Computational chemogenomics approaches to systematic knowledge-based drug discovery

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 7, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 304-313

  Mestres, Jordi ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POMPEU FABRA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Affinity fingerprint; Bioinformatics; Chemogenomics; Chemoinformatics; Data annotation; Homology modeling; Knowledge management; Library design; Molecular descriptors; Structure based design; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

CLASSIFICATION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG TARGETING; GENOMICS; KNOWLEDGE; LIBRARY; REVIEW; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY;

G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; LIGAND; PROTEIN;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DESIGN; GENOMICS; LIGANDS; PROTEINS; RECEPTORS, G-PROTEIN-COUPLED;

EID: 4043121114     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (185)

1. Caron PR, Mullican MD, Mashal RD, Wilson KP, Su MS, Murcko MA: Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2001) 5(4):464-470. This is the original paper in which the term chemogenomics was defined as 'the discovery and description of all possible drugs to all possible drug targets'.
2. Frye SV: Structure-activity relationship homology (SARAH): A conceptual framework for drug discovery in the genomic era. Chem Biol (1999) 6(1):R3-R7.
3. Waldmann H: At the crossroads of chemistry and biology. Bioorg Med Chem (2003) 11(14):3045-3051.
4. Chanda SK, Caldwell JS: Fulfilling the promise: Drug discovery in the post-genomic era. Drug Disc Today (2003) 8(4):168-174.
5. Ramström O, Bunyapaiboonsri T, Lohmann S, Lehn JM: Chemical biology of dynamic combinatorial libraries. Biochim Biophys Acta (2002) 1572(2-3):178-186.
6. Gosalia DN, Diamond SL: Printing chemical libraries on microarrays for fluid phase nanoliter reactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2003) 100(15):8721-8726.
7. Marron BE, Jayawickreme CK: Going to the well no more: Lawn format assays for ultra-high-throughput screening. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(3):395-401.
8. Borisy AA, Elliott PJ, Hurst NW, Lee MS, Lehár J, Price ER, Serbedzija G, Zimmermann GR, Foley MA, Stockwell BR, Keith CT: Systematic discovery of multicomponent therapeutics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2003) 100(13):7977-7982.
9. Bajorath J: Rational drug discovery revisited: Interfacing experimental programs with bio- and chemo-informatics. Drug Disc Today (2001) 6(19):989-995.
10. Strausberg RL, Schreiber SL: From knowing to controlling: A path from genomics to drugs using small molecule probes. Science (2003) 300(5617):294-295.
11. Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A, Floersheim P: Chemogenomics knowledge-based strategies in drug discovery. Drug News Perspect (2003) 16(2):93-102.
12. Lan N, Montelione GT, Gerstein M: Ontologies for proteomics: Towards a systematic definition of structure and function that scales to the genome level. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(1):44-54.
13. Davis AM, Teague SJ, Klewegt GJ: Application and limitations of X-ray crystallographic data in structure-based ligand and drug design. Angew Chem Int Ed (2003) 42(24):2718-2736.
14. Wyss DF, McCoy MA, Senior MM: NMR-based approaches for lead discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5(4):630-647.
15. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SI, Leeson PD: Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Int Comput Sci (2001) 41(5):1308-1315.
16. Bleicher KH, Böhm H-J, Müller K, Alanine AI: Hit and lead generation: Beyond high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2003) 2(5):369-378.
17. Yeh I, Karp PD, Nay NF, Altman RB: Knowledge acquisition, consistency checking and concurrency control for gene ontology (GO). Bioinformatics (2003) 19(2):241-248.
18. Liu J, Rost B: Domains, motifs and clusters in the protein universe. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(1):5-11.
19. Michalovich D, Overington J, Fagan R: Protein sequence analysis in silico: Application of structure-based bioinformatics to genomic initiatives. Curr Opin Pharmacol (2002) 2(5):574-580.
20. Sadreyev R, Grishin N: COMPASS: A tool for comparison of multiple protein alignments with assessment of statistical significance. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(1):317-336.
21. Hardin C, Pogorelov, Luthey-Schulten Z: Ab initio protein structure prediction. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2002) 12(2):176-181.
22. Bonneau R, Strauss CE, Rohl CA, Chivian D, Bradley P, Malmström L, Robertson T, Baker D: De novo prediction of three-dimensional structures for major protein families. J Mol Biol (2002) 322(1):65-78.
