De novo drug design using multiobjective evolutionary graphs

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 295-307

  Nicolaou, Christos A ^a,b   Apostolakis, Joannis ^c   Pattichis, Costas S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b Noesis Chemoinformatics   (Cyprus)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATION THEORY; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS; GRAPH ALGORITHMS; GRAPH THEORY; LIGANDS; MOLECULES; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION;

ALGORITHMIC FRAMEWORK; COMPUTATIONAL TECHNOLOGY; EVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUES; EXPERIMENTAL SECTION; MOLECULAR BUILDING BLOCKS; MULTI-OBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY; MULTIPLE-OBJECTIVES; SINGLE OBJECTIVE;

STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG DESIGN;

ALGORITHMS; DRUG DESIGN; MODELS, MOLECULAR;

EID: 65249111062     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci800308h     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Ekins, S.; Boulanger, B.; Swaan, P. W.; Hupcey, M. A. Z. Towards a New Age of Virtual ADME/TOX and Multidimensional Drug Discovery. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 381-401.
2. Schneider, G.; Fechner, U. Computer-based de novo design of druglike molecules. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2005, 4, 649-663.
3. Brown, N.; McKay, B.; Gilardoni, F.; Gasteiger, J. A graph-based genetic algorithm and its application to the multiobjective evolution of median molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1079-1087.
4. Nicolaou, C. A.; Brown, N.; Pattichis, C. S. Molecular optimization using computational multiobjective methods. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2007, 10, 316-324.
5. Tietze, S.; Apostolakis, J. GlamDock: development and validation of a new docking tool on several thousand protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1657-1672.
6. Marshall, G. R. Introduction to Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery - A Personal View. In Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Oprea, T., Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2004; pp 1-22.
7. Baringhaus, K.-H.; Matter, H. Efficient strategies for lead optimization by simultaneously addressing affinity, selectivity and pharmacokinetic parameters. In Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Oprea, T., Ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2004; pp 333-379.
8. Xu, J.; Hagler, A. Chemoinformatics and drug discovery. Molecules 2002, 7, 566-600.
9. Colette, Y.; Siarry, P. Multiobjective Optimization: Principles and Case Studies; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2004.
10. Handl, J.; Kell, D. B.; Knowles, J. Multiobjective Optimization in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf. 2007, 4, 279-292.
11. van Veldhuizen, D. A.; Lamont, G. B. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: Analyzing the state-of-the-art. Evol. Comput. 2000, 8, 125-147.
12. Zitzler, E.; Laumanns, M.; Bleuler, S. A Tutorial on Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization. In Metaheuristics for Multiobjective Optimisation, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems; Gandibleux, X., Sevaux, M., Sorensen, K., T'kindt, V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 2004; Vol. 535, pp 3-37.
13. Michalewicz, Z. Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolutions Programs; Springer-Verlag: New York, 1992.
14. Weise, T. Global Optimization Algorithms - Theory and Application.http://www.it-weise.de/ (accessed August 8, 2008).
15. Poli, R.; Langdon, W. B.; McPhee, N. F. A field guide to genetic programming [Online]; Lulu:com: U.K., 2008. http://www.gp-field-guide.org.uk (accessed July 27, 2008).
16. Eloranta, T.; Makinen, E. TimGA: A Genetic Algorithm for Drawing Undirected Graphs. Divulgaciones Matematicas 2001, 9, 155-171.
17. Miller, J. F.; Job, D.; Vassilev, V. K. Principles in the Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits - Part I. J. Genet. Program. Evolvable Mach. 2000, 1, 8-35.
18. Globus, A.; Lawton, J.; Wipke, W. T. Automatic Molecular design using evolutionary algorithms. Nanotechnology 1999, 10, 290-299.
19. Bohacek, R. S.; Martin, C.; Guida, W. C. The Art and Practice of Structure-Based Drug Design: A Molecular Modelling Approach. Med. Res. Rev. 1996, 16, 3-50.
20. Clark, D. E.; Frenkel, D.; Levy, S. A.; Li, J.; Murray, C. W.; Robson, B.; Waszkowycz, B.; Westhead, D. R. PRO LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 1. Application to the design of organic molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 13-32.
21. Westhead, D. R.; Clark, D. E.; Frenkel, D.; Li, J.; Murray, C. W.; Robson, B.; Waszkowycz, B. PRO-LIGAND: An approach to de novo molecular design. 3. A genetic algorithm for structure refinement. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 139-148.
