Recent developments in de novo design and scaffold hopping

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 365-374

  Mauser, H ^a   Guba, W ^a  

^a F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Computer aided design; De novo design; Fragment library; Scaffold hopping; Structure based design

Indexed keywords

BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR 7A INHIBITOR; HYDROGEN; LIGAND;

ALGORITHM; BIOPHYSICS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SYNTHESIS; HYDROGEN BOND; HYDROPHOBICITY; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; MOLECULAR PROBE; PHARMACOPHORE; QUANTUM MECHANICS; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; X RAY ANALYSIS;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 42449095567     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (65)

1. Böhm HJ, Flohr A, Stahl M: Scaffold hopping. Drug Disc Today - Technol (2004) 1(3):217-224. • Provides a comprehensive review of scaffold hopping.
2. SciFinder: Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), A division of the American Chemical Society, Columbus, OH, USA (2006). www.cas.org/products/ scifindr/index.html
3. Moon JB, Howe WJ: Computer design of bioactive molecules: A method for receptor-based de novo ligand design. Proteins (1991) 11(4):314-328.
4. Böhm HJ: The computer program LUDI: A new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1992) 6(1):61-78.
5. Todorov NP, Alberts IL, Dean PM: De novo design. In: Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry, II, Volume 4. Triggle DJ, Taylor JB (Eds), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2006):283-305. • Provides an excellent review describing algorithmic challenges in de novo design.
6. Keseru GM, Makara GM: Hit discovery and hit-to-lead approaches. Drug Disc Today (2006) 11(15-16):741-748.
7. Schneider G, Fechner U: Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov (2005) 4(8):649-663.
8. Zhao H: Scaffold selection and scaffold hopping in lead generation: A medicinal chemistry perspective. Drug Disc Today (2007) 12(3-4):149-155. •• Provides a very interesting review on the value of scaffold hopping in the pharmaceutical industry.
9. Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, Schmid G: 'Scaffold hopping' by topological pharmacophore search: A contribution to virtual screening. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl (1999) 38(19):2894-2896.
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(5):1536-1548. • Provides an elegant comparison of the different methods for similarity searching, focusing on the capability for identifying novel chemotypes.
11. Renner S, Schneider G: Scaffold hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. ChemMedChem (2006) 1(2):181-185.
12. McGregor MJ, Muskal SM: Pharmacophore fingerprinting. 1. Application to QSAR and focused library design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1999) 39(3):569-574.
13. Carhart RE, Smith DH, Venkataraghavan R: Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: Definition and applications. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1985) 25(2):64-73.
14. Daylight Toolkit: Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA (2006). www.daylight.com/products/toolkit.html
15. Holliday JD, Salim N, Whittle M, Willett P: Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(3):819-828.
16. Ginn CMR, Willett P, Bradshaw J: Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion. Perspec Drug Disc Des (2000) 20(1):1-16. • Provides a comprehensive review on data fusion as an important tool for merging hit lists from similarity searching.
17. Takahashi Y, Sukekawa M, Sasaki S-I: Automatic identification of molecular similarity using reduced-graph representation of chemical structure. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1992) 32(6):639-643.
18. Rarey M, Dixon JS: Feature trees: A new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1998) 12(5):471-490.
19. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J: Similarity searching using reduced graphs. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(2):338-345.
20. Barker EJ, Buttar D, Cosgrove DA, Gardiner EJ, Kitts P, Willett P, Gillet VJ: Scaffold hopping using clique detection applied to reduced graphs. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(2):503-511.
