Computational intelligence methods for docking scores

Current Computer-Aided Drug Design

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 56-68

  Hecht, David ^a   Fogel, Gary B ^b  

^a Southwestern College   (United States)

^b NATURAL SELECTION INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Artificial neural networks; Computational intelligence; Docking scores; Evolutionary algorithms; Fuzzy logic; High throughput screening; In silico docking; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

BINDING ENERGY; COMPUTER CIRCUITS; FUZZY INFERENCE; FUZZY NEURAL NETWORKS;

BINDING AFFINITIES; COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE METHODS; COMPUTER AIDED DRUG DESIGN; DOCKING SCORE; DOCKING STUDIES; FUZZY-LOGIC; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; IN SILICO DOCKING; IN-SILICO; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHMS;

PROTEINASE INHIBITOR;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BINDING AFFINITY; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR SIMILARITY INDICES ANALYSIS; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG SCREENING; ENTROPY; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM; FUZZY LOGIC; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; LIGAND BINDING; MACHINE LEARNING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PHARMACOPHORE; PREDICTION; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE PROPERTY RELATION; REVIEW; SOLVATION; VIRTUAL REALITY;

EID: 65749110436     PISSN: 15734099     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/157340909787580863     Document Type: Review

References (200)

1. DiMasi, J.A.; Grabowski, H.G. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: Is biotech different? Managerial Dec. Econ., 2007, 28, 469-479.
2. PhRMA Industry Profile 2008 Report, http://www.phrma.org/publications
3. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research: Http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt
4. Schnecke, V.; Boström, J. Computational chemistry-driven decision making in lead generation. Drug Discov. Today, 2006, 11, 43-50.
5. Good, A.C.; Krystek, S.R.; Mason, J.S. High-throughput and virtual. screening: Core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. Drug Discov. Today, 2000, 5, S61-S69.
6. Anderson, A.C.; Wright, D.L. The design and docking of virtual compound libraries to structure of drug targets. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des., 2005, 1, 103-127.
7. Lipinski, C.A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B.W.; Feeney, P.J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 1997, 23, 3-25.
8. Muthas, D.; Sabnis, Y.A.; Lundborg, M.; Karlén, A. Is it possible to increase hit rates in structure-based virtual screening by pharmacophore filtering? An investigation of the advantages and pitfalls of post-filtering. J. Mol. Graphics Model., 2008, 26, 1237-1251.
9. Kitchen, D.B.; Decornez, H.; Furr, J.R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications. Nature Rev. Drug Discov., 2004, 3, 935-949.
10. Mestres, J.; Knegtel, R.M.A. Similarity vs docking in 3D virtual screening. Persp. Drug Discov. Des., 2000, 20, 191.
11. Enyedy, I.J.; Egan, W.J. Can we use docking and scoring for hit-to-lead optimization? J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 2008, 28, 161-168.
12. Leach, A.R.; Shoichet, B.K.; Peishoff, C.E. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: Successes and gaps. J. Med. Chem.,, 2006, 49, 5851-5855.
13. Mohan, V.; Gibbs, A.C.; Cummings, M.D.; Jaeger, E.P.; DesJarlais, R.L. Docking: Successes and challenges. Curr. Pharm. Des., 2005, 11, 323-333.
14. Moitessier, N.; Englebienne, P.; Lee, D.; Lawandi, J.; and Corbeil, C.R. Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/ scoring methods: A long way to go. Br. J. Pharmacol., 2008, 153, S7-S26.
15. Duch, W.; Swaminathan, K.; Meller, J. Artificial Intelligence Approaches for Rational Drug Design and Discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des., 2007, 13, 1497-1508.
16. Engelbrecht, A.P. Computational intelligence: An introduction, Wiley, J., New York, 2003.
17. Konar A. Computational intelligence; principles, techniques and applications, Berlin: Springer, 2005.
18. Duda R.O.; Hart P.E.; Stork D.G. Pattern classification, 2nd ed., Wiley, J., New York, 2001.
19. Webb A. Statistical pattern recognition. Wiley, J., Ed.; New York, 2002.
20. Hastie T.; Tibshirani R.; Friedman J. The elements of statistical learning, Springer, 2001.
21. Halperin, I.; Ma, B.; Wolfson, H.; Nussinov, R. Principles of Docking: An Overviewof Search Algorithms and a Guide to Scoring Functions. Proteins: Struc. Func. Genet., 2002, 47, 409-443.