23. Heger A, Holm L: Exhaustive enumeration of protein domain families. J Mol Biol (2003) 328(3):749-767. An automatic algorithm for domain decomposition and clustering of all protein domain families is presented. When compared with the manual domain definition given in the SCOP database, 90% of domain boundaries are predicted within 10% of domain size.
24. Jones DT: GenTHREADER: An efficient and reliable protein fold recognition method for genomic sequences. J Mol Biol (1999) 287(4):797-815.
25. Man O, Atarot T, Sadot A, Olender T, Lancet D: From subgenome analysis to protein structure. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2003) 13(3):353-358.
26. Stawiski EW, Baucom AE, Lohr SC, Gregoret LM: Predicting protein function from structure: Unique structural features of proteases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2000) 97(8):3954-3958.
27. Dobson PD, Doig AJ: Distinguishing enzyme structures from non-enzymes without alignments. J Mol Biol (2003) 330(4):771-783.
28. Campbell SJ, Gold ND, Jackson RM, Westhead DR: Ligand binding: Functional site location, similarity and docking. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2003) 13(3):389-395.
29. Koehl P: Protein structure similarities. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2001) 11 (3):348-353.
30. Hou J, Sims GE, Zhang C, Kim SH: A global representation of the protein fold space. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2003) 100(5):2386-2390.
31. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, Nakaya A: The KEGG databases at GenomeNet. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(1):42-46.
32. Tatusov RL, Natale DA, Garkavtsev IV, Tatusova TA, Shankavaram UT, Rao BS, Kiryutin B, Galperin MY, Fedorova ND, Koonin EV: The COG database: New developments in phylogenetic classification of proteins from complete genomes. Nucleic Acids Res (2001) 29(1):22-28.
33. Gough J, Chothia C: Superfamily: HMMs representing all proteins of known structure. SCOP sequence searches, alignments and genome assignments. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(1):268-272.
34. Ji ZL, Sun LZ, Chen X, Zheng CJ, Yao LX, Han LY, Cao ZW, Wang JF, Yeo WK, Cai CZ, Chen YZ: Internet resources for proteins associated with drug therapeutic effects, adverse reactions and ADME. Drug Disc Today (2003) 8(12):526-529.
35. Gaastertand T, Oprea M: Whole-genome analysis: Annotations and updates. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2001) 11(3):377-381.
36. Lee D, Grant A, Buchan D, Orengo C: A structural perspective on genome evolution. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2003) 13(3):359-369. An interesting analysis of the intricate mechanisms by which diverse pathways and phenotypes can evolve from an apparently limited repertoire of domain modules, as revealed by the mapping of protein structures to completed genome sequences.
37. Beroza P, Villar HO, Wick MM, Martin CR: Chemoproteomics as a basis for post-genomic drug discovery. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(15):807-814.
38. Poulain R, Horvath D, Bonnet B, Eckhoff C, Chapelain B, Bodinier M-C, Déprez B: From hit to lead. Analyzing structure-profile relationships. J Med Chem (2001) 44(21):3391-3401.
39. Greenbaum DC, Arnold WD, Lu F, Hayrapetian L, Baruch A, Krumrine J, Toba S, Chehade K, Brömme D, Kuntz ID, Bogyo M: Small molecule affinity fingerprinting: A tool for enzyme family subclassification, target identification, and inhibitor design. Chem Biol (2002) 9(10):1085-1094.
40. Karp PD, Riley M, Paley SM, Pellegrini-Toole A: The MetaCyc database. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(1):59-61.
41. Goto S, Okuno Y, Hattori N, Nishioka T, Kanehisa M: LIGAND: Database of chemical compounds and reactions in biological pathways. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(1):402-404.
42. MDL Drug Data Report: MDL Information Systems Inc, San Leandro, CA, USA. http://www.mdl.com/products/knowledge/drug_data_report/
43. MDL Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry database: MDL Information Systems Inc, San Leandro, CA, USA. http://www.mdl. com/products/knowledge/ medicinal_chem/index.jsp
44. Derwent World Drug Index: Derwent Information Ltd, London, UK. http://www.thomsonisi.com/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=TDsite&STEMMER=en& WORDS=world+drug+index+&COLOUR=Purple&STYLE=s&URL=http://www. derwent.com/products/lr/wdi/#muscat_highlighter_first_match
45. Root DE, Flaherty SP, Kelley BP, Stockwell BR: Biological mechanism profiling using an annotated compound library. Chem Biol (2003) 10(9):881-892.
