In silico target fishing: Predicting biological targets from chemical structure

Drug Discovery Today: Technologies

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 413-421

  Jenkins, Jeremy L ^a   Bender, Andreas ^a   Davies, John W ^a  

^a NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL DEHYDROGENASE; ALPHA TOCOPHEROL; BENZODIAZEPINE RECEPTOR; BENZODIAZEPINE RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; CALMODULIN; COLLAGENASE; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; LEUKOTRIENE B4 RECEPTOR; ORPHAN DRUG; PAMICOGREL; PROSTAGLANDIN SYNTHASE; PROSTAGLANDIN SYNTHASE INHIBITOR; PROTEIN KINASE C; TAMOXIFEN; TESTOSTERONE 17BETA DEHYDROGENASE;

AFFINITY CHROMATOGRAPHY; BAYES THEOREM; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER MODEL; CYTOTOXICITY; DATA MINING; DNA MICROARRAY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENOMICS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; MACHINE LEARNING; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; PREDICTION; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW;

EID: 33846518797     PISSN: 17406749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ddtec.2006.12.008     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. Hart C.P. Finding the target after screening the phenotype. Drug Discov. Today 10 (2005) 513-519
2. Bender A., et al. Molecular similarity: advances in methods, applications, and validations in virtual screening and QSAR. In: Spellmeyer D.C. (Ed). Annual Reports In Computational Chemistry Vol. 2 (2006), Elsevier, Amsterdam 141-168
3. Birchall K., et al. Training similarity measures for specific activities: application to reduced graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 577-586
4. Eckert H., et al. Mapping algorithms for molecular similarity analysis and ligand-based virtual screening: design of DynaMAD and comparison with MAD and DMC. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 1623-1634
5. Bender A., et al. 'Bayes affinity fingerprints' improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: when are multi-target drugs a feasible concept?. J. Chem. Inf. Model 46 (2006) 2445-2456
6. Stiefl N., and Zaliani A. A knowledge-based weighting approach to ligand-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model 46 (2006) 587-596
7. Cleves A.E., and Jain A.N. Robust ligand-based modeling of the biological targets of known drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 2921-2938
8. Nettles J.N., et al. Bridging chemical and biological space: 'target fishing' using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 6802-6810
9. Schuffenhauer A., et al. Similarity metrics for ligands reflecting the similarity of the target proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003) 391-405
10. Sheinerman F.B., et al. High affinity targets of protein kinase inhibitors have similar residues at the positions energetically important for binding. J. Mol. Biol. 352 (2005) 1134-1156
11. Poroikov V.V., and Filimonov D.A. How to acquire new biological activities in old compounds by computer prediction. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16 (2002) 819-824
12. Lagunin A., et al. PASS: prediction of activity spectra for biologically active substances. Bioinformatics 16 (2000) 747-748
13. Geronikaki A.A., et al. Design of new cognition enhancers: from computer prediction to synthesis and biological evaluation. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 2870-2876
14. Niwa T. Prediction of biological targets using probabilistic neural networks and atom-type descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 2645-2650
15. Olah M., et al. WOMBAT: World of Molecular Bioactivity. In: Oprea T.I. (Ed). Cheminformatics in Drug Discovery (2004), Wiley-VCH, New York
16. Nidhi, et al. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 1124-1133
17. Paolini G.V., et al. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24 (2006) 805-815
18. Choppin A., and Berry C.N. Peripheral benzodiazepine ligands inhibit aggregation and thromboxane synthesis induced by arachidonic acid in rabbit platelets in vitro. Thromb. Res. 78 (1995) 293-302
19. Kauvar L.M., et al. Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. Chem. Biol. 2 (1995) 107-118
20. Beroza P., et al. Chemoproteomics as a basis for post-genomic drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 7 (2002) 807-814
21. Krejsa C.M., et al. Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 6 (2003) 470-480
22. Fliri A.F., et al. Biological spectra analysis: linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 102 (2005) 261-266
23. Covell D.G., et al. Linking tumor cell cytotoxicity to mechanism of drug action: an integrated analysis of gene expression, small-molecule screening and structural databases. Proteins 59 (2005) 403-433
24. Rabow A.A., et al. Mining the National Cancer Institute's tumor-screening database: identification of compounds with similar cellular activities. J. Med. Chem. 45 (2002) 818-840
25. Klekota J., et al. Using high-throughput screening data to discriminate compounds with single-target effects from those with side effects. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 1549-1562
26. Fischer H.P., and Heyse S. From targets to leads: the importance of advanced data analysis for decision support in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 8 (2005) 334-346
27. Rosania G.R. Supertargeted chemistry: identifying relationships between molecular structures and their sub-cellular distribution. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 3 (2003) 659-685
28. Glen R.C., and Allen S.C. Ligand-protein docking: cancer research at the interface between biology and chemistry. Curr. Med. Chem. 10 (2003) 763-777
29. Warren G.L., et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 5912-5931
30. Chen Y.Z., and Zhi D.G. Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43 (2001) 217-226
31. Rockey W.M., and Elcock A.H. Rapid computational identification of the targets of protein kinase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 4138-4152
32. Paul N., et al. Recovering the true targets of specific ligands by virtual screening of the protein data bank. Proteins 54 (2004) 671-680
33. Deng Z., et al. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 337-344
34. Oprea T.I., et al. Post-high-throughput screening analysis: an empirical compound prioritization scheme. J. Biomol. Screen. 10 (2005) 419-426
35. Bredel M., and Jacoby E. Chemogenomics: an emerging strategy for rapid target and drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5 (2004) 262-275
36. Jain A.N. Morphological similarity: A 3D molecular similarity method correlated with protein-ligand recognition. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des 14 (2000) 199-213
37. 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
38. Huang R., et al. Assessment of in vitro and in vivo activities in the National Cancer Institute's anticancer screen with respect to chemical structure, target specificity, and mechanism of action. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 1964-1979
39. Fliri A.F., et al. Biospectra analysis: model proteome characterizations for linking molecular structure and biological response. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 6918-6925
40. Wallqvist A., et al. Evaluating chemical structure similarity as an indicator of cellular growth inhibition. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 430-437