22. Khedkar, S.A.; Malde, A.K.; Coutinho, E.C. In Silico screening of ligand databases: Methods and applications. Ind. J. Pharmaceut. Sci., 2008, 68, 689-696.
23. Krovat, E.M.; Steindl, T.; Langer, T. Recent advances in docking and scoring. Curr. Comp. Aided Drug Des., 2005, 1, 93-102.
24. Fischer, E. Einfluss der configuration auf die wirkung der enzyme. Ber. 1894, 27, 2985-2993.
25. Koshland, D.E. Jr. Application of a theory of enzyme specificity to protein synthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1958, 44, 98-104.
26. Foote J; Milstein C. Conformational isomerism and the diversity of antibodies. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 1994, 91, 10370-7435.
27. Coupez, B.; Lewis, R.A. Docking and Scoring - Theoretically Easy, Practically Impossible? Curr. Med. Chem., 2006, 13, 2995-3003.
28. McGovern, S.L.; Shoichet, B.K. Information decay in molecular docking screens against holo, apo, and modeled conformations of enzymes. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46, 2895-2907.
29. Erickson, J.A.; Jalaie, M.; Robertson, D.H.; Lewis, R.A.; Vieth, M. Lessons in molecular recognition: The effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 45-55.
30. Bissantz, C.; Bernard, P.; Hibert, M.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of G-protein coupled receptors suitable targets? Proteins, 2003, 50, 5-25.
31. Kumar, R.A.; Clark, D.S. High-throughput screening of biocatalytic activity: Applications in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2006, 10, 162-168.
32. Pauling L.; Delbrück M. The nature of the intermolecular forces operative in biological processes. Science, 1940, 92, 77-79.
33. Kauzmann W. Some factors in the interpretation of protein denaturation. Adv. Protein Chem., 1959, 14, 1-63.
34. Brooijmans, N.; Kuntz, I.D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 2003, 32, 335-73.
35. Hecht, D.; Rios-Reyes, E. Data presented at 29th West Coast Biological Sciences Undergraduate Research Symposium at Point Loma Nazarene University in 2006.
36. Böhm H.J. The Computer Program Ludi: A New Method for the de Novo Design of Enzyme Inhibitors. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 1992, 6, 61-78.
37. Böhm H.J. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional sturcture. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1994, 8, 243.
38. Morris, G.M.; Goodsell, D.S.; Halliday, R.S.; Huey, R.; Hart, W.E.; Belew, R.K.; Olsen, A.J. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem., 1998, 9, 1639-1662.
39. Eldridge M.D.; Murray C.W.; Auton T.R.; Paolini G.V.; Mee R.P. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1997, 11, 425-445.
40. Zsoldos Z.; Szabo I.; Szabo Z.; Johnson A.P. Software tools for structure based rational drug design. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem., 2003, 666, 659-665.
41. Rarey M.; Kramer B.; Lengauer T.; Klebe G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol., 1996, 261 470-489.
42. Friesner, R.A.; Banks, J.L.; Murphy, R.B.; Halgren, T.A.; Klicic, J.J.; Mainz, D.T.; Repasky, M.P.; Knoll, E.H.; Shelley, M.; Perry, J.K.; Shaw, D.E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P.S. Glide: A new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
43. Friesner, R.A.; Murphy, R.B.; Repasky, M.P.; Frye, L.L.; Greenwood, J.R.; Halgren, T.A.; Sanschagrin, P.C.; Mainz, D.T. Extra precision glide: Docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49, 6177-6196.
44. Jain, A.N. Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: A continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 1996, 10, 427-440.
45. Cozzini P.; Fornabaio M.; Marabotti A.; Abraham D.J.; Kellogg G.E.; Mozzarelli A. Simple, intuitive calculations of free energy of binding for protein-ligand complexes. 1. models without explicit constrained water. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 2469-2483.