46. Haggarty SJ, Clemons PA, Schreiber SL: Chemical genomic profiling of biological networks using graph theory and combinations of small molecule perturbations. J Am Chem Soc (2003) 125(35):10543-10545.
47. Giaever G, Flaherty F, Kumm J, Proctor M, Nislow C, Jaramillo DF, Chu AM, Jordan MI, Arkin AP, Davis RW: Chemogenomics profiling: Identifying the functional interactions of small molecules in yeast. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2004) 101(3):793-798. A revealing example of genomic profiling of chemical entitles leading to the identification of unknown secondary interactions for known drug molecules.
48. Poroikov VV, Filiminov DA, Ihlenfeldt WD, Gloriozova TA, Lagunin AA, Borodina YV, Stepanchikova AV, Nicklaus MC: PASS biological activity spectrum predictions in the enhanced open NCI database browser. J Chem Int Comput Sci (2003) 43(1):228-236.
49. Schuffenhauer A, Zimmermann J, Stoop R, Van der Vyver JJ, Lecchini S, Jacoby E: An ontology for pharmaceutical ligands and its application for in silico screening and library design. J Chem Int Comput Sci (2002) 42(4):947-955. Research that demonstrates how ligands can be linked directly to sequences through the use of annotation schemes based on the phylogenetic classification of target families.
50. Schuffenhauer A, Floersheim P, Acklin P, Jacoby E: Similarity metrics for ligands reflecting the similarity of the target family. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(2):391-405.
51. Geysen HM, Schoenen F, Wagner D, Wagner R: Combinatorial compound libraries for drug discovery: An ongoing challenge. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2003) 2(3):222-230.
52. Bayada DM, Hamersma H, van Geerestein VJ: Molecular diversity and representativity in chemical databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39(1):1-10.
53. Roberts G, Myatt GJ, Johnson WP, Cross KP, Blower PE Jr: Leadscope: Software for exploring large sets of screening data. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40(6):1302-1314.
54. Xu J: A new approach to finding natural chemical structure classes. J Med Chem (2002) 45(24):5311-5320.
55. Xu YJ, Johnson M: Using molecular equivalence numbers to visually explore structural features that distinguish chemical libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(4):912-926.
56. Carr R, Jhoti H: Structure-based screening of low-affinity compounds. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(9):522-527.
57. Sharff A, Jhoti H: High-throughput crystallography to enhance drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(3):340-345.
58. Zanders ED, Bailey DS, Dean PM: Probes for chemical genomics by design. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(13):711-718.
59. Buchanan SG: Structural genomics: Bridging functional genomics and structure-based drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5(3):367-381.
60. Sali A, Glaeser R, Earnest T, Baumeister W: From words to literature in structural proteomics. Nature (2003) 422(6928):216-225. An outstanding review of the experimental and theoretical methods for the structural characterization of macromolecular assemblies.
61. Stevens RC, Yokoyama S, Wilson IA: Global efforts in structural genomics. Science (2001) 294(5540):89-92.
62. Liu J, Rost B: Target space for structural genomics revisited. Bioinformatics (2002) 18(7):922-933.
63. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PS: The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res (2000) 28(1):235-242.
64. Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A: Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct (2000) 29:291-325.
65. Fiser A, Feig M, Brooks CL 3rd, Sali A: Evolution and physics in comparative protein structure modeling. Acc Chem Res (2002) 35(6):413-421.
66. Koh IY, Eyrich VA, Marti-Renom MA, Przybytski D, Madhusudhan MS. Eswar N, Graña O, Pazos F, Valencia A, Sali A, Rost B: EVA: Evaluation of protein structure prediction servers. Nucleic Acids Res (2003) 31(13):3311-3315.
67. Burley SK, Bonanno JB: Structural genomics of proteins from conserved biochemical pathways and processes. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2002) 12(3):383-391.
68. Rizzi M, Schindelin H: Structural biology of enzymes involved in NAD and molybdenum cofactor biosynthesis. Curr Opin Struct Biol (2002) 12(6):709-720.