21. Stiefl N, Watson IA, Baumann K, Zaliani A: ErG: 2D pharmacophore descriptions for scaffold hopping. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(1):208-220.
22. Bohl M, Loeprecht B, Wendt B, Heritage T, Richmond NJ, Willett P: Unsupervised 3D ring template searching as an ideas generator for scaffold hopping: Use of the LAMDA, RigFit, and field-based similarity search (FBSS) methods. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(5):1882-1890.
23. Rarey M, Stahl M: Similarity searching in large combinatorial chemistry spaces. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2001) 15(6):497-520.
24. Barker EJ, Gardiner EJ, Gillet VJ, Kitts P, Morris J: Further development of reduced graphs for identifying bioactive compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2003) 43(2):346-356.
25. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, Acklin P, Azzaoui K, Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A: Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2004) 44(3):1177-1185. • Dataset used is available for download from www.cheminformatics.org
26. Mauser H, Stahl M: Chemical fragment spaces for de novo design. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(2):318-324.
27. UNITY: Tripos International, St Louis, MO, USA (2008). www.tripos.com/index.php?family=modules,SimplePage,,,&page= sybyl_unity
28. Catalyst: Accelrys Software Inc, San Diego, CA, USA (2008). www.accelrys.com/products/datasheets/ds_pharmacophore_0907.pdf
29. Maass P, Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M, Rarey M: Recore: A fast and versatile method for scaffold hopping based on small molecule crystal structure conformations. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(2):390-399. •• Describes a new method for 3D scaffold hopping that demonstrates the value of conformational data, as provided by small-molecule X-ray crystal structures, for successful scaffold design.
30. Lauri G, Bartlett PA: CAVEAT: A program to facilitate the design of organic molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1994) 8(1):51-66.
31. Wood MR, Schirripa KM, Kim JJ, Wan BL, Murphy KL, Ransom RW, Chang RS, Tang C, Prueksaritanont T, Detwiler TJ, Hettrick LA et al: Cyclopropylamino acid amide as a pharmacophoric replacement for 2,3-diaminopyridine. Application to the design of novel bradykinin B1 receptor antagonists. J Med Chem (2006) 49(4):1231-1234.
32. Lewell XQ, Judd DB, Watson SP, Hann MM: RECAP - Retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: A powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (1998) 38(3):511-522.
33. Sperandio O, Andrieu O, Miteva MA, Vo MQ, Souaille M, Delfaud F, Villoutreix BO: MED-SuMoLig: A new ligand-based screening tool for efficient scaffold hopping. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(3):1097-1110.
34. Daylight Toolkit Programmers' Guide: Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA (2008). www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/prog/ index.html
35. ROCS: OpenEye Scientific Software, Santa Fe, NM, USA (2008). www.eyesopen.com/products/applications/rocs.html
36. Girke T, Chang L-C, Raikhel N: ChemMine. A compound mining database for chemical genomics. Plant Physiol (2005) 138(2):573-577.
37. Cramer RD: Leadhopping - and beyond. Expert Opin Drug Disc (2006) 1(4):311-321. • Provides an excellent overview of shape-based methods for similarity searching and scaffold hopping.
38. 1 receptor antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem (2007) 15(12):4077-4084.
39. Vinter JG: Extended electron distributions applied to the molecular mechanics of some intermolecular interactions. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1994) 8(6):653-668.
40. Cheeseright T, Mackey M, Rose S, Vinter A: Molecular field extrema as descriptors of biological activity: Definition and validation. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(2):665-676.
41. Bergmann R, Linusson A, Zamora I: SHOP: Scaffold hopping by GRID-based similarity searches. J Med Chem (2007) 50(11):2708-2717.
42. Baroni M, Cruciani G, Sciabola S, Perruccio F, Mason JS: A common reference framework for analyzing/comparing proteins and ligands. Fingerprints for Ligands and Proteins (FLAP): Theory and application. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(2):279-294.