46. Krammer, A.; Kirchhoff, P.D.; Jiang, X.; Venkatachalam, C.M.; Waldman, M. LigScore: A novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 2005, 23, 395-407.
47. Gehlhaar D.K.; Verkhivker G.M.; Rejto P.A.; Sherman C.J.; Fogel D.B.; Fogel, L.J.; Freer, S.T. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: Conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol., 1995, 2, 317-24.
48. Wang R.; Liu L.; Lai L.; Tang Y. SCORE: A new empirical method for estimating the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J. Mol. Mod., 1998, 4, 379-394.
49. Pei J.; Wang Q.; Liu Z.; Li Q.; Yang K.; Lai L. PSI-DOCK: Towards highly efficient and accurate flexible ligand docking. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet., 2006, 62, 934-946.
50. Stahl M.; Rarey M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
51. Naim, M.; Bhat, S.; Rankin, K.N.; Dennis, S.; Chowdhury, S.F.; Siddiqi, I.; Drabik, P.; Sulea, T.; Bayly, C.I.; Jakalian, A.; Purisima, E.O. Solvated interaction energy (SIE) for scoring protein-ligand binding affinities. 1. exploring the parameter space. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47, 122-133.
52. Wang R.; Lai L.;Wang S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 2002, 16, 11-26.
53. Brooks, B.R.; Bruccoleri, R.E.; Olafson, B.D.; States, D.J.; Swaminathan, S.; Karplus, M. CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comp. Chem., 1983, 4, 187-217.
54. Cornell, W.D.; Cieplak, P.; Bayly, C.I.; Gould, I.R.; Merz, K.M.; Ferguson, D.M.; Spellmeyer, D.C.; Fox, T.; Caldwell, J.W.; Kollman, P.A. A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1995, 117, 5179.
55. Meng, E.C.; Shoichet, B.K.; Kuntz, I.D. Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation. J. Comput. Chem., 1992, 13, 505-524.
56. Kramer, B.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins, 1999, 37, 228-241.
57. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R.C. Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. J. Mol. Biol., 1995, 245, 43-53.
58. 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.
59. Abagyan R.; Totrov M.; Kuznetsov D. ICM - a new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J. Comput. Chem., 1994, 15, 488-506.
60. McMartin C.; Bohacek R.S. QXP: Powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 1997, 11, 333-344.
61. Moitessier N.; Therrien E.; Hanessian S. A method for induced-fit docking, scoring, and ranking of flexible ligands. Application to peptide and pseudopeptidic β-secretase (BACE 1) inhibitors. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49, 5885-5894.
62. Head, R.D.; Smythe, M.L.; Oprea, T.I.; Waller, C.L.; Green, S.M.; Marshall, G.R. A new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 3959-3969.
63. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol., 2000, i 295, 337-356.
64. Velec, H.F.G.; Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. DrugScore(CSD)-Knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 6296-6303.
65. Mitchell, J.B.O.; Laskowski R.A.; Alex A.; Forster M.J.; Thornton, J. BLEEP - potential of mean force describing protein-ligand interactions: II. Calculation of binding energies and comparison with experimental data J. Comput. Chem. 1999, 20, 1177-1185.
66. Yang C.Y.; Wang, R.; Wang, S. M-Score: A new knowledge-based potential scoring function accounting for protein atom mobility. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49, 5903-5911.
67. Schaffer, L.; Verkhivker, G.M. Predicting structural effects in HIV-1 protease mutant complexes with flexible ligand docking and protein side-chain optimization. Proteins, 1998, 33, 295-310.
68. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y.C. A General and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem., 1999, 42, 791-804.
69. Muegge, I. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: Probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des., 2000, 20, 99-114.
70. Muegge, I. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J. Comput. Chem., 2001, 22, 418-425.
71. Muegge, I.; Oloff, S. Advances in virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today Technol., 2006, 3, 405-411.
72. DeWitte, R. S.; Shakhnovich, E.I. SMoG: De Novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. methodology and supporting evidence. J. Am.Chem. Soc., 1996, 118, 11733-11744.
73. Ishchenko, A.V.; Shakhnovich, E.I. Small molecule growth 2001 (SmoG2001): An improved knowledge-based Scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 2770-2780.