69. Savchenko A, Yee A, Khachatryan A, Skarina T, Evdokimova E, Pavlova M, Semesti A, Northey J. Beasley S, Lan N, Das R et al. Strategies for structural proteomics of prokaryotes: Quantifying the advantages of studying orthologous proteins and of using both NMR and X-ray crystallography approaches. Proteins (2003) 50(3):392-399.
70. Reyda S, Sohn C, Klebe G, Rall K, Ullmann D, Jakubke HD, Stubbs MT: Reconstructing the binding site of Factor Xa in trypsin reveals ligand-induced structural plasticity. J Mol Biol (2003) 325(5):963-977.
71. Gassel M, Breitenlechner CB, Rüger P, Jucknischke U, Schneider T, Huber R, Bossemeyer D, Engh RA: Mutants of protein kinase A that mimic the ATP-binding site of protein kinase B (AKT). J Mol Biol (2003) 329(5):1021-1034.
72. Haley-Vicente D, Edwards DJ: Proteomic informatics: In silico methods lead to data management challenges. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2003) 6(3):322-332.
73. Pearl FM, Bennett CF, Bray JE, Harrison AP, Martin N, Shepherd A, Sillitoe I, Thornton J, Orengo CA: The CATH database: An extended protein family resource for structural and functional genomics. Nucleic Acids Res (2003) 31(1):452-455.
74. Lo Conte L, Brenner SE, Hubbard TJP, Chothia C, Murzin AG: SCOP database in 2002: Refinements accommodate structural genomics. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(1):264-267.
75. Bateman A, Birney E, Cerruti L, Durbin R, Etwiller L, Eddy SR, Griffiths-Jones S, Howe KL, Marshall M, Sonnhammer EL: The Pfam protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(1):276-280.
76. Dali Fold Classification: European Bioinformatics Institute, Cambridge, UK. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/dali/fssp/
77. HOMSTRAD: Homologous Structure Alignment Database: University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. http://www-cryst.bioc.cam. ac.uk/~homstrad/
78. Del Sol Mesa A, Pazos F, Valencia A: Automatic methods for predicting functionally important residues. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(4):1289-1302.
79. Wangikar PP, Tendulkar AV, Ramya S, Mali DN, Sarawagi S: Functional sites in protein families uncovered via an objective and automated graph theoretic approach. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(3):955-978.
80. Gutteridge A, Bartlett GJ, Thornton JM: Using a neural network and spatial clustering to predict the location of active sites in enzymes. J Mol Biol (2003) 330(4):719-734.
81. Kinoshita K, Nakamura H: Identification of protein biochemical functions by similarity search using the molecular surface database eF-site. Protein Sci (2003) 12(8):1589-1595.
82. Schmitt S, Kuhn D, Klebe G: A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J Mol Biol (2002) 323(2):387-406. A method in which a query protein cavity allows for the screening of a cavity database extracted from the entire PDB. The method has the potential to suggest chemical substructures that are tolerated in similar protein environments found in non-homologous proteins.
83. Maggio ET, Shenderovich M, Kagan R, Goddette D, Ramnarayan K: Structural pharmacogenomics, drug resistance and the design of anti-infective super-drugs. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(24):1214-1220.
84. Gohlke H, Klebe G: Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed (2002) 41(15):2644-2676.
85. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Taylor R: SuperStar: A knowledge-based approach for identifying interaction sites in proteins. J Mol Biol (1999) 289(4):1093-1108.
86. Hendlich M, Bergner A, Günther J, Klebe G: Relibase: Design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(2):607-620.
87. Günther J, Bergner A, Hendlich M, Klebe C: Utilising structural knowledge in drug design strategies: Applications using Relibase. J Mol Biol (2003) 326(2):621-636.
88. Muegge I, Martin YC: A general and fast scoring function for protein ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J Med Chem (1999) 42(5):791-804.
89. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe C: Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol (2000) 295(2):337-356.
90. Nobeli I, Mitchell JB, Alex A, Thornton JM: Evaluation of a knowledge-based potential of mean force for scoring docked protein-ligand complexes. J Comput Chem (2001) 22:673-688.
91. Ishchenko AV, Shakhnovich EI: Small molecule growth 2001 (SMoG2001): An improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J Am Chem Soc (2002) 45(13):2770-2780.
92. Grüneberg S, Stubbs MT, Klebe G: Successful virtual screening for novel inhibitors of human carbonic anhydrase: Strategy and experimental confirmation. J Med Chem (2002) 45(17):3588-3602.
