Towards improving compound selection in structure-based virtual screening

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 13, Issue 5-6, 2008, Pages 219-226

  Waszkowycz, Bohdan ^a  

^a Argenta Discovery Ltd   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINDING AFFINITY; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; METHODOLOGY; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SOFTWARE; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 40649094486     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.12.002     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Jalaie M., and Shanmugasundaram V. Virtual screening: are we there yet?. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 6 (2006) 1159-1167
2. Fara D.C., et al. Integration of virtual and physical screening. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 3 (2006) 377-385
3. Eckert H., and Bajorath J. Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. Drug Discov. Today 12 (2006) 225-233
4. Muegge I., and Oloff S. Advances in virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 3 (2006) 405-411
5. Klebe G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006) 580-594
6. Seifert M.H.J., et al. Virtual high-throughput screening of molecular databases. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 10 (2007) 298-307
7. Cole J.C., et al. Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins 60 (2005) 325-332
8. Warren G.L., et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 5912-5913
9. Chen H., et al. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 401-415
10. Perola E., et al. Comments on the article 'On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors'. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 47 (2007) 251-253
11. Lovell T., et al. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors (Erratum). J. Chem. Inf. Model (2007) ASAP Web Release Data 18 Oct. 2007
12. Feher M. Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006) 421-428
13. Zhang Q., and Muegge I. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting and consensus scoring. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 1536-1548
14. Hawkins P.C.D., et al. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 50 (2007) 74-82
15. McGaughey G.B., et al. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007) 1504-1519
16. Jain A.N. Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 7 (2006) 407-420
17. Rajamani R., and Good A.C. Ranking poses in structure-based lead discovery and optimization: current trends in scoring function development. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 10 (2007) 308-315
18. Tirado-Rives J., and Jorgensen W.L. Contribution of conformer focusing to the uncertainty in predicting free energies for protein-ligand binding. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 5880-5884
19. Mobley D.L., et al. Confine-and-release method: obtaining correct binding free energies in the presence of protein conformational change. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 3 (2007) 1231-1235
20. Chang C.A., et al. Ligand configurational entropy and protein binding. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104 (2007) 1534-1539
21. Rockey W.M., and Elcock A.H. Structure selection for protein kinase docking and virtual screening: homology models or crystal structures?. Curr. Protein Pep. Sci. 7 (2006) 437-457
22. Thomas M.P., et al. Protein structures in virtual screening: a case study with CDK2. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 92-104
23. Verdonk M.L., et al. Modeling water molecules in protein-ligand docking using GOLD. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 6504-6515
24. 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
25. Cavasotto C.N., et al. The challenge of considering receptor flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening. Curr. Comput. Aid. Drug Des. 1 (2005) 423-440
26. Sherman W., et al. Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 534-553
27. Muegge I. PMF scoring revisited. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 5895-5902
28. Velec H.F.G., et al. DrugScoreCSD - knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native poses and better affinity prediction. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 6296-6303
29. Friesner R.A., et al. Extra precision Glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 6177-6198
30. Zhou Z., et al. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007) 1599-1608
31. Mooij W.T.M., and Verdonk M.L. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Proteins 61 (2005) 272-287
32. Raha K., and Merz K.M. Large-scale validation of a quantum mechanics based scoring function: predicting the binding affinity and the binding mode of a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 4558-4575
33. Cho A.E., et al. Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach. J. Comput. Chem. 26 (2005) 915-931
34. Oda A., et al. Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 380-391
35. Betzi S., et al. GFscore: a general nonlinear consensus scoring function for high-throughput docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 1704-1712
36. Teramoto R., and Fukunishi H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007) 526-534
37. Hartshorn M.J., et al. Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J. Med. Chem. 50 (2007) 726-741