74. Doman, T. N.; McGovern, S.L.; Witherbee, B.J.; Kasten, T.P.; Kurumbail, R.; Stallings, W.C.; Connolly, D.T.; Shoichet, B.K. Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-IB. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 2213-2221.
75. Westhead, D.R.; Clark, D.E.; Murray, C.W. A comparison of heuristic search algorithms for molecular docking. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 1997, 11, 209-228.
76. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
77. Perez, C.; Ortiz, A.R. Evaluation of scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. J. Med. Chem., 2001, 44, 3768-3785.
78. Terp, G.E.; Johansen, B.N.; Christensen, I.T.; Jørgensen, F.S. A new concept for multidimensional selection of ligand conformations (MultiSelect) and multidimensional scoring (MultiScore) of protein-ligand binding affinities. J. Med. Chem., 2001, 44, 2333-2343.
79. Diller, D.J.; Li, R. Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46, 4638-4647.
80. Jenkins, J.L.; Kao, R.Y.T; Shapiro, R. Virtual screening to enrich hit lists from high-throughput screening: A case study on small-molecule inhibitors of angiogenin. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet., 2003, 50, 81-93.
81. Schulz-Gasch, T.; Stahl, M. Binding site characteristics in structure-based virtual screening: Evaluation of current docking tools. J. Mol. Mod., 2003, 9, 47-57.
82. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative Evaluation of 11 Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
83. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Fang, X.; Wang, S. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 2114-2125.
84. Ferrara, P.; Gohlke, H.; Price, D.J.; Klebe, G.; Brooks, C.L. III. Assessing scoring functions for protein- ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 3032-3047.
85. Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet., 2004, 57, 225-242.
86. Kontoyianni, M.; McClellan, L.M.; Sokol, G.S. Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 558-565.
87. Kroemer, R.T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J.J.; Rohrer, D.C.; Trosset, J.Y.; Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; McMartin, C.; Kihlén, M.; Stouten, P.F. Assessment of docking poses: Interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) vs crystal structure deviations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 871-881.
88. 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. Genet., 2004, 56, 235-249.
89. Chen, H.; Lyne, P.D.; Giordanetto, F.; Lovell, T.; Li, J. On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46 401-415.
90. Cummings, M.D.; DesJarlais, R.L.; Gibbs, A.C.; Mohan, V.; Jaeger, E.P. Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 962-976.
91. Warren, G.L.; Andrews, C.W.; Capelli, A.M.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J.; Lambert, M.H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S.F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Wall, I.D.; Woolven, J.M.; Peishoff, C.E.; Head, M.S. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49, 5912-5931.
92. Zhou, Z.; Felts, A.K.; Friesner, R.A.; Levy, R.M. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: fnrichment dtudies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47, 1599-1608.
93. Perola E.; Walters W.P.; Charifson P. Comments on the article "On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors." J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47, 251-253.
94. 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.
95. Hawkins, P.C.D.; Warren, G.L.; Skillman, A.G.; Nicholls, A. How to do an evaluation: Pitfalls and traps. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2008, 22, 179-190.
96. 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.
97. Onodera K.; Satou K.; Hirota H. Evaluations of molecular docking programs for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1609-1618.
98. Graves, A.P.; Brenk, R.; Shoichet, B.K. Decoys for docking J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 3714.
99. Grosdidier A.; Zoete V.; Michielin, O. EADock: Docking of small molecules into protein active sites with a multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet., 2007, 67, 1010-1025.
100. Kroemer, R.T. Structure-based drug design: Docking and dcoring. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci., 2007, 8, 312-328.
101. Jansen, J.M.; Martin, E.J. Target-biased scoring approaches and expert systems in structure-based virtual screening. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2004, 8, 359-364.
102. Fogel, G.B.; Cheung, M.;Pittman, E.; Hecht, D. Modeling the inhibition of quadruple mutant Plasmodium falciparum dihydrofolate reductase by pyrimethamine derivatives. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 2008, 22, 29-38.
103. Thomsen R.; Christensen M.H. MolDock: A new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49, 3315-3321.
104. 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.
105. Yang, J.M.; Chen, Y.F.; Shen, T.W.; Kristal, B.S.; Hsu, D.F. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2005, 45, 1134.