93. Grzybowski BA, Ishchenko AV, Kim CY, Topalov G, Chapman R, Christianson DW, Whitesides GM, Shakhnovich EI: Combinatorial computational method gives new picomolar ligands for a known enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2002) 99(3):1270-1273. The identification of new picomolar ligands for the human carbonic anhydrase II by means of a computational tool, CombiSMoG, that uses a knowledge-based potential for ligand scoring and a dynamic Monte Carlo algorithm for ligand growth.
94. Muchmore SW, Hajduk PJ: Crystallography, NMR and virtual screening: integrated tools for drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2003) 6(4):544-549.
95. Blundell TL, Jhoti H, Abell C: High-throughput crystallography for lead discovery in drug design. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2002) 1(1):45-54.
96. Van Dongen MJ, Uppenberg J, Svensson S, Lundbäck T, Åkerund T, Wikström M, Schultz J: Structure-based screening as applied to human FABP4: A highly efficient alternative to HTS for hit generation. J Am Chem Soc (2002) 124(40):11874-11880.
97. Lesuisse D, Lange G, Deprez P, Bénard D, Schoot B, Delettre G, Marquette JP, Broto P, Jean-Baptiste V, Bichet P, Sarubbi E et al. SAR and X-ray. A new approach combining fragment-based screening and rational drug design: Application to the discovery of nanomolar inhibitors of Src SH2. J Med Chem (2002) 45(12):2379-2387.
98. Fielding L, Fletcher D, Rutherford S, Kaur J, Mestres J: Exploring the active site of human Factor Xa protein by NMR screening of small molecule probes. Org Biomol Chem (2003) 1(23):4235-4241.
99. Dalvit C, Ardini E, Flocco M, Fogliatto GP, Mongelli N, Veronesi M: A general NMR method for rapid, efficient, and reliable biochemical screening. J Am Chem Soc (2003) 125(47):14620-14625.
100. Kastenholz MA, Pastor M, Cruciani G, Haaksma EE, Fox T: GRID/CPCA: A new computational tool to design selective ligands. J Med Chem (2000) 43(16):3033-3044.
101. Naumann T, Matter H: Structural classification of protein kinases using 3D molecular interaction field analysis of their ligand binding sites: Target family landscapes. J Med Chem (2002) 45(12):2366-2378. Using GRID molecular interaction fields extracted from 3D structures of binding sites, common binding pattern and specific interaction sites for particular kinase subfamilies were identified. The sites are in good agreement with the experimental selectivity profiles of a series of CDK inhibitors.
102. Terp GE, Cruciani G, Christensen IT, Jørgensen FS: Structural differences of matrix metalloproteinases with potential implications for inhibitor selectivity examined by GRID/CPCA approach. J Med Chem (2002) 45(13):2675-2684.
103. Zamora I, Afzelius L, Cruciani G: Predicting drug metabolism: A site of metabolism prediction tool applied to the cytochrome P450 2C9. J Med Chem (2003) 46(12):2313-2324.
104. Fradera X, Knegtel RM, Mestres J: Similarity-driven flexible ligand docking. Proteins (2000) 40(4):623-636.
105. Hindle SA, Rarey M, Buning C, Lengauer T: Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(2):129-149.
106. Joseph-McCarthy D, Thomas BE 4th, Belmarsh M, Moustakas D, Alvarez JC: Pharmacophore-based molecular docking to account for ligand flexibility. Proteins (2003) 51(2):172-188.
107. Jain AN: Surflex fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem (2003) 46(4):499-511.
108. Daeyaert F, de Jonge M, Heeres J, Koymans L, Lewi P, Vinkers MH, Janssen PA: A pharmacophore docking algorithm and its application to the cross-docking of 18 HIV-NNRTI's in their binding pockets. Proteins (2004) 54(3):526-533.
109. Evers A, Gohlke H, Klebe G: Ligand-supported homology modeling of protein binding-sites using knowledge-based potentials. J Mol Biol (2003) 334(2):327-345.
110. Evers A, Klebe G: Ligand-supported homology modeling of G-protein-coupled receptor sites: Models sufficient for successful virtual screening. Angew Chem Int Ed (2004) 43(2):248-251. A recent example of a knowledge-based approach to virtual screening. A homology model of the neurokinin-1 receptor consistent with information on a known antagonist ligand was derived. Flexible ligand docking of a database containing 11,109 compounds successfully identified a novel submicromolar antagonist.
