The effects of biasing torsional mutations in a conformational GA

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 1862-1870

  Strizhev, Alex ^a,b   Abrahamian, Edmond J ^a   Choi, Sun ^a,c   Leonard, Joseph M ^a,d   Wolohan, Philippa R N ^a   Clark, Robert D ^a  

^a TRIPOS INC   (United States)

^b AMGEN INC   (United States)

^c Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^d ABBOTT LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING; GENETIC ALGORITHMS; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MUTAGENESIS; PHARMACODYNAMICS;

CONFORMATIONAL GENETIC ALGORITHM (GA); PHARMACOPHORIC COMPATIBILITY; TORSIONAL BIAS; TORSIONAL MUTATIONS;

CONFORMATIONS;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; MUTATION;

ALGORITHMS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MUTATION;

EID: 33746903126     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0502193     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Martin, Y. C. DISCO: What We Did Right and What We Missed. In Pharmacophore Perception, Development, and Use in Drug Design; Güner, O. F., Ed.; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, 2000; pp 49-68.
2. Martin, Y. C.; Bures, M. G.; Danaher, E. A.; DeLazzer, J.; Lico, I.; Pavlik, P. A. DISCO: A Fast New Approach to Pharmacophore Mapping and its Application to Dopaminergic and Benzodiazepine Agonists. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 83-102.
3. Barnum, D.; Greene, J.; Smellie, A.; Sprague, P. Identification of common functional configurations among molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36 (3), 563-571.
4. Clement, O. O.; Mehl, A. T. HipHop: Pharmacophores Based on Multiple Common-Feature Alignments. In Pharmacophore Perception, Development, and Use in Drug Design; Güner, O. F., Ed.; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, 2000; pp 69-84.
5. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C. GASP: Genetic Algorithm Superposition Program. In Pharmacophore Perception, Development, and Use in Drug Design; Güner, O. F., Ed.; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, 2000; pp 85-106.
6. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 532-549.
7. GASP (Genetic Algorithm Similarity Program) developed at the University of Sheffield and the Wellcome Research Laboratories. Distributed by Tripos Inc., St. Louis, MO as a module in SYBYL version 7.1, 2005.
8. Patel, Y.; Gillet, V. J.; Bravi, G.; Leach, A. R. A Comparison of the Pharmacophore Identification Programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 653-681.
9. Holland, J. H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems; University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor, MI, 1975.
10. Gray, F. Pulse Code Communications, U.S. Patent No. 2632058, Mar 1953.
11. Clark, R. D.; Abrahamian, E. J.; Abrams, C.; Brandt, P.; Gustavsson, A. L.; Homan, E.; Richmond, N.; Strizhev, A.; Wirstam, M.; Wolohan, P. Manuscript in preparation.
12. GALAHAD (Genetic Algorithm with Linear Assignment for Hypermolecular Alignment of Datasets), version 1.2.3 available from Tripos, Inc., St. Louis, MO, 2005.
13. Moodie, S. L.; Thornton, J. M. A study into the effects of protein binding on nucleotide conformation. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993, 21, 1369-1380.
14. Bostrom, J.; Norrby P. O.; Liljefors, T. Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 383-96.
15. SYBYL molecular modeling software version 7.1 available from Tripos Inc., St. Louis, MO, 2005.
16. Cottrell, S. J.; Gillet, V. J.; Taylor, R.; Wilton, D. J. Generation of multiple pharmacophore hypotheses using multiobjective optimisation techniques. J. Comput.-Aided Mol Des. 2005, 18, 665-682.
17. Perola, E.; Charifson, P. S. Conformational analysis of drug-like molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 2499-2510.
18. Thoma, J. A.; Koshland, D. E. Competitive inhibition by Substrate during enzyme action evidence for the induced-fit theory. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1960, 82 (13), 3329-3333.
19. Clark, M.; Cramer, R. D.; Van Opdenbosch, N. Validation of the general purpose Tripos 5.2 force field. J. Comput. Chem. 1989, 10, 982-1012.
20. dbconform. Unity and SYBYL versions 7.1 are distributed by Tripos Inc., 1699 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144, U.S.A., 2005 (http://www.tripos. com).
21. Krystek, S. R., Jr.; Hunt, J. T.; Stein, P. D.; Stouch, T. R. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of sulfonamide endothelin inhibitors. J. Med. Chem, 1995, 38, 659-669.
22. Bostrom, J.; Bohm, M.; Gundertofte, K.; Klebe, G. A 3D QSAR study on a set of dopamine D4 receptor antagonists. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43 (3), 1020-1027.
23. Krovat E. M.; Langer T. Non-peptide angiotensin II receptor antagonists: chemical feature based pharmacophore identification. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46 (5), 716-726.
24. In H23 data set, http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/docs/cancer/cancer/data.html, accessed August 2005.