106. Fogel, G.B. Computational intelligence approaches for pattern discovery in biological systems. Brief Bioinform., 2008, 9, 307-316.
107. Mjolsness E; DeCoste D. Machine learning for science: State of the art and future prospects. Science, 2001, 293, 2051-5.
108. Hansch, C. A quantitative approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships. Acc.Chem. Res., 1969, 2, 232-239.
109. Devillers J. Ed. Neural networks in QSAR and drug design an essential reference source for those on the frontiers of this field. Academic Press, 1996.
110. Chalk, A.J.; Beck, B.; Clark, T. A quantum mechanical/neural net model for boiling points with error estimation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 457-462.
111. Lučić, B.; Nadramija, D.; Bašic, I.; Tranajstić, N. Toward generating simpler QSAR models: Non-linear multivariate regression vs several neural network ensembles and some related methods. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1094-1102.
112. Mattioni, B.E.; Jurs, P.C. Prediction of dihydrofolate reductase inhibition and selectivity using computational neural networks and linear discriminant analysis. J. Mol. Graphics Model., 2003, 21, 391-419.
113. Weekes, D.; Fogel, G.B. Evolutionary optimization, backpropagation, and data preparation issues in QSAR modeling of HIV inhibition by HEPT derivatives. Biosystems, 2003, 72, 149-158.
114. Winkler, D.A.; Burden, F.R. Modelling blood-brain barrier partitioning using Bayesian neural nets. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 2004, 22, 499-505.
115. Lewis, R.A. A general method for exploiting QSAR models in lead optimization. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 1638-1648.
116. Karakoc, E.; Sahinalp, S.C.; Cherkasov, A. Novel approaches for small biomolecule classification and structural similarity search. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46, 2167-2182.
117. Cramer III, R.D.; Patterson, D.E.; Bunce, J.D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1988, 110, 5959-5967.
118. Klebe, G.; Abraham, U.; Mietzner, T. Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J. Med. Chem., 1994, 37, 4130-4146.
119. McCulloch, W.S., Pitts, W. A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity. Bull. Math Biophys., 1943, 5, 115-133.
120. Rosenblatt, F. Principles of neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the theory of brain mechanisms, Washington, DC: Spartan Books, 1962.
121. Haykin, S. Neural networks: A nomprehensive foundation, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.
122. Werbos, P.J. The roots of backpropagation: From ordered derivatives to neural networks and political forecasting, Wiley: New York, 1994.
123. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control, 1965, 8, 338-53.
124. Zadeh L.A. Fuzzy Algorithms. Inform. Control, 1968, 12, 94-102.
125. Torres, A.; Nieto, J.J. Fuzzy logic in medicine and bioinformatics. J.Biomed. Biotechnol., 2006, 2, 91908.
126. Mordeson, J.N.; Malik, D.S.; Cheng, S.-C. Fuzzy mathematics in medicine, Secaucus, NJ: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., 2000.
127. Szczepaniak, P.S.; Lisoba, P.J.G.; Kacprzyk, J. Fuzzy systems in medicine, Berlin: Physica-Verlag, Berlin, 2000.
128. Dong, X.; Bondugula, R.; Popescu, M. Bioinformatics and fuzzy logic. 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. Fuzzy Syst., 2006, 817-24.
129. Ruspini, E.H.; Bonissone, P.P.; Pedrycz, W. Eds.; Handbook of fuzzy computation; Bristol, UK: Oxford University Press, 1998.
130. Mendel, J.M. Type-2 Fuzzy sets and systems: An overview. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag., 2007, 2, 20-29.
131. Mendel, J.M. Uncertain rule-based fuzzy logic systems: Introduction and new directions, Upper-Saddle River, NJ; Prentice-Hall, 2001.
132. Zadeh, L.A. The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-1. Inform. Sci., 1975, 8, 199-249.
133. Paetz, J.; Schneider, G. A neuro-fuzzy approach to virtual screening in molecular bioinformatics. Fuzzy Sets Sys., 2005, 152, 67-82.
134. Källblad, P.; Dean, P.M. Efficient conformational sampling of local side-chain flexibility. J. Mol. Biol., 2003, 326, 1651-1665.