111. Hansch C, Hoekman D, Leo A, Weininger D, Selassie CD: Chembioinformatics: Comparative QSAR at the interface between chemistry and biology. Chem Rev (2002) 102(3):783-812.
112. Walters WP, Namchuk M: Designing screens: How to make your hits a hit. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2003) 2(4):259-266.
113. Rabow AA, Shoemaker RH, Sausville EA, Covell DG: Mining the national cancer Institute's tumor-screening database: Identification of compounds with similar cellular activities. J Med Chem (2002) 45(4):818-840.
114. Zolli-Juran M, Cechetto JD, Hartlen R, Daigle DM, Brown ED: High throughput screening identifies novel inhibitors of Escherichia coli dihydrofolate reductase that are competitive with dihydrofolate. Bioorg Med Chem Lett (2003) 13(15):2493-2496.
115. Roche O, Kiyama R, Brooks CL 3rd: Ligand-protein database: Linking protein-ligand complex structures to binding data. J Med Chem (2001) 44(22):3592-3598.
116. Kitajima K, Ahmad S, Selvaraj S, Kubodera H, Sunada S, An J, Sarai A: Development of a protein-ligand interaction database, ProLINT, and its application to QSAR analysis. Genome Inform (2002) 13:498-499.
117. Puvanendrampillai D, Mitchell JB: L/D protein ligand database (PLD): Additional understanding of the nature and specificity of protein-ligand complexes. Bioinformatics (2003) 19(14):1856-1857.
118. Good A: Structure-based virtual screening protocols. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2001) 4(3):301-307.
119. Schneider G, Böhm HJ: Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(1):64-70.
120. Waszkowycz B: Structure-based approaches to drug design and virtual screening. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5(3):407-413.
121. Bajorath J: Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2002) 1(11):882-894.
122. Chen YZ, Zhi DG: Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins (2001) 43(2):217-226.
123. Paul N, Kellenberger E, Bret G, Muller P, Rognan D: Recovering the true target of specific ligands by virtual screening of the Protein Data Bank. Proteins (2004) 54(4):671-680. A subset of the PDB containing 2148 entries was used to recover the known target of four unrelated ligands among the top 1% scorers using the GOLD docking program.
124. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R: Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins (2002) 47(4):409-443.
125. Koehler RT, Villar HO: Statistical relationships among docking scores for different protein binding sites. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2000) 14(1):23-37.
126. Weber A, Teckentrup A, Briem H: Flexsim-R: A virtual affinity fingerprint descriptor to calculate similarities of functional groups. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(12):903-916.
127. Hetényi C, Maran U, Karelson N: A comprehensive docking study on the selectivity of binding of aromatic compounds to proteins. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(5):1576-1583.
128. Vigers GP, Rizzi JP: Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. J Med Chem (2004) 47(1):80-89.
129. Godden JW, Stahura FL, Bajorath J: Variability of molecular descriptors in compound databases revealed by Shannon entropy calculations. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2000) 40(3):796-800.
130. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ: Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Delivery Rev (2001) 46(1-3):3-26.
131. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng H-V, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD: Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J Med Chem (2002) 45(12):2615-2623.
132. Oprea TI: Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2000) 14(3):251-264.
133. Muegge I: Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med Res Rev (2003) 23(3):302-321.
134. Proudfoot JR: Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: An analysis of some recently launched drugs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett (2002) 12(12):1647-1650.
135. Wenlock MC, Austin RP, Barton P, Davis AM, Leeson PD: A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. J Med Chem (2003) 46(7):1250-1256.
136. Vieth N, Siegel MG, Higgs RE, Watson IA, Robertson DH, Savin KA, Durst GL, Hipskind PA: Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. J Med Chem (2004) 47(1):224-232.
137. Exner TE, Keil M, Brickmann J: Pattern recognition strategies for molecular surfaces. II. Surface complementarity. J Comput Chem (2002) 23(12):1188-1197.
138. Zauhar RJ, Moyna G, Tian L, Li Z, Welsh WJ: Shape signatures: A new approach to computer-aided ligand- and receptor-based drug design. J Med Chem (2003) 46(26):5674-5690.
