Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery

Current Opinion in Chemical Biology

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 494-502

  McInnes, Campbell ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; AUTOMATION; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; INFORMATION SYSTEM; LIGAND BINDING; PHARMACOPHORE; PROTEIN BINDING; REVIEW; VIRTUAL REALITY;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING;

EID: 35348821202     PISSN: 13675931     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.033     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. Kuntz I.D., Blaney J.M., Oatley S.J., Langridge R., and Ferrin T.E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 161 (1982) 269-288
2. Abagyan R., and Totrov M. High-throughput docking for lead generation. Curr Opin Chem Biol 5 (2001) 375-382
3. Kitchen D.B., Decornez H., Furr J.R., and Bajorath J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3 (2004) 935-949. A comprehensive review of docking theory, methods and results.
4. Halperin I., Ma B., Wolfson H., and Nussinov R. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47 (2002) 409-443. Additional extensive review of high-throughput docking methods.
5. Jones G., Willett P., Glen R.C., Leach A.R., and Taylor R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 267 (1997) 727-748
6. Ewing T.J., Makino S., Skillman A.G., and Kuntz I.D. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 15 (2001) 411-428
7. Halgren T.A., Murphy R.B., Friesner R.A., Beard H.S., Frye L.L., Pollard W.T., and Banks J.L. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 1750-1759
8. 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., et al. Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 1. Method and Assessment of Docking Accuracy. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 1739-1749
9. Kramer B., Rarey M., and Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 37 (1999) 228-241
10. McGann M.R., Almond H.R., Nicholls A., Grant J.A., and Brown F.K. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 68 (2003) 76-90
11. Venkatachalam C.M., Jiang X., Oldfield T., and Waldman M. LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. J Mol Graph Model 21 (2003) 289-307
12. Wu S.Y., McNae I., Kontopidis G., McClue S.J., McInnes C., Stewart K.J., Wang S., Zheleva D.I., Marriage H., Lane D.P., et al. Discovery of a Novel Family of CDK Inhibitors with the Program LIDAEUS: Structural Basis for Ligand-Induced Disordering of the Activation Loop. Structure 11 (2003) 399-410
13. McInnes C., Mazumdar A., Mezna M., Meades C., Midgley C., Scaerou F., Carpenter L., Mackenzie M., Taylor P., Walkinshaw M., et al. Inhibitors of Polo-like kinase reveal roles in spindle-pole maintenance. Nat Chem Biol 2 (2006) 608-617
14. Buzko O.V., Bishop A.C., and Shokat K.M. Modified AutoDock for accurate docking of protein kinase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16 (2002) 113-127
15. Cavasotto C.N., and Abagyan R.A. Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. J Mol Biol 337 (2004) 209-225
16. Jain A.N. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem 46 (2003) 499-511
17. Zavodszky M.I., and Kuhn L.A. Side-chain flexibility in protein-ligand binding: the minimal rotation hypothesis. Protein Sci 14 (2005) 1104-1114
18. Cummings M.D., DesJarlais R.L., Gibbs A.C., Mohan V., and Jaeger E.P. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 48 (2005) 962-976. Assessment of commonly used HTD methods and their target dependent performance.
19. 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., et al. A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 5912. Comprehensive assessment of most widely used high-throughput docking programs and scoring functions.
20. Lambert MH: Docking conformationally flexible molecules with MVP. Abstracts of Papers, 228th ACS National Meeting, 2004:COMP-005.
21. Perola E., Walters W.P., and Charifson P.S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 56 (2004) 235-249
22. Kellenberger E., Rodrigo J., Muller P., and Rognan D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 57 (2004) 225-242
23. Konstantinou-Kirtay C., Mitchell J.B., and Lumley J.A. Scoring functions and enrichment: a case study on Hsp90. BMC Bioinformatics 8 (2007) 27
24. Wang R., Lu Y., and Wang S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J Med Chem 46 (2003) 2287-2303. Impact of different scoring function on docking success and relative performance on different targets.
25. Kuhn B., and Kollman P.A. Binding of a diverse set of ligands to avidin and streptavidin: an accurate quantitative prediction of their relative affinities by a combination of molecular mechanics and continuum solvent models. J Med Chem 43 (2000) 3786-3791
26. Foloppe N., Fisher L.M., Howes R., Kierstan P., Potter A., Robertson A.G., and Surgenor A.E. Structure-based design of novel Chk1 inhibitors: insights into hydrogen bonding and protein-ligand affinity. J Med Chem 48 (2005) 4332-4345. Evaluation of the utility of MM/PBSA methods in prioritizing docked poses.
27. Lyne P.D., Kenny P.W., Cosgrove D.A., Deng C., Zabludoff S., Wendoloski J.J., and Ashwell S. Identification of compounds with nanomolar binding affinity for checkpoint kinase-1 using knowledge-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 1962-1968. An case study showing successful application of combining pharmacophore searching and high-throughput docking.
28. Hindle S.A., Rarey M., Buning C., and Lengaue T. Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16 (2002) 129-149
29. Verdonk M.L., Cole J.C., Hartshorn M.J., Murray C.W., and Taylor R.D. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 52 (2003) 609-623
30. Deng Z., Chuaqui C., and Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem 47 (2004) 337-344. Method for evaluating HTD output and on the basis of known inhibitor binding modes.
31. Deng Z., Chuaqui C., and Singh J. Knowledge-based design of target-focused libraries using protein-ligand interaction constraints. J Med Chem 49 (2006) 490-500
32. Kroemer R.T., Vulpetti A., McDonald J.J., Rohrer D.C., Trosset J.Y., Giordanetto F., Cotesta S., McMartin C., Kihlen M., and Stouten P.F. Assessment of docking poses: interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44 (2004) 871-881. An important conclusion of this paper is that RMSD of docked pose to the native liganded structure does not always indicate an accurate docking result.
33. Huang S.Y., and Zou X. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. Proteins 66 (2007) 399-421
34. Popov V.M., Yee W.A., and Anderson A.C. Towards in silico lead optimization: scores from ensembles of protein/ligand conformations reliably correlate with biological activity. Proteins 66 (2007) 375-387
35. Sherman W., Day T., Jacobson M.P., Friesner R.A., and Farid R. Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49 (2006) 534-553. Induced fit docking allows conformational sampling of receptor binding sites resulting in significant improvements in crystallographic pose reproduction.
36. Hassan M., Brown R.D., Varma-O'brien S., and Rogers D. Cheminformatics analysis and learning in a data pipelining environment. Mol Divers 10 (2006) 283-299
37. Steindl T.M., Schuster D., Laggner C., Chuang K., Hoffmann R.D., and Langer T. Parallel screening and activity profiling with HIV protease inhibitor pharmacophore models. J Chem Inf Model 47 (2007) 563-571
38. Knox A.J., Meegan M.J., Carta G., and Lloyd D.G. Considerations in compound database preparation-"hidden" impact on virtual screening results. J Chem Inf Model 45 (2005) 1908-1919