135. Kumar, M.; Thurow, K.; Stoll, N.; Stoll, R. Robust fuzzy mappings for QSAR studies. Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2007, 42, 675-685.
136. Fogel, L.J.; Owens, A.; Walsh, M.J. Artificial intelligence through simulated evolution, Wiley: New York, NY, 1966.
137. Rechenberg, I. Evolutions strategie: Optimerung technischer systeme nach prinzipien der biologischen evolution, Stuttgart, Germany: Fromman-Holzboog, 1973.
138. Bremmerman, H.J. Optimization through evolution and recombination; Yovits M.C.; Jacobi G.T.; Goldstein G.D. Eds.; Self-organizing systems. Washington DC: Spartan Press, 1962.
139. Holland, J.H. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975.
140. Michalewicz, Z. Genetic algorithms + data structures = evolution programs, 3rd ed. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 1996.
141. Koza, J. Genetic programming: On the programming of computers by means of natural selection, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
142. Eberhart, R.C.; Shi, Y.; Kennedy, J. Swarm intelligence, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 2001.
143. Dorigo, M; Gambardella, L.M. Ant colony system: A cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 1997, 1, 53-66.
144. Storn, R.; Price, K. Differential evolution: A simple and efficient sdaptive scheme for global optimization over continuous spaces. Technical report TR-95-012, ICSI, March 1995.
145. Storn, R. System design by constraint adaptation and differential evolution. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput., 1999, 3, 22-34.
146. Wolpert, D.H.; Macready, W.G. No free lunch theorems for optimization. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comp., 1997, 1, 67-82.
147. Fogel, D.B.; Fogel, L.J.; Porto, V.W. Evolving neural networks. Biol. Cybern., 1990, 63, 487-93.
148. Yao, X. Evolving artificial neural networks. Proc. IEEE, 1999, 87, 1423-1447.
149. MA, C.Y.C.; Wong, S.W.M.; Hecht, D.; Fogel, G.B. Evolved Neural Networks for High Throughput Anti-HIV Ligand Screening. IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation, Vancouver, Canada, 2006, 9284-9291.
150. Hecht, D.; Fogel, G.B. High-throughput ligand screening via pre-clustering and rvolved neural networks. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinf., 2007, 4, 476-84.
151. Hecht, D.; Cheung, M.; Fogel, G.B. QSAR using evolved neural networks for the inhibition of mutant PfDHFR by pyrimethamine derivatives. Biosystems 2008, 92, 10-15.
152. Cheung, M.; Johnson, S.; Hecht, D.; Fogel, G.B. Quantitative structure-property relationships for drug solubility prediction using evolved neural networks; Natural Selection, Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2008; pp. 688-693.
153. Zernov, V.V.; Balakin, K.V.; Ivaschenko, A.A.; Nikolay P.; Savchuk, N.P.; Pletnev, I.V. Drug discovery using support vector machines. The case studies of drug-likeness, agrochemical-likeness, and enzyme inhibition predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 2048-2056.
154. Han, L.Y.; Ma, X.H.; Lin, H.H.; Jia, J.; Zhu, F.; Xuec, Y.; Li, Z.R.; Cao, Z.W.; Ji, Z.L.; Chen, Y.Z. A support vector machines approach for virtual screening of active compounds of single and multiple mechanisms from large libraries at an improved hit-rate and enrichment factor. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 2008, 26, 1276-1286.
155. Martin, O.; Schomburg, D. Efficient comprehensive scoring of docked protein complexes using probabilistic support vector machines. Proteins, 2008, 70, 1367-1378.
156. Vapnik, V. Statistical Learning Theory; Wiley: New York, 1998.
157. Plewczynski, D.; Tkacz, A.;Godzik, A.;Rychlewski, L. A support vector machine approach to the identification of phosphorylation sites. Cell. Mol. Biol. Lett., 2005, 10, 73-89.
158. Chang, C.C.; Lin, C.J. Training nu-support vector classifiers: Theory and algorithms. Neural Comput., 2001, 13, 2119-2147.
159. Klon, A.E.; Glick, M.; Davies, J.W. Combination of a naive Bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of high-throughput docking results. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 4356-4359.