139. Zamora I, Oprea T, Cruciani G, Pastor N, Ungell A-L: Surface descriptors for protein-ligand affinity prediction. J Med Chem (2003) 46(1):25-33. A good example of the use of the same set of descriptors for ligands, proteins and protein-ligand complexes. Examples of statistically significant models are presented for both binding affinity and pharmacokinetic properties of ligands.
140. Sheridan RP: The most common chemical replacements in drug-like compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(1):103-108.
141. Ertl P: Cheminformatics analysis of organic substituents: Identification of the most common substituents, calculation of substituent properties, and automatic identification of drug-like bioisosteric groups. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(2):374-380.
142. Lewell XQ, Jones AC, Bruce CL, Harper G, Jones MM, McLay IM, Bradshaw J: Drug rings database with web interface. A tool for identifying alternative chemical rings in lead discovery programs. J Med Chem (2003) 45(15):3257-3274.
143. Müller G: Medicinal chemistry of target family-directed masterkeys. Drug Disc Today (2003) 8(15):681-691.
144. Willoughby CA, Hutchins SM, Rosauer KG, Dhar NJ, Chapman KT, Chicchi GG, Sadowski S, Weinberg DH, Patel S, Malkowitz L, Di Salvo J et al: Combinatorial synthesis of 3-(amidoalkyl) and 3-(aminoalkyl)-2-arylindole derivatives: Discovery of potent ligands for a variety of G-protein coupled receptors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett (2002) 12(1):93-96. The preparation and screening of mixture libraries of compounds containing a 2-arylindole scaffold led to the identification of submicromolar ligands for a variety of GPCRs.
145. Klabunde T, Hessler G: Drug design strategies for targeting G-protein-coupled receptor. ChemBioChem (2002) 3(10):928-944.
146. Bondensgaard K, Ankersen M, Thøgersen H, Hansen BS, Wulff BS, Bywater RP: Recognition of privileged structures by G-protein coupled receptors. J Med Chem (2004) 47(4):888-899.
147. Sheridan RP: Finding multiactivity substructures by mining databases of drug-like compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(3):1037-1050.
148. Wang J, Lai L, Tang Y: Structural features of toxic chemicals for specific toxicity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39(6):1173-1189.
149. Ghose AK, Wendoloski JJ: Pharmacophore modelling: Methods, experimental verification and applications. Perspect Drug Disc Design (1998) 9-11:253-271.
150. Muegge I: Pharmacophore features of potential drugs. Chemistry (2002) 8(9):1976-1981.
151. Zuccotto F: Pharmacophore features distribution in different classes of compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(5):1542-1552.
152. Guccione S: Molecular modelling - pharmacore elucidation. Curr Pharm Design (2003) 9(20): preface.
153. Abrahamian E, Fox PC, Naerum L, Christensen IT, Thøgersen H, Clark RD: Efficient generation, storage, and manipulation of fully flexible pharmacophore multiplets and their use in 3-D similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(2):458-468.
154. de Groot MJ, Ekins S: Pharmacophore modeling of cytochromes P450. Adv Drug Deliv Rev (2002) 54(3):367-383.
155. Olender R, Rosenfeld R: A fast algorithm for searching for molecules containing a pharmacophore - in very large virtual combinatorial libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41(3):731-738.
156. Hecker EA, Duraiswami C, Andrea TA, Diller DJ: Use of catalyst pharmacophore models for screening of large combinatorial libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(5):1204-1211.
157. Mestres J, Veeneman GH: Identification of "latent hits" in compound screening collections. J Med Chem (2003) 46(16):3441-3444. On the basis of information on pharmacophores and simple chemical transformations, a knowledge-based approach is presented that allows for identification of inactive compounds that can be promoted into submicromolar compounds by simple chemical modifications of the missing key pharmacophoric features.
158. Golebiowski A, Klopfenstein ER, Portlock DE: Lead compounds discovered from libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2001) 5(3):273-284.
159. Golebiowski A, Klopfenstein SR, Portlock DE: Lead compounds discovered from libraries: Part 2. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(3):308-325.
160. Agrafiotis DK, Lobanov VS, Salemme FR: Combinatorial informatics in the post-genomics ERA. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2002) 1(5):337-346.
161. Rose S, Stevens A: Computational design strategies for combinatorial libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(3):331-339.
162. Viswanadhan VN, Balan C, Hulme C, Cheetham JC, Sun Y: Knowledge-based approaches in the design and selection of compound libraries for drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5(3):400-406.
