A., Darrow J.W., and Pippin D.A. Privileged structures: applications in drug discovery. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 473-494
70. Schuffenhauer A., Ruedisser S., Marzinzik A.L., Jahnke W., Blommers M., Selzer P., and Jacoby E. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr Top Med Chem 5 (2005) 751-762
71. Oprea TI: Cheminformatics and the quest for leads in drug discovery. In Handbook of Cheminformatics, Edn 4. VCH Wiley; 2003:1508-1531.
72. Oprea T.I., Davis A.M., Teague S.J., and Leeson P.D. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41 (2001) 1308-1315
73. Hann M.M., and Oprea T.I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr Opin Chem Biol 8 (2004) 255-263
74. Hann M.M., Leach A.R., and Harper G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41 (2001) 856-864
75. Hann M., Leach A.R., and Green D.V.S. Computational chemistry, molecular complexity and screening set design. In: Oprea T., Mannhold R., Kubini H., and Folkers G. (Eds). Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry. Edn 23 (2005), Wiley-VCH 43-57
76. Burke M.D., Berger E.M., and Schreiber S.L. Generating diverse skeletons of small molecules combinatorially. Science 302 (2003) 613-618
77. Burke M.D., and Schreiber S.L. A planning strategy for diversity-oriented synthesis. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 43 (2004) 46-58
78. Schuffenhauer A., Brown N., Selzer P., Ertl P., and Jacoby E. Relationships between molecular complexity, biological activity, and structural diversity. J Chem Inf Model 46 (2006) 525-535