How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: Choosing the right query and including chemical information

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 678-692

  Kirchmair, Johannes ^a,b   Distinto, Simona ^a,b   Markt, Patrick ^a   Schuster, Daniela ^a   Spitzer, Gudrun M ^a   Liedl, Klaus R ^a   Wolber, Gerhard ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^b Inte:Ligand Software Entwicklungs and Consulting GmbH   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; MOLECULES;

ACTIVE COMPOUNDS; CHEMICAL INFORMATION; MOLECULAR SIMILARITY; OPTIMUM PERFORMANCE; QUERY SELECTION; QUERY STRUCTURES; SCREENING PERFORMANCE; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

SEARCH ENGINES;

ANTITHROMBIN;

ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER; COMPUTER PROGRAM;

ANTITHROMBINS; CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; COMPUTERS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 65249089058     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci8004226     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Grant, J. A.; Gallard, M. A.; Pickup, B. T. A fast method of molecular shape comparison: a simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 1653-1666.
2. Nicholls, A.; Grant, J. A. Molecular shape and electrostatics in the encoding of relevant chemical information. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2005, 19, 661-686.
3. Rush, T. S., III; Grant, J. A.; Mosyak, L.; Nicholls, A. A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 1489-1495.
4. Catalyst, 4.11; Accelrys: San Diego, CA, 2005.
5. Singh, J.; Chuaqui, C. E.; Boriack-Sjodin, P. A.; Lee, W.-C.; Pontz, T.; Corbley, M. J.; Cheung, H. K.; Arduini, R. M.; Mead, J. N.; Newman, M. N.; Papadatos, J. L.; Bowes, S.; Josiah, S.; Ling, L. E. Successful shape-based virtual screening: the discovery of a potent inhibitor of the type I TGFβ receptor kinase (TβRI). Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2003, 13, 4355-4359.
6. Phase, 3.0207; Schrödinger, L. L. C: New York, 2008.
7. Livingstone, D. J.; Clark, T.; Ford, M. G.; Hudson, B. D.; Whitley, D. C. QSAR studies using the parashift system. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2008, 19, 285-302.
8. Ritchie, D. W.; Kemp, G. J. L. Protein docking using spherical polar Fourier correlations. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Bioinf., Genet. 2000, 39, 178-194.
9. Perez-Nueno, V. I.; Violet, A. I.; Ritchie, D. W.; Borrell, J. I.; Teixido, J. Clustering and classifying diverse HIV entry inhibitors using a novel consensus shape-based virtual screening approach: further evidence for multiple binding sites within the CCR5 extracellular pocket. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2146-2165.
10. Perez-Nueno, V. I.; Ritchie, D. W.; Rabal, O.; Pascual, R.; Borrell, J. I.; Teixido, J. Comparison of ligand-based and receptor-based virtual screening of HIV entry inhibitors for the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors using 3D ligand shape matching and ligand-receptor docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 509-533.
11. Vainio, M. J.; Puranen, J. S.; Johnson, M. S. ShaEP: molecular alignment based on shape and electrostatics In 17th European Symposium on QSAR in "omics" and Systems biology; Uppsala: Sweden, 2008.
12. Ballester, P. J.; Richards, W. G. Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes. J. Comput. Chem. 2007, 28, 1711-1723.
13. Putta, S.; Beroza, P. Shapes of things: computer modeling of molecular shape in drug discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2007, 7, 1514-1524.
14. Bostrom, J.; Berggren, K.; Elebring, T.; Greasley Peter, J.; Wilster-mann, M. Scaffold hopping, synthesis and structure-activity relationships of 5,6-diaryl-pyrazine-2-amide derivatives: a novel series of CB1 receptor antagonists. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2007, 15, 4077-84.
15. Freitas, R. F.; Oprea, T. I.; Montanari, C. A. Two-dimensional QSAR and similarity studies on cruzain inhibitors aimed at improving selectivity over cathepsin L. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2008, 16, 838-853.
16. Bologa, C. G.; Revankar, C. M.; Young, S. M.; Edwards, B. S.; Arterburn, J. B.; Kiselyov, A. S.; Parker, M. A.; Tkachenko, S. E.; Savchuck, N. P.; Sklar, L. A.; Oprea, T. I.; Prossnitz, E. R. Virtual and biomolecular screening converge on a selective agonist for GPR30. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2006, 2, 207-212.
17. Muchmore, S. W.; Debe, D. A.; Metz, J. T.; Brown, S. P.; Martin, Y. C.; Hajduk, P. J. Application of belief theory to similarity data fusion for use in analog searching and lead hopping. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 941-948.
18. Venhorst, J.; Nunez, S.; Terpstra, J. W.; Kruse, C. G. Assessment of scaffold hopping efficiency by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 3222-3229.
19. GlideXp, 5.0207; Schrodinger, L. L. C: New York, 2008.
20. 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.
21. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C.; Leach, A. R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
22. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82.
