Chemical diversity and biological activity

Drug Discovery Today: Technologies

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 387-395

  Schuffenhauer, Ansgar ^a   Brown, Nathan ^a  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG; NATURAL PRODUCT;

ANALYTICAL ERROR; BIOINFORMATICS; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG DETERMINATION; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; EXPERIMENTATION; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; PATENT; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; VALIDITY;

EID: 33846465344     PISSN: 17406749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2006.12.007     Document Type: Review

References (47)

1. Goodnow R. Hit and lead identification: integrated technology-based approaches. Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 3 (2006) 367-375
2. Dobson C.M. Chemical space and biology. Nature 432 (2004) 824-828
3. Gorse A.D. Diversity in medicinal chemical space. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 6 (2006) 3-18
4. Lameijer E.-W., et al. Mining a Chemical Database for Fragment Co-occurrence: Discovery of 'Chemical Clichés'. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 553-562
5. Maggiora G.M., and Johnson M.A. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity (1990), Wiley pp. 99-117
6. Holliday J.D., et al. A fast algorithm for selecting sets of dissimilar molecules from large chemical databases. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 14 (1995) 501-506
7. Gillet V.J., et al. Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimize diversity and physical properties. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39 (1999) 169-177
8. Hudson B.D., et al. Parameter based methods for compound selection from chemical databases. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 15 (1996) 285-289
9. Clark R.D. OptiSim: An extended dissimilarity selection method for finding diverse representative subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37 (1997) 1181-1188
10. Clark R.D., et al. OptDesign: Extending optimizable k-dissimilarity selection to combinatorial library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003) 829-836
11. Downs G.M., and Barnard J.M. Clustering methods and their uses in computational chemistry. Rev. Comput. Chem. 18 (2002) 1-40
12. Bayley M.J., and Willett P. Binning schemes for partition-based compound selection. J. Mol. Graph. Mod. 17 (1999) 10-18
13. Martin Y.C. Diverse viewpoints on computational aspects of molecular diversity. J. Comb. Chem. 3 (2001) 231-250
14. Bemis G.W., and Murcko M.A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39 (1996) 2887-2893
15. Xu Y.J., and Johnson M. Using molecular equivalence numbers to visually explore structural features that distinguish chemical libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42 (2002) 912-926
16. Schuffenhauer, A. et al. The Scaffold tree - visualization of the Scaffold Universe by hierarchical Scaffold classification. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. (in press). (http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ci600338x)
17. Hert J., et al. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2 (2004) 3256-3266
18. Jenkins J.L., et al. A 3D similarity method for scaffold hopping from known drugs or natural ligands to new chemotypes. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 6144-6159
19. Krier M., et al. Assessing the Scaffold diversity of screening libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 512-524
20. Carroll L. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass (1998), Penguin Classics p. 143
21. Breinbauer R., et al. From protein domains to drug candidates - natural products as guiding principles in the design and synthesis of compound libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. 41 (2002) 2878-2890
22. Lee M.-L., and Schneider G. Scaffold architecture an pharmacophoric properties of natural products and trade drugs: Application in the design of natural product based combinatorial libraries. J. Comp. Chem. 3 (2001) 284-289
23. Koch M.A., et al. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: A structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 102 (2005) 17272-17277
24. Wink M. Evolution of secondary metabolites from an ecological and molecular phylogenetic perspective. Phytochemistry 64 (2003) 3-19
25. Firn R.D., and Jones C.G. Natural products - a simple model to explain chemical diversity. Nat. Prod. Rep. 20 (2003) 382-391
26. Bode H.B., et al. Big effects from small changes: possible ways to explore nature's chemical diversity. Chem. Bio. Chem. 3 (2002) 619-627
27. Müller M. Chemical diversity through biotransformations. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 15 (2004) 591-598
28. Nilakantan R., and Nunn D.S. A fresh look at pharmaceutical screening library design. Drug. Discov. Today 8 (2003) 668-672
29. Harper G., et al. Design of a compound screening collection for use in high throughput screening. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen 7 (2004) 63-70
30. Hann M.M., and Oprea T.I. Pursuing the lead-likeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8 (2004) 225-263
31. Hann M.M., et al. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001) 856-864
32. Rees D.C., et al. Fragment based lead discovery. Nature Rev. Drug. Disc. 3 (2004) 550-672
33. Erlanson D.A., et al. Fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 3463-3482
34. Schuffenhauer A., et al. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5 (2005) 751-762
35. Selzer P., et al. Complex molecules - do they add value?. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 9 (2004) 1-7
36. Hopkins A.L., and Groom C.R. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov. Today 9 (2004) 430-431
37. Snarey M., et al. Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. J. Mol. Graph. Mod. 15 (1998) 372-385
38. Schuffenhauer A., et al. Relationships between molecular complexity, biological activity, and structural diversity. J. Chem. Inf. Model 46 (2006) 525-535
39. Holliday J.D., et al. Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003) 819-828
40. Böcker A. A hierarchical clustering approach for large compound libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Model 45 (2005) 807-815
41. Zupan J., and Gasteiger J. Neural Networks in Chemistry and Drug Design (1999), Wiley-VCH
42. Martin Y.C., et al. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity?. J. Med. Chem. 45 (2002) 4350-4358
43. Oprea T.I., and Tropsha A. Target, chemical and bioactivity databases - integration is key. Drug Discov. Today: Technol. 3 (2006) 357-365
44. Fliri A.F., et al. Biological spectra analysis: Linking biological activity profile to molecular structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 102 (2005) 261-266
45. Barbosa F., and Horvath D. Molecular similarity and property similarity. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 4 (2004) 589-600
46. Andersson P., et al. Strategies for subset selection of parts of an in-house chemical library. J. Chemometr. 15 (2001) 353-369
47. Agrafiotis D.K., and Xu H. A geodesic framework for analyzing molecular similarities. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003) 475-484