Combining pharmacophore fingerprints and PLS-discriminant analysis for virtual screening and SAR elucidation

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 476-488

  Askjaer, Sune ^a,b   Langgåd, Morten ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b H LUNDBECK A S   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LEAD COMPOUNDS; LIGANDS; OPTIMIZATION; VIRTUAL REALITY;

PHARMACOPHORES; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

DRUG DELIVERY;

DRUG;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 42149135578     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci700356w     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44 (3), 1177-1185.
2. Williams, C. Reverse fingerprinting, similarity searching by group fusion and fingerprint bit importance. Mol. Diversity 2006, 10 (3), 311-332.
3. Weaver, D. C. Applying data mining techniques to library design, lead generation and lead optimization. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8 (3), 264-270.
4. PubChem, National Center for Biotechnology Information, http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed Sept 2007).
5. Wombat World of Molecular BioAcTivity, version 2005.02; Sunset Molecular Discovery: Santa Fe, NM, 2005.
6. Lengauer, T.; Lemmen, C.; Rarey, M.; Zimmermann, M. Novel technologies for virtual screening. Drug Discovery Today 2004, 9(1), 27-34.
7. Keseru, G. M.; Makara, G. M. Hit discovery and hit-to-lead approaches. Drug Discovery Today 2006, 11 (15-16), 741-748.
8. Eckert, H.; Bajorath, J. Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. Drug Discovery Today 2007, 12 (5-6), 225-233.
9. Whittle, M.; Gillet, V. J.; Willett, P.; Alex, A.; Loesel, J. Enhancing the effectiveness of virtual screening by fusing nearest neighbor lists: A comparison of similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44 (5), 1840-1848.
10. Stahura, F. L.; Bajorath, M. New methodologies for ligand-based virtual screening. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2005, 11 (9), 1189-1202.
11. Plewczynski, D.; Spieser, S. A. H.; Koch, U. Assessing different classification methods for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46(3), 1098-1106.
12. Villar, H. O.; Hansen, M. R.; Kho, R. Substructural analysis in drug discovery. Curr. Comput.-Aided Drug Des. 2007, 3 (1), 59-67.
13. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9 (6), 532-549.
14. Greene, J.; Kahn, S.; Savoj, H.; Sprague, P.; Teig, S. Chemical Function Queries for 3D Database Search. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34 (6), 1297-1308.
15. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), version 2006.08; Chemical Computing Group: Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 2006.
16. Renner, S.; Schneider, G. Fuzzy pharmacophore models from molecular alignments for correlation-vector-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47 (19), 4653-4664.
17. Sorich, M. J.; Miners, J. O.; McKinnon, R. A.; Winkler, D. A.; Burden, F. R.; Smith, P. A. Comparison of linear and nonlinear classification algorithms for the prediction of drug and chemical metabolism by human UDP- glucuronosyltransferase isoforms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43 (6), 2019-2024.
18. Sheridan, R. P.; Nachbar, R. B.; Bush, B. L. Extending the trend vector - the trend matrix and sample-based partial least-squares. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8 (3), 323-340.
19. Pirard, B.; Pickett, S. D. Classification of kinase inhibitors using BCUT descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40 (6), 1431-1440.
20. Evers, A.; Hessler, G.; Matter, H.; Klabunde, T. Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: Comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48 (17), 5448-5465.
21. Carhart, R. E.; Smith, D. H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure activity studies-Definition and applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1985, 25 (2), 64-73.
22. Cramer, R. D.; Redi, G.; Berkoff, C. E. Substructural analysis. Novel approach to the problem of drug design. J. Med. Chem. 1974, 17 (5), 533-535.
23. Wilton, D.; Willett, P.; Lawson, K.; Mullier, G. Comparison of ranking methods for virtual screening in lead-discovery programs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43 (2), 469-474.