23. Sutherland, J. J.; Nandigam, R. K.; Erickson, J. A.; Vieth, M. Lessons in molecular recognition. 2. Assessing and improving cross-docking accuracy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 2293-2302.
24. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C. I.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C.; 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.
25. 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, 2182-2196.
26. Sykes, M. J.; Sorich, M. J.; Miners, J. O. Molecular modeling approaches for the prediction of the nonspecific binding of drugs to hepatic microsomes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2661-2673.
27. Wolber, G.; Dornhofer, A.; Langer, T. Efficient overlay of small molecules using 3-D pharmacophores. J. Comput-Aided. Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 773-788.
28. Wolber, G.; Langer, T. Ligand Scout: 3D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 160-169.
29. Ebalunode, J. O.; Ouyang, Z.; Liang, J.; Zheng, W. Novel approach to structure-based pharmacophore search using computational geometry and shape matching techniques. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 889-901.
30. Markt, P.; Petersen, R. K.; Flindt, E. N.; Kristiansen, K.; Kirchmair, J.; Spitzer, G.; Distinto, S.; Schuster, D.; Wolber, G.; Laggner, C.; Langer, T. Discovery of novel PPAR ligands by a virtual screening approach based on pharmacophore modeling, 3D shape, and electrostatic similarity screening. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 6303-6317.
31. Lee, H. S.; Choi, J.; Kufareva, I.; Abagyan, R.; Filikov, A.; Yang, Y.; Yoon, S. Optimization of high throughput virtual screening by combining shape-matching and docking methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 489-497.
32. OMEGA, 2.3.2; OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, 2008.
33. Kirchmair, J.; Markt, P.; Distinto, S.; Wolber, G.; Langer, T. Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection - What can we learn from earlier mistakes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 213-228.
34. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
35. ROCS, 2.3.1; OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, 2007.
36. Kirchmair, J.; Distinto, S.; Schuster, D.; Spitzer, G.; Langer, T.; Wolber, G. Enhancing drug discovery through in silico screening: strategies to increase true positives retrieval rates. Curr. Med. Chem. 2008, 15, 2040-2053.
37. Nicholls, A. What do we know and when do we know it. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 239-255.
38. Gasteiger, J.; Rudolph, C.; Sadowski, J. Automatic generation of 3D atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron, Comp. Method. 1990, 3, 537-47.
39. Sadowski, J.; Gasteiger, J.; Klebe, G. Comparison of automatic three-dimensional model builders using 639 X-ray structures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 1000-8.
40. Sadowski, J.; Rudolph, C.; Gasteiger, J. The generation of 3D models of host-guest complexes. Anal. Chim. Acta 1992, 265, 233-41.
41. Sybyl, 8.1; Tripos: St. Louis, MO, 2008.
42. Kirchmair, J.; Wolber, G.; Laggner, C.; Langer, T. Comparative performance assessment of the conformational model generators Omega and Catalyst: a large-scale survey on the retrieval of protein-bound ligand conformations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1848-1861.
43. 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.
44. Jacobsson, M.; Liden, P.; Stjernschantz, E.; Bostrom, H.; Norinder, U. Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 5781-5789.
45. Hecker, E. A.; Duraiswami, C.; Andrea, T. A.; Diller, D. J. Use of Catalyst pharmacophore models for screening of large combinatorial libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1204-1211.
46. Diller, D. J.; Li, R. Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 4638-4647.
47. 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, 488-508.
48. Moffat, K.; Gillet, V. J.; Whittle, M.; Bravi, G.; Leach, A. R. A comparison of field-based similarity searching methods: Cat Shape, FBSS, and ROCS. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 719-729.
49. Kuntz, I. D.; Blaney, J. M.; Oatley, S. J.; Langridge, R.; Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 1982, 161, 269-288.
50. Powell, M. J. D. Restart procedures for the conjugate gradient method. Math. Prog. 1977, 12, 241-254.
51. Wang, R.; Wang, S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1422-1426.
52. 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.
53. Ginn, C. M. R.; Willett, P.; Bradshaw, J. Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 1-16.
54. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; 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, 1177-1185.
55. Steindl, T.; Schuster, D.; Wolber, G.; Laggner, C.; Langer, T. High-throughput structure-based pharmacophore modelling as a basis for successful parallel virtual screening. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 703-715.
56. Steindl, T. M.; Schuster, D.; Laggner, C.; Chuang, K.; Hoffmann, R. D.; Langer, T. Parallel screening and activity profiling with HIV protease inhibitor pharmacophore models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 563-571.