38. Huang N., et al. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 6789-6801
39. Pham T.A., and Jain A.N. Parameter estimation for scoring protein-ligand interactions using negative training data. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 5856-5868
40. Waszkowycz B., et al. Large-scale virtual screening for discovering leads in the postgenomic era. IBM Syst. J. 40 (2001) 360-376
41. Oprea T.I., et al. Lead-like, drug-like or 'Pub-like': how different are they?. J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des. 21 (2007) 113-119
42. Jacobsson M., and Karlén A. Ligand bias of scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 1334-1343
43. Carta G., et al. Unbiasing scoring functions: a new normalization and rescoring strategy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007) 1564-1571
44. Perola E. Minimizing false positives in kinase virtual screens. Proteins 64 (2006) 422-435
45. 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
46. Claussen H., et al. The FlexX database docking environment - rational extraction of receptor based pharmacophores. Curr. Drug Discov. Technol. 1 (2004) 49-60
47. Joseph-McCarthy D., et al. Lead optimization via high-throughput molecular docking. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 10 (2007) 264-274
48. Foloppe N., et al. Towards predictive ligand design with free-energy based computational methods?. Curr. Med. Chem. 13 (2006) 3583-3608
49. Huang N., and Jacobson M.P. Physics-based methods for studying protein-ligand interactions. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 10 (2007) 325-331
50. Huang N., et al. Physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes: enrichment of known inhibitors in large-scale virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 243-253
51. Lee M.R., and Sun Y. Improving docking accuracy through molecular mechanics generalized Born optimization and scoring. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 3 (2007) 1106-1119
52. Brown S.P., and Muchmore S.W. Rapid estimation of relative protein-ligand binding affinities using a high-throughput version of MM-PBSA. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007) 1493-1503
53. Kuhn B., et al. Validation and use of the MM-PBSA approach for drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 48 (2005) 4040-4048
54. Lushington G.H., et al. Whither Combine? New opportunities for receptor-based QSAR. Curr. Med. Chem. 14 (2007) 1863
55. Hassan M., et al. Cheminformatics analysis and learning in a data pipelining environment. Mol. Divers. 10 (2006) 283-299
56. Lyne P.D., et al. Identification of compounds with nanomolar binding affinity for Checkpoint Kinase-1 using knowledge-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004) 1962-1968
57. Barril X., et al. Structure-based discovery of a new class of Hsp90 inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005) 5187-5191
58. Foloppe N., et al. Identification of chemically diverse Chk1 inhibitors by receptor-based virtual screening. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 14 (2006) 4792-4802
59. Rummey C., et al. In silico fragment-based discovery of DPP-IV S1 pocket binders. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16 (2006) 1405-1409
60. Cavasotto C.N., et al. In silico identification of novel EGFR inhibitors with antiproliferative activity against cancer cells. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16 (2006) 1969-1974
61. Kellenberger E., et al. Identification of nonpeptide CCR5 receptor agonists by structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 50 (2007) 1294-1303
62. Price S., et al. Identification and optimisation of a series of substituted 5-(1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-thiophene-2-hydroxamic acids as potent histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17 (2007) 370-375
63. De Graaf C., et al. Catalytic site prediction and virtual screening of cytochrome P450 2D6 substrates by consideration of water and rescoring in automated docking. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 2417-2430
64. Jorgensen W.L., et al. Computer-aided design of non-nucleoside inhibitors of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 16 (2006) 663-667
65. Stjernschantz E., et al. Are automated molecular dynamics simulations and binding free energy calculations realistic tools in lead optimization? An evaluation of the linear interaction energy (LIE) method. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006) 1972-1983
66. Su Y., et al. Linear interaction energy (LIE) models for ligand binding in implicit solvent: theory and application to the binding of NNRTIs to HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 3 (2007) 256-277
67. Bortolato A., and Moro S. In silico binding free energy predictability by using the linear interaction energy (LIE) method: bromobenzimidazole CK2 inhibitors as a case study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007) 572-582
68. Steinbrecher T., et al. A multistep approach to structure-based drug design: studying ligand binding at the human neutrophil elastase. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 1837-1844
69. Lyne P.D., et al. Accurate prediction of the relative potencies of members of a series of kinase inhibitors using molecular docking and MM-GBSA scoring. J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006) 4805-4808