160. Klon, A.E.; Glick, M.; Thoma, M.; Acklin, P.; Davies, J.W. Finding more needles in the haystack: A simple and efficient method for improving high-throughput docking results. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 2743.
161. Springer, C.; Adalsteinsson, H.; Young, M.M.; Kegelmeyer, P.W. Roe, D.C. PostDock A structural, empirical approach to scoring protein ligand complexes. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 6821-6831.
162. Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; Catana, C.; Trosset, J.Y.; Vulpetti, A.; Stouten, P.F.W.; Kroemer, R.T. Novel scoring functions comprising QXP, SASA, and protein side-chain entropy terms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 882-893.
163. Pearlman, D.A.; Rao, B.G.; Charifson, P. FURSMASA: A new approach to rapid scoring functions that uses a MD-averaged potential energy grid and a solvent-accessible surface area term with parameters GA fit to experimental data. Proteins, 2008, 71, 1519-1538.
164. Guo, J.; Hurley, M.M.; Wright, J.B.; Gerald H. Lushington, G.H. A docking score function for estimating ligand-protein interactions: application to acetylcholinesterase inhibition. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 5492-5500.
165. Catana, C.; Pieter, F.W.; Stouten, P.F.W. Novel, customizable scoring functions, parameterized using N-PLS, for structure-based drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47, 85-91.
166. Teramoto, R.; Fukunishi, H. Supervised scoring models with docked ligand conformations for structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48, 288-295.
167. Verdonk, M.L.; Berdini, V.; Hartshorn, M.J.; Mooij, W.T.M.; Murray, C.W.; Taylor, R.D.; Watson, P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 793.
168. Pirard, B. Knowledge-driven lead discovery. Mini Rev. Med. Chem., 2005, 5, 1045-1052.
169. Roche, O.; Schneider, P.; Zuegge, J.; Guba, W.; Kansy, M.; Alanine, A.; Bleicher, K.; Danel, F.; Gutknecht, E.-M.; Rogers-Evans, M.; Neidhart, W.; Stadler, H.; Dillon, M.; Sjögren, E.; Foutouhi, N.; Gillespie, P.; Goodnow, R.; Harris, W.; Jones, P.; Taniguchi, M.; Tsujii, S.; von der Saal, W.; Zimmermann, G.; Schneider, G. Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 137-142.
170. Deng, Z.; Chuaqui, C.; Singh, J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): A novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 337-344.
171. Chuaqui, C.; Deng, Z.; Singh, J. Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 121-133.
172. Cui, M.; Huang, X.; Luo, X.; Briggs, J.M.; Ji, R.; Chen, K.; Shen, J.; Jiang, H. Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR studies on gag peptide analogue inhibitors interacting with human cyclophilin A. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 5249-5259.
173. Liu, H.; Huang, X.; Shen, J.; Luo, X.; Li, M.; Xiong, B.; Chen, G.; Shen, J.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, H.; Chen, K. Inhibitory mode of 1,5-diarylpyrazole derivatives against cyclooxygenase-2 and cyclooxygenase-1: Molecular docking and 3D QSAR analyses. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 4816-4827.
174. Liu, G.; Zhang, Z.; Luo, X.; Shen, J.; Liu, H.; Shen, X.; Chen, K.; Jiang, H. Inhibitory mode of indole-2-carboxamide derivatives against HLGPa: Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR analyses. Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2004, 12, 4147-4157.
175. Wei, H.-Y.; Tsai, K.-C.; Lin, T.-H. Modeling ligand-receptor interaction for some MHC class II HLA-DR4 peptide mimetic inhibitors using several molecular docking and 3D QSAR techniques. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2005, 45, 1343-1351.
176. Zuo, Z.; Luo, X.; Zhu, W.; Shen, J.; Shen, X.; Jiang, H.; Chen, K. Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR studies on the binding mechanism of statine-based peptidomimetics with β-secretase. Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2005, 13, 2121-2131.
177. Pan, X.; Tan, N.; Zeng, G.; Huang, H. 3D-QSAR and docking studies of aldehyde inhibitors of human cathepsin K. Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2006, 14, 2771-2778.