22. Glen, R. C.; Payne, A. W. R. A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of molecules within constraints. J. Comput.-Aided. Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 181-202.
23. Douguet, D.; Munier-Lehmann, H.; Labesse, G.; Pochet, S. LEA3D: A Computer-Aided Ligand Design for Structure-Based Drug Design. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 2457-2468.
24. Schneider, G.; Lee, M.-L.; 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, 487-494.
25. Fechner, U.; Schneider, G. Flux (1): A Virtual Synthesis Scheme for Fragment-Based De Novo Design. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 46, 699-707.
26. 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, 656-667.
27. Lewell, X. O.; Budd, 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.
28. Nachbar, R. B. Molecular evolution: automated manipulation of hierarchical chemical topology and its application to average molecular structures. Genet. Programming Evolvable Mach. 2000, 1, 57-94.
29. 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.
30. Weininger, D. Method and Apparatus for Designing Molecules with Desired Properties by Evolving Successive Populations. U.S. Patent No. 5,434,796, 1995.
31. Douguet, D.; Thoreau, E.; Grassy, G. A Genetic Algorithm for the Automated Generation of Small Organic Molecules: Drug Design using an Evolutionary Algorithm. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 449-466.
32. Lameijer, E.-W.; Kok, J. N.; Baeck, T.; Ijzerman, A. P. The Molecule Evoluator. An Interactive Evolutionary Algorithm for the Design of Druglike Molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 545-552.
33. Brown, N.; McKay, B.; Gasteiger, J. A novel workflow for the inverse QSPR problem using multiobjective optimization. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 333-341.
34. Lameijer, E. W.; Baeck, T.; Kok, J. N.; Ijzerman, A. P. Evolutionary algorithms in drug design. Nat. Comput. 2005, 4, 177-243.
35. Clark, D. E.; Westhead, D. R. Evolutionary algorithms in computeraided molecular design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1996, 10, 337-358.
36. Fonseca, C. M.; Fleming, P. J. Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: Formulation, Discussion and Generalization. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Genetic Algorithms; Forrest, S., Ed.; Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, CA, 1993; pp 416-423.
37. Noesis Chemoinformatics, Ltd. Nicosia, Cyprus. http://www. noesisinformatics.com (accessed Feb 5, 2008).
38. Nicolaou, C. A.; Pattichis, C. S. Molecular Substructure Mining Approaches for Computer-Aided Drug Discovery: A Review. In Proceedings of ITAB; Ioannina, Greece, October 26-28, 2006.
39. 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, 118-127.
40. Willet, P.; Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical Similarity Searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 39, 983-996.
41. Lipinski, C. A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B. W.; Feeney, P. J. Experimental and Computational Approaches to Estimate Solubility and Permeability. Drug Discovery and Development Settings. Adv. Drug Discovery Rev. 1997, 23, 3-25.
42. Wild, D. J.; Blankley, C. J. Comparison of 2D fingerprint types and hierarchy level selection methods for structural grouping using wards clustering. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 155-162.
43. Zitzler, E.; Thiele, L. Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 1999, 3, 257-271.
44. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed Analysis of Scoring Functions for Virtual Screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
45. Wheeler, D. L.; Barrett, T.; Benson, D. A.; Bryant, S. H.; Canese, K.; Chetvernin, V.; Church, D. M.; DiCuccio, M.; Edgar, R.; Federhen, S.; Geer, L. Y.; Helmberg, W.; Kapustin, Y.; Kenton, D. L.; Khovayko, O.; Lipman, D. J.; Madden, T. L.; Maglott, D. R.; Ostell, J.; Pruitt, K. D.; Schuler, G. D.; Schriml, L. M.; Sequeira, E.; Sherry, S. T.; Sirotkin, K.; Souvorov, A.; Starchenko, G.; Suzek, T. O.; Tatusov, R.; Tatusova, T. A.; Wagner, L.; Yaschenko, E. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, D173-D180.
46. Brockhoff, D.; Saxena, D. K.; Deb, K.; Zitzler, E. On Handling a Large Number of Objectives A Posteriori and During Optimization. In Multi-Objective Problem Solving from Nature: From Concepts to Applications; Knowles, J., Come, D., Deb, K. Eds.; Springer: Berlin, 2007; pp 377-403.
47. Deb, K.; Saxena, D. Searching For Pareto-Optimal Solutions Through Dimensionality Reduction for Certain Large-Dimensional MultiObjective Optimization Problems. In Proceedings of the World Congress on Computational Intelligence; IEEE Press: Vancouver, Canada, 2006; pp 3352-3360.