43. Jakobi A-J, Mauser H, Clark T: ParaFrag - An approach for surface-based similarity comparison of molecular fragments. J Mol Model (2008): epublished ahead of print. DOI: 10.1007/s00894-008-0302-3.
44. Kirchmair J, Ristic S, Eder K, Markt P, Wolber G, Laggner C, Langer T: Fast and efficient in silico 3D screening: Toward maximum computational efficiency of pharmacophore-based and shape-based approaches. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(6):2182-2196.
45. Goodford PJ: A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J Med Chem (1985) 28(7):849-857.
46. Pastor M, Cruciani G, McLay I, Pickett S, Clementi S: Grid-independent descriptors (GRIND): A novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J Med Chem (2000) 43(17):3233-3243.
47. Ehresmann B, de Groot MJ, Alex A, Clark T: New molecular descriptors based on local properties at the molecular surface and a boiling-point model derived from them. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2004) 44(2):658-668.
48. CEPOS InSilico Ltd, Erlangen, Germany. www.ceposinsilico.com
49. Low CM, Buck IM, Cooke T, Cushnir JR, Kalindjian SB, Kotecha A, Pether MJ, Shankley NP, Vinter JG, Wright L: Scaffold hopping with molecular field points: Identification of a cholecystokinin-2 (CCK2) receptor pharmacophore and its use in the design of a prototypical series of pyrrole- and imidazole-based CCK2 antagonists. J Med Chem (2005) 48(22):6790-6802.
50. Degen J, Rarey M: FlexNovo: Structure-based searching in large fragment spaces. ChemMedChem (2006) 1(8):854-868. • Describes one of the few, novel structure-based de novo design packages introduced in the last two years that presents the de novo design workflow in a transparent manner.
51. Todorov NP, Dean PM: Evaluation of a method for controlling molecular scaffold diversity in de novo ligand design. J Comput Aided Mol Des (1997) 11(2):175-192.
52. Todorov NP, Buenemann CL, Alberts IL: De novo ligand design to an ensemble of protein structures. Proteins (2006) 64(1):43-59.
53. Dean PM, Firth-Clark S, Harris W, Kirton SB, Todorov NP: SkelGen: A general tool for structure-based de novo ligand design. Expert Opin Drug Disc (2006) 1(2):179-189.
54. Fechner U, Schneider G: Flux (1): A virtual synthesis scheme for fragment-based de novo design. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(2):699-707.
55. Fechner U, Schneider G: Flux (2): Comparison of molecular mutation and crossover operators for ligand-based de novo design. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(2):656-667.
56. Schneider G, Lee ML, Stahl M, Schneider P: De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drug-derived building blocks. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2000) 14(5):487-494.
57. Evensen E, Joseph-McCarthy D, Weiss GA, Schreiber SL, Karplus M: Ligand design by a combinatorial approach based on modeling and experiment: Application to HLA-DR4. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2007) 21(7):395-418.
58. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G: A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol (1996) 261(3):470-489.
59. Law JMS, Fung DYK, Zsoldos Z, Simon A, Szabo Z, Csizmadia IG, Johnson AP: Validation of the SPROUT de novo design program. J Mol Struct - Theochem (2003) 666-667:651-657.
60. Alberts IL, Todorov NP, Dean PM: Receptor flexibility in de novo ligand design and docking. J Med Chem (2005) 48(21):6585-6596.
61. World Drug Index: Thomson Scientific, London, UK (2008). www.scientific.thomson.com/products/wdi
62. Kolb P, Caflisch A: Automatic and efficient decomposition of two-dimensional structures of small molecules for fragment-based high-throughput docking. J Med Chem (2006) 49(25):7384-7392.
63. Brameld KA, Kuhn B, Reuter DC, Stahl M: Small molecule conformational preferences derived from crystal structure data. A medicinal chemistry focused analysis. J Chem Inf Model (2008) 48(1):1-24. •• Provides a very informative collection of conformational topics for medicinal chemists involved in drug design.
64. Boda K, Johnson AP: Molecular complexity analysis of de novo designed ligands. J Med Chem (2006) 49(20):5869- 5879.
65. Boda K, Seidel T, Gasteiger J: Structure- and reaction-based evaluation of synthetic accessibility. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2007) 21(6):311-325. • Provides a good overview of schemes for predicting synthetic accessibility.