178. Sharma, P.; Ghoshal, N. Exploration of a binding mode of benzothiazol-2-yl acetonitrile pyrimidine core based derivatives as potent c-Jun N-terminal kinase-3 inhibitors and 3D-QSAR analyses. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46, 1763-1774.
179. Bordas, B.; Belai, I.; Lopata, A.; Szanto, Z. Interpretation of scoring functions using 3D molecular fields. mapping the diacylhydrazine-binding pocket of an insect ecdysone receptor. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47, 176-185.
180. Khedkar, S.A.; Malde, A.K.; Coutinho, E.C. Design of inhibitors of the MurF enzyme of Streptococcus pneumoniae using docking, 3DQSAR, and de Novo design. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47, 1839-1846.
181. Mascarenhas, N.M.; Ghoshal, N. An efficient tool for identifying inhibitors based on 3D-QSAR and docking using feature-shape pharmacophore of biologically active conformation - A case study with CDK2/CyclinA. Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2007, - doi:10.1016/ j.ejmech.2007.10.016.
182. Yi, P.; Qiu, M. 3D-QSAR and docking studies of aminopyridine carboxamide inhibitors of c-Jun N-terminal kinase-1. Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2008, 43, 604-613.
183. Zaheer-ul-Haq; Uddin, R.; Yuan, H.; Pavel A.; Petukhov, P.A.; Choudhary, M. I.; Madura, J.D. Receptor-based modeling and 3DQSAR for a quantitative production of the butyrylcholinesterase inhibitors based on genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48, 1092-1103.
184. Spreafico, M.; Boriani, E.; Benfenati, E.; Novic, M. Structural features of diverse ligands influencing binding affinities to estrogen and estrogen β receptors. Part II. Molecular descriptors calculated from conformation of the ligands in the complex resulting from previous docking study. Mol. Divers., 2007, 11, 171-181.
185. Taha, M.O.; Atallah, N.; Al-Bakri, A.G.; Paradis-Bleau, C.; Zalloum, H.; Younis, K.S.; Levesque, R.C. Discovery of new MurF inhibitors via pharmacophore modeling and QSAR analysis followed by in silico screening. Bioor. Med. Chem., 2008, 16, 1218-1235.
186. Chen, G.; Zheng, S.; Luo, X.; Shen, J.; Zhu, W.; Liu, H.; Gui, C.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, M.; Puah, C.M.; Chen, K.; Jiang, H. Focused combinatorial library design based on structural diversity, drug-likeness and binding affinity score. J. Comb. Chem., 2005, 7, 398-406.
187. Li, C.H.; Ma, X.H.; Shen, L.Z.; Shan Chang, S.; Chen, W.Z.; Wang, C.X. Complex-type-dependent scoring functions in protein-protein docking. Biophys. Chem., 2007, 129, 1-10.
188. Sullivan, D.C; Martin, E.J. ChemInform abstract: Rxploiting structure - activity relationships in docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48, 817-830.
189. Ortiz, A.R.; Pisabarro, M.T.; Gago, F.; Wade, R.C. Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis. J. Med. Chem., 1995, 38, 2681-2691.
190. Wang, T.; Wade, R.C. Comparative binding energy (COMBINE) analysis of influenza neuraminidase-inhibitor complexes. J. Med. Chem., 2001, 44, 961-971.
191. Murcia, M.; Ortiz, A.R. Virtual screening with flexible docking and COMBINE-based models. application to a series of factor Xa inhibitors. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 805-820.
192. Antes, I.; Merkwirth, C.; Lengauer, T. POEM: Parameter optimization using ensemble methods: Application to target specific scoring functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2005, 45, 1291-1302.
193. Polański, J. The deceptor-like neural network for modeling corticosteroid and testosterone binding globulins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1997, 37, 553-561.
194. Bazeley, P.S.; Prithivi, S.; Struble, C.A.; Povinelli, R.J.; Sem, D.S. Synergistic use of compound properties and docking scores in neural network modeling of CYP2D6 binding: Predicting affinity and conformational sampling. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46, 2698-2708.
195. Bernauer, J.; Aze', J.; Janin, J.; Poupon, A. A new protein-protein docking scoring function based on interface residue properties. Bionformatics, 2