Consensus scoring with feature selection for structure-based virtual screening

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 288-295

  Teramoto, Reiji ^a   Fukunishi, Hiroaki ^a  

^a NEC CORPORATION   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGANDS; PROTEINS;

SCORING FUNCTIONS; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

FEATURE EXTRACTION;

LIGAND; PEROXISOME PROLIFERATOR ACTIVATED RECEPTOR GAMMA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PPAR GAMMA; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 41549086249     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci700239t     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Doman, T. N.; McGovern, S. L.; Witherbee, B. J.; Kasten, T. P.; Kurumbail, R.; Stallings, W. C.; Connolly, D. T.; Schoichet, B. K. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phopphatase-lB. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2213-2221.
2. Lyne, P. D. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1047-1055.
3. Shoichet, B. K.; McGovern, S. L.; Wei, B.; Irwin, J. Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 439-446.
4. Shoichet, B. K. Virtual screening of chemical library. Nature 2004, 432, 862-865.
5. Majeux, N.; Scarsi, M.; Apostolakis, J.; Caisch, A. Exhaustive docking of molecular fragments on protein binding sites with electrostatic salvation. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 1999, 37, 88-105.
6. Zou, X.; Sun, Y.; Kuntz, I. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1999, 121, 8033-8043.
7. DeWitte, R.; Shakhnovich, E. SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 11733-11744.
8. Mitchell, J. B. O.; Laskowski, R. A.; Alexander, A.; Thornton, J. M. BLEEP-Potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: I. Generating potential. J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20, 1165-1176.
9. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y. C.; A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 791-804.
10. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
11. Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 2004, 57, 225-242.
12. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 57, 225-242.
13. Kontoyianni, M.; McClellan, L. M.; Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 56, 558-565.
14. Kroemer, R. T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J. J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Trosset, J. Y.; Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; McMartin, C.; Kihlen, M.; Stouten, P. F. W. Assessment of docking poses: Interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 871-881.
15. Kontoyianni, M.; Sokol, G. S.; McClellan, L. M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 2005, 26, 11-22.
16. 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. 2006, 49, 5912-5931.
17. Jacobsson, M.; Liden, P.; Stjernschantz, E.; Bostrom, H.; Norinder, U. Improvement structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 5781-5789.
18. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5100-5109.
19. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases: 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
20. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
21. Clark, R. D.; Strizhev, A.; Leonard, J. M.; Blake, J. F.; Matthew, J. B. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J. Mol. Graphics. Modell. 2002, 20, 281-295.
22. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 22872303.
23. Verdonk, M. L.; Berdini, V.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Mooij, W. T. M.; Murray, C. W.; Taylor, T. D.; Watson, P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 793-806.
24. Yang, J. M.; Chen, Y. F.; Shen, T. W.; Kristal, B. S.; Hsu, D. F. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1134-1146.
25. Teramoto, R; Fukunishi, H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 526-534.
26. Wang, R.; Wang, S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2001, 41, 1422-1426.
27. Fukunishi, Y.; Hojo, S.; Nakamura, H. An efficient in silico screening method based on the protein-compound affinity matrix and its application to the design of a focused library for cytochrome P450 (CYP) ligands. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2610-2622.
28. Betzi, S.; Suhre, K.; Chetrit, B.; Guerlesquin, F.; Morelli, X. GFscore: a general nonlinear consensus scoring function for highthroughput docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1704-1712.
29. Camacho, C. J.; Vajda, S. Protein docking along smooth association pathways. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2001, 98, 10636-10641.
30. Huang, N.; Schoichet, K. B.; Irwin, J. J.; Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
31. FlexSIS, Sybyl7.1J; BioSolvelT GmbH: Sankt Augustin, Germany, 2005.
32. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 261, 470-89.
33. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T. Evaluation of the FlexX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 1999, 37, 228-241.
34. Muegge, I. A knowledge-based scoring function or protein-ligand interactions: probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug. Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 99-114.
35. Muegge, I. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J. Comput. Chem. 2001, 22, 418-425.
36. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y. C. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 791-804.
37. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, R. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligand in receptor complexes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 425-445.
38. Clark, R. D.; Strizhev, A.; Leonard, J. M.; Blake, J. F.; Matthew, J. B. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2002, 20, 281-295.
39. Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. H. The Elements of Statistical Learning; Springer-Verlag: New York, 2001.
40. Vapnik, V. Statistical learning theory: Wiley: New York, 1998.