Alternative global goodness metrics and sensitivity analysis: Heuristics to check the robustness of conclusions from studies comparing virtual screening methods

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 426-433

  Sheridan, Robert P ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL SYSTEMS); SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

DOCKING METHODS; VIRTUAL SCREENING METHODS;

HEURISTIC METHODS;

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN BINDING;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS;

EID: 41549138876     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci700380x     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins: Struct. Funct. Bioinf. 2004, 56, 235-249.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Kontoyianni, M.; Sokol, G. S.; McClellan, L. M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 2005, 26, 11 - 22.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Onodera, K; Satou, K.; Hirota, H. Evaluations of molecular docking programs for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1609-1618.
8. Zhou, Z.; Felts, A. K.; Friesner, R. A.; Levy, R. M. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1599-1608.
9. Andersson, C. D.; Thysell, E.; Lindstrom, A.; Bylesjo, M.; Raubacher, F.; Linusson, A. A multivariate approach to investigate docking parameters' effects on docking performance. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1673-1687.
10. 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.
11. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82.
12. Moro, S.; Bacilieri, M.; Deflorian, F. Combining ligand-based and structure-based drug design in the virtual screening arena. Expert Opin. Drug. Disc. 2007, 2, 37-49.
13. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C. I.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C. K.; Lindsley, S.; Maiorov, V.; Truchon, J.-F.; Cornell, W. D. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1504-1519.
14. 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.
15. Jenkins, J. L.; Glick, M.; Davies, J. W. A 3D similarity method for scaffold hopping from known drugs or natural ligands to new chemotypes. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6144-6159.
16. Kogej, T.; Engkvist, O.; Blomberg, N.; Muresan, S. Multifingerprint based similarity searches for targeted class compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1201-1213.
17. Ewing, T.; Baber, J. C.; Feher, M. Novel 2D fingerprints for ligand-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2423-2431.
18. Sperandio, O.; Andrieu, O.; Miteva, M. A.; Vo, M.-Q.; Souaille, M.; Defaud, F.; Villoutriex, B. O. MED-SuMoLig: a new ligand-based screening tool for efficient scaffold hopping. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1097-1110.
19. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
20. Hartshorn, M. J.; Verdonk, M. L.; Chessari, G.; Brewerton, S. C.; Mooij, W. T. M.; Mortenson, P. N.; Murray, C. W.; Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 726-741.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Truchon, J.-F.; Bayly, C I. Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the early recognition noblem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508.
24. Seifert, M. H. J. Assessing the discriminatory power of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1456-1465.
25. Carhart, R. E.; Smith, D. H.; Ventkataraghavan, R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and application. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1985, 25, 64-73.
26. Nilakantan, R.; Bauman, N.; Dixon, J. S.; Venkataraghavan, R. Topological torsion: a new molecular descriptor for SAR applications, comparison with other descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1987, 27, 82-85.
27. 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.
28. Vidal, D.; Thormann, M.; Pons, M. LINGO, an efficient holographic text based method to calculate biophysical properties and intermolecular similarities. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 386-393.
29. Hocking, R. R. In Methods and Applications of Linear Models; John Wiley and Sons: New York, 1996; Chapter 2, p 40.
30. Venables, W. N.; Ripley, B. D. In Modem Applied Statistics with S, 4th ed.; Springer: New York, 2002; Chapter 5, p 121.