163. Engels MF, Venkatarangan P: Smart screening: Approaches to efficient HTS. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2001) 4(3):275-283.
164. Manallack DT, Pitt WR, Gancia E, Montana JG, Livingstone DJ, Ford MG, Whitley DC: Selecting screening candidates for kinase and G protein-coupled receptor targets using neural networks. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(5):1256-1262. Neural networks were trained to select compounds from the MDDR database targeting a gene family, with a discrimination ability of over 80%. The neural networks were then applied to purchasing compounds from chemical suppliers, demonstrating good abilities to predict the activity of known hit compounds.
165. Balakin KV, Tkachenko SE, Lang SA, Okun I, Ivashchenko AA, Savchuk NP: Property-based design of GPCR-targeted library. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(6):1332-1342.
166. Balakin KV, Lang SA, Skorenko AV, Tkachenko SE, Ivashchenko AA, Savchuk NP: Structure-based versus property-based approaches in the design of G-protein-coupled receptor-targeted libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(5):1553-1562.
167. Lang SA, Kozyukov AV, Balakin KV, Skorenko AV, Ivashchenko AA, Savchuk NP: Classification scheme for the design of serine protease targeted compound libraries. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2002) 16(11):803-807.
168. Maly DJ, Huang L, Ellman JA: Combinatorial strategies for targeting protein families: Application to the proteases. ChemBioChem (2002) 3:17-37.
169. Ding S, Gray NS, Wu X, Ding Q, Schultz PG: A combinatorial scaffold approach toward kinase-directed heterocycle libraries. J Am Chem Soc (2002) 124(8):1594-1596.
170. Kisaau L, Stahl P, Mazitschek R, Giannis A, Waldmann H: Development of natural product-derived receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors based on conservation of protein domain fold. J Med Chem (2003) 46(14):2917-2931.
171. Horton DA, Boume GT, Smythe ML: The combinatorial synthesis of bicyclic privileged structures of privileged substructures. Chem Rev (2003) 103(3):893-930.
172. Nicolaou KC, Pfeiferkom JA, Roecker AJ, Gao G-Q, Barluenga S, Mitchell HJ: Natural product-like combinatorial libraries based on privileged structures. 1. General principles and solid-phase synthesis of benzopyrans. J Am Chem Soc (2000) 122:9939-9953.
173. Toledo-Sherman LM, Chen D: High-throughput virtual screening for drug discovery in parallel. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5(3):414-421.
174. Lamb ML, Burdick KW, Toba S, Young MM, Skillman AG, Zou X, Arnold JR, Kuntz ID: Design, docking, and evaluation of multiple libraries against multiple targets. Proteins (2001) 42(3):296-318.
175. Aronov AM, Munagala NR, Kuntz ID, Wang CC: Virtual screening of combinatorial libraries across a gene family: In search of inhibitors of Giardia lamblia guanine phosphoribosyltransferase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother (2001) 45(9):2571-2576.
176. Schapira M, Abagyan R, Totrov M: Nuclear hormone receptor targeted virtual screening. J Med Chem (2003) 46(14):3045-3059.
177. Austin CP: The completed human genome: Implications for chemical biology. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(4):511-515.
178. Bleicher KH: Chemogenomics: Bridging a drug discovery gap. Curr Med Chem (2002) 9(23):2077-2084.
179. Van de Waterbeemd H, Smith DA, Beaumont K, Walker DK: Property-based design: Optimization of drug absorption and pharmacokinetics. J Med Chem (2001) 44(9):1313-1333.
180. Di L, Kerns EH: Profiling drug-like properties in discovery research. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(3):402-408.
181. Selick HE, Beresford AP, Tarbit MH: The emerging importance of predictive ADME simulation in drug discovery. Drug Disc Today (2002) 7(2):109-116.
182. Clark DE, Grootenhuis PD: Progress in computational methods for the prediction of ADMET properties. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2002) 5(3):382-390.
183. Van de Waterbeemd H, Gifford E: ADMET in silico modelling: Towards prediction paradise? Nat Rev Drug Disc (2003) 2(3):192-204.
184. Stein RL: A new model for drug discovery. Meeting our societal obligation. Drug Disc Today (2003) 8(6):245-248.
185. Nwaka S, Ridley RG: Virtual drug discovery and development for neglected diseases through public-private partnerships. Nat Rev Drug Disc (2003) 2(11):919-928.