Geometric accuracy of three-dimensional molecular overlays

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 1996-2002

  Chen, Qi ^a   Higgs, Richard E ^a   Vieth, Michal ^a  

^a ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL GEOMETRY; CONFORMATIONS; DATABASE SYSTEMS; MICROORGANISMS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; X RAY ANALYSIS;

HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS; LIGAND-PROTEIN COMPLEXES; MOLECULAR TEMPLATE; X-RAY STRUCTURES;

MOLECULAR ORIENTATION;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONFORMATION; X RAY DIFFRACTION;

MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; X-RAY DIFFRACTION;

EID: 33750290951     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci060134h     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kramer, A.; Horn, H. W.; Rice, J. E. Fast 3D molecular superposition and similarity search in databases of flexible molecules. J. Comput.Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 13-38.
2. Sprague, P. W.; Huffman, R. Catalyst pharmacophore models and their utility as queries for searching 3D databases. In Computer-Assisted Lead Finding and Optimization; Waterbeemd, H., Testa, B., Folkers, G. VHCA: Basel, Switzerland, 1990; pp 230-240.
3. Korhonen, S.; Tuppurainen, K.; Laatikainen, R.; Perakyla, M. Comparing performance of FLUFF-BALL to SEAL-CoMFA with a large diverse estrogen data set: From relevant superpositions to solid predictions. J. Cnem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1874-1883.
4. Patel, Y.; Gillet, V. J.; Bravi, G.; Leach, A. A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 673-681.
5. Chen, H. F.; Dong, X. C.; Zen, B. S.; Gao, K.; Yuan, S. G.; Panaye, A.; Doucet, J. P.; Fan, B. T. Virtual screening and rational drug design method using structure generation system based on 3D-QSAR and docking. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2003, 14, 251-264.
6. Chen, Q.; Wu, C.; Maxwell, D.; Krudy, G. A.; Dixon, R. A. F.; You, T. J. A 3D QSAR analysis of in vitro binding affinity and selectivity of 3-isoxazolylsulfonylaminothiophenes as endothelin receptor antagonists. QSAR 1999, 18, 124-133.
7. Debnath, A. K. Generation of predictive pharmacophore models for CCR5 antagonists: Study with piperidine and piperazine-based compounds as a new class of HIV-1 entry inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 4501-4515.
8. van Drie, J. H. Pharmacophore Discovery - Lessons Learned. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003, 9, 1649-1664.
9. Rush, T. S., III; Grant, J. A.; Mosyak, L.; Nicholls, A. A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 1489-1495.
10. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. FLEXS: A method for fast flexible ligand superposition. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 4502-4520.
11. ROCS; Openeye Scientific Software: Santa Fe, NM, 2005.
12. Kearsley, S. K.; Smith, G. M. An alternative method for the alignment of molecular structures: Maximizing electrostatic and steric overlap. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 1990, 3, 613-633.
13. Mestres, J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Maggiora, G. M. MIMIC: A molecular-field matching program exploring applicability of molecular similarity approaches. J. Comput. Chem. 1997, 18, 934-954.
14. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational Methods for the Structural Alignment of Molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
15. Erickson, J. A.; Jalaie, M.; Robertson, D. H.; Lewis, R. A.; Vieth, M. Lessons in molecular recognition: The effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 45-55.
16. Berman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N.; Weissig, H.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
17. Wu, G.; Vieth, M. SDOCKER: A method utilizing existing X-ray structures to improve docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 3142-3148.
18. QUANTA; Accelrys: San Diego, CA, 2006.
19. Sadowski, J.; Gasteiger, J.; Klebe, G. Comparison of automatic three-dimensional model builders using 639 X-ray structures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 1000-1008.
20. OMEGA; Openeye Scientific Software: Santa Fe, NM, 2004.
21. Bostrom, J.; Greenwood, J. R.; Gottfries, J. Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2003, 21, 449-462.
22. Willet, P. Similarity-based approaches to virtual screening. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2003, 31, 603-606.
23. Klebe, G.; Abraham, U.; Mietzner, T. Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 37, 4130-4146.
24. I. MACS Keys; Daylight Chemical Information Systems: Aliso Viejo, CA, 2005.
25. Vieth, M.; Siegel, M. G.; Higgs, R. E.; Watson, I. A.; Robertson, D. H.; Savin, K. A.; Durst, G. L.; Hipskind, P. A. Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 224-232.
26. Agresti, A. Categorical Data Analysis; Wiley: New York, 1990.
27. IMP, version 4.0.4; SAS Institute Inc: Cary, NC, 1989-2001.
28. Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning Theory; Springer-Verlag: New York, 2001.
29. Martin, Y. C.; Kofron, J. L.; Traphagen, L. M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 4350-4358.
30. Catalyst, version 4.9; Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2005.