Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 47, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 1504-1519

  McGaughey, Georgia B ^a   Sheridan, Robert P ^a   Bayly, Christopher I ^b   Culberson, J Chris ^a   Kreatsoulas, Constantine ^a   Lindsley, Stacey ^a   Maiorov, Vladimir ^a   Truchon, Jean Francois ^b   Cornell, Wendy D ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b MERCK FROSST CENTRE FOR THERAPEUTIC RESEARCH   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BENCHMARKING; DATABASE SYSTEMS; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE;

LIGAND SIMILARITY; VIRTUAL SCREENING BENCHMARKING; VIRTUAL SCREENING METHODS;

VIRTUAL REALITY;

LIGAND;

ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY;

BINDING SITES; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE;

EID: 34547673017     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci700052x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Hartman, G. D.; Egbertson, M. S.; Halczenko, W.; Laswell, W. L.; Duggan, M. E.; Smith, R. L.; Naylor, A. M.; Manno, P. D.; Lynch, R. J.; Non-peptide fibrinogen receptor antagonists. 1. Discovery and design of exosite inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1992, 35, 4640-4642.
2. Chen, H.; Lyne, P. D.; Giordanetto, F.; Lovell, T.; Li, J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 401-415.
3. Klon, A. E.; Glick, M.; Thoma, M.; Acklin, P.; Davies, J. W. Finding More Needles in the Haystack: A Simple and Efficient Method for Improving High-Throughput Docking Results. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 2743-2749.
4. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 56, 235-249.
5. Muegge, I.; Enyedy, I. J. Virtual screening for kinase targets. Curr. Med. Chem. 2004, 11, 693-707.
6. Cummings, M. D.; DesJarlais, R. L.; Gibbs, A. C.; Mohan, V.; Jaeger, E. P. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 962-976.
7. Kontoyianni, M.; Sokol, G. S.; McClellan, L. M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 2005, 26, 11-22.
8. Warren, G. L.; Andrews, C. W.; Capelli, A.-M.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J.; Lambert, M. H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S. F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Wall, I. D.; Woolven, J. M.; Peishoff, C. E.; Head, M. S. A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 49, 5912-5931.
9. Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery; Shoichet, N., Alvarez, J., Eds.; CRC Press: 2005.
10. Cornell, W. D. Recent Evaluations of High Throughput Docking Methods for Pharmaceutical Lead Finding - Consensus and Caveats. In Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry (ARCC) Volume 2; Spellmeyer, D. C., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2006.
11. Merritt, H. H.; Putnam. T. J. A new series of anticonvulsant drugs tested by experiments on animals. Arch. Neur. Psych. 1938, 39, 1003-1015.
12. van Drie, J. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Abstracts of Papers, 231st ACS National Meeting, Atlanta, GA, United States, March 26-30, 2006.
13. Miller, M. D.; Kearsley, S. K.; Underwood, D. J.; Sheridan, R. P. FLOG: a system to select quasi-flexible ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 153-174.
14. Miller, M. D.; Sheridan, R. P.; Kearsley, S. L. SQ: A program for rapidly producing pharmacophorically relevant molecular superpositions. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 1505-1514.
15. Feuston, B. P.; Miller, M. D.; Culberson, J. C.; Nachbar, R. B.; Kearsley, S. K. Comparison of knowledge-based and distance geometry approaches for generation of molecular conformations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 754-763.
16. Crippen, C. M.; Havel, T. F. Distance Geometry and Molecular Conformation; Bawden, D., Ed.; Research Studies Press, Wiley: New York, 1988.
17. Kuszewski, J.; Nilges, M.; Brunger, A. T. Sampling and efficiency of metric matrix distance geometry: A novel partial metrization algorithm. J. Biomol. NMR 1992, 2, 33-56.
18. Hawkins, P. C. D. A comparison of structure-based and shape-based tools for virtual screening. Abstracts of Papers, 231st ACS National Meeting, Atlanta, GA, United States, March 26-30, 2006.
19. Halgren, T. A.; Murphy, R. B.; Friesner, R. A.; Beard, H. S.; Frye, L. L.; Pollard, W. T.; Banks, J. L. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1750-1759.
20. 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.; Shaw, D. E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P. S. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
21. McGann, M. R.; Almond, H. R.; Nicholls, A.; Grant, J. A.; Brown, F. K. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 2003, 68, 76-90.
22. Kearsley, S. K.; Sallamack, S.; Fluder, E. M.; Andose, J. D.; Mosley, R. T.; Sheridan, R. P. Chemical similarity using physiochemical property descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36, 118-27.
23. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc. Version 4.82; 120 Vantis, Suite 550, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, 2003.
24. MDL Drug Data Report, version 2005.1; licensed by Molecular Design Ltd., San Leandro, CA, 2005.
25. Kairys, V.; Fernandes, M. X.; Gilson, M. K. Screening drug-like compounds by docking to homology models: A Systematic Study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 365-379.
26. Butina, D. Unsupervised data base clustering based on Daylight's fingerprint and Tanimoto similarity: a fast and automated way to cluster small and large data sets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 747-750.
27. Carhart, R. E.; Smith, D. H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1985, 25, 64-73.
28. Bradshaw, J., personal communication.
29. Kearsley, S. K.; Underwood, D. J.; Sheridan, R. P.; Miller, M. D. Flexibases: a way to enhance the use of molecular docking methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 565-582.
30. Cole, J. C.; Murray, C. W.; Nissink, J. W. M.; Taylor, R. D.; Taylor, R. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2005, 60, 325-332.
31. Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf. 2004, 57, 225-242.
32. Pan, Y.; Huang, N.; Cho, S.; MacKerell, A. D., Jr. Consideration of molecular weight during compound selection in virtual target-based database screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 267-72.
33. Vigers, G. P. A.; Rizzi, J. P. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 80-89.
34. Triballeau, N.; Acher, F.; Brabet, I.; Pin, J.-P.; Bertrand, H.-O. Virtual screening workflow development guided by the 'receiver operating characteristic' curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 2534-2547.
35. Sheridan, R. P.; Singh, S. B.; Fluder, E. M.; Kearsley, S. K. Protocols for bridging the peptide to nonpeptide gap in topological similarity searches. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1395-1406.
36. Truchon, J.-F.; Bayly, C. I., Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the Early Recognition Problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508.
37. Schulz-Gasch, T.; Stahl, M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: evaluation of current docking tools. J. Mol. Model. (Online) 2003, 9, 47-57. Enrichment values were extracted from the histograms depicted in the manuscript.
38. Martin, Y. C.; Kofron, J. L.; Traphagen, L. M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 4350-4358.
39. Nikolova, N.; Jaworska, J. Approaches to measure chemical similarity-a review. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2003, 22, 1006-1026.
40. Sheridan, R. P.; Kearsley, S. K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity methods. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 903-911.
41. Zhang, Q.; Muegge, I. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: Ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 1536-1548.
42. Good, A. C.; Hermsmeier, M. A.; Hindle, S. A. Measuring CAMD technique performance: A virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18, 529-536.
43. Knox, A. J. S.; Meegan, M. J.; Carta, G.; Lloyd, D. G. Considerations in compound database preparation - hidden impact on virtual screening results. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2005, 45, 1908-1919.
44. Knegtel, R. M. A.; Wagener, M. Efficacy and selectivity in flexible database docking. Proteins 1999, 37, 334-345.
45. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C.; Lindsley, S.; Maiorov, V.; Truchon, J.-F.; Cornell, W. D., unpublished results.
46. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of Shape-Matching and Docking as Virtual Screening Tools. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82.
47. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. Comments on the Article "On Evaluating Molecular-Docking Methods for Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors". J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 251-253.
48. Willett, P. Searching techniques for databases of two- and three-dimensional structures. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 4183-4199.
49. Tirado-Rives, J.; Jorgensen, W. L. Contribution of conformer focusing to the uncertainty in predicting free energies for protein-ligand binding. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5880-5894.
50. Leach, A. R.; Shoichet, B. K.; Peishoff, C. E. Prediction of Protein-Ligand Interactions. Docking and Scoring: Successes and Gaps. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5851-5855.
51. Friesner, R. A.; Murphy, R. B.; Repasky, M. P.; Frye, L. L.; Greenwood, J. R.; Halgren, T. A.; Sanschagrin, P. C.; Mainz, D. T. Extra Precision Glide: Docking and Scoring Incorporating a Model of Hydrophobic Enclosure for Protein-Ligand Complexes. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6177-6196.
52. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking Sets for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.