Core trees and consensus fragment sequences for molecular representation and similarity analysis

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 48, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 1161-1166

  Lounkine, Eugen ^a   Bajorath, Jürgen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MOLECULES;

BIOLOGICAL SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; FRAGMENTATION PATHWAYS; MOLECULAR FRAGMENTATION; MOLECULAR REPRESENTATIONS; RANDOM FRAGMENTS; SCORING FUNCTIONS; SIMILARITY ANALYSIS; STRUCTURAL SPECIFICITY;

FORESTRY;

DRUG;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; CLASSIFICATION; DRUG SCREENING; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; PHARMACOLOGY; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PHARMACOLOGY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 47349111334     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci800020s     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Merlot, C.; Domine, D.; Cleva, C.; Church, D. J. Chemical substructures in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 2003, 8, 594-602.
2. Bemis, G. W.; Murcko, M. A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2887-2893.
3. Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical fragment generation and clustering software. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 141-142.
4. McGregor, M. J.; Paliai, P. V. Clustering of large databases of compounds using MDL "keys" as structural descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 443-448.
5. Durant, J. L.; Leland, B. A.; Henry, D. R.; Nourse, J. G. Reoptimization of MDL keys for use in drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1273-1280.
6. Lewell, X. Q.; Judd, D. B.; Watson, S. P.; Hann, M. M. 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, 511-522.
7. Weininger, D. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1988, 28, 31-36.
8. Vidal, D.; Thormann, M.; Pons, M. LINGO, an efficient holographic text based method to calculate properties and intermolecular similarities. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 386-393.
9. Karwath, A.; De Raedt, L. SMFREP: predicting chemical activity from SMTLES. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2432-2444.
10. Batista, J.; Godden, J. W.; Bajorath, J. Assessment of molecular similarity from the analysis of randomly generated structural fragment populations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1937-1944.
11. Batista, J.; Bajorath, J. Mining of randomly generated molecular fragment populations uncovers activity-specific fragment hierarchies. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1405-1413.
12. Lounkine, E.; Batista, J.; Bajorath, J. Mapping of activity-specific fragment pathways isolated from random fragment populations reveals the formation of coherent molecular cores. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 2113-2119.
13. Batista, J.; Bajorath, J. Chemical database mining through entropy-based molecular similarity assessment of randomly generated structural fragment populations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 59-68.
14. Irwin, J. J.; Shoichet, B. K. ZINC - a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 177-182.
15. Needleman, S. B.; Wunsch, C. D. A general method applicable to the search for similarities in the amino acid sequence of two proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1970, 48, 443-453.
16. Eidhammer, I.; Jonassen, I.; Taylor, W. R. Multiple Global Alignment and Phylogenetic Trees. In Protein Bioinformatics: An Algorithmic Approach to Sequence and Structure Analysis, 1st ed.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: West Sussex, England, 2004; p 83.
17. Thompson, J. D.; Higgins, D. G.; Gibson, T. B. CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994, 29, 4673-4680.
18. Schuffenhauer, A.; Floersheim, P.; Acklin, P.; Jacoby, E. Similarity Metrics for Ligands Reflecting the Similarity of the Target Proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 391-405.
19. Willett, P.; Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 983-996.
20. Geppert, H.; Horváth, T.; Gärtner, T.; Wrobel, S.; Bajorath, J. Support-Vector-Machine-Based Ranking Significantly Improves the Effectiveness of Similarity Searching Using 2D Fingerprints and Multiple Reference Compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, in press.
21. Molecular Drug Data Report (MDDR). Elsevier MDL: San Leandro, CA. http://www.mdl.com (accessed Sep 1, 2006).
22. Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry Database (CMC-3D), Version 99.1; Elsevier MDL: San Leandro, CA. http://www.mdl.com (accessed Sep 1, 2006).
23. Xue, L.; Godden, J. W.; Gao, H.; Bajorath, J. Identification of a preferred set of molecular descriptors for compound classification based on principal component analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 699-704.