24. SIMCA-P+, version 11; Umetrics AB: Umeå, Sweden, 2006.
25. Wold, S.; Sjostrom, M.; Eriksson, L. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58 (2), 109-130.
26. Olah, M.; Bologa, C.; Oprea, T. I. An automated PLS search for biologically relevant QSAR descriptors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18 (7-9), 437-449.
27. 3D QSAR in Drug Design; Kubinyi, H., Ed.; ESCOM Science Publishers BV: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993.
28. Xia, X. Y.; Maliski, E. G.; Gallant, P.; Rogers, D. Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47 (18), 4463-4470.
29. Franke, L.; Byvatov, E.; Werz, O.; Steinhilber, D.; Schneider, P.; Schneider, G. Extraction and visualization of potential pharmacophore points using support vector machines: Application to ligand-based virtual screening for COX-2 inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48 (22), 6997-7004.
30. Chen, B. N.; Harrison, R. F.; Papadatos, G.; Willett, P.; Wood, D. J.; Lewell, X. Q.; Greenidge, P. A.; Stiefl, N. Evaluation of machine-learning methods for ligand-based virtual screening. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2007, 21, 53-62.
31. Willett, P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discovery Today 2006, 11 (23-24), 1046-1053.
32. 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 (7), 2534-2547.
33. Witten, I.; Frank, E. Data Mining, Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques; Morgan Kaufmann Publishers-Elsevier. Burlington, MA, 2005.
34. Truchon, J. F.; Bayly, C. I. Evaluating virtual screening methods: Good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47 (2), 488-508.
35. Golbraikh, A.; Shen, M.; Xiao, Z. Y.; Xiao, Y. D.; Lee, K. H.; Tropsha, A. Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17 (2), 241-253.
36. Huang, P.; Kim, S.; Loew, G. Development of a common 3D pharmacophore for delta-opioid recognition from peptides and non-peptides using a novel computer program. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11 (1), 21-28.
37. Protein Data Bank, RCSB. http://www.pdb.org (accessed Sept 2007).
38. Michaux, C.; de Levai, X.; Julemont, F.; Dogne, J. M,; Pirotte, B.; Durant, F. Structure-based pharmacophore of COX-2 selective inhibitors and identification of original lead compounds from 3D database searching method. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 41 (12), 1446-1455.
39. Han, Q.; Chang, C. H.; Li, R. H.; Ru, Y.; Jadhav, P. K.; Lam, P. Y. S. Cyclic HIV protease inhibitors: Design and synthesis of orally bioavailable, pyrazole P2/P2′ cyclic ureas with improved potency. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41 (12), 2019-2028.
40. Fossa, P.; Menozzi, G.; Mosti, L. An updated topographical model for phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) catalytic site. Quant. Struct. - Act. Relat. 2001, 20 (1), 17-22.
41. Patel, Y.; Gillet, V. J.; Bravi, G.; Leach, A. R. A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16 (8-9), 653-681.
42. Mason, J. S.; Good, A. C.; Martin, E. J. 3-D Pharmacophores in drug discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2001, 7 (7), 567-597.
43. Perola, E.; Charifson, P. S. Conformational Analysis of Drug-Like Molecules Bound to Proteins: An Extensive Study of Ligand Reorganization upon Binding, J. Med. Chem. 2004, 2004 (47), 2499-2510.
44. Mason, J. S.; Morize, I.; Menard, P. R.; Cheney, D. L.; Hulme, C.; Labaudiniere, R. F. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: Overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42 (17), 3251-3264.
45. Sheridan, R. P.; Kearsley, S. K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7 (17), 903-911.
46. Bonachera, F.; Parent, B.; Barbosa, F.; Froloff, N.; Horvath, D. Fuzzy Dicentric pharmacophore fingerprints. 1. Topological fuzzy pharmacophore triplets and adapted molecular similarity scoring schemes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46 (6), 2457-2477.
47. Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J. Hydrogen Bonding, Hydrophobic Interactions, and Failure of the Rigid Receptor Hypothesis. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 736-749.
48. Chemical Computing Group. SVL Exchange. http://svl.chemcomp.com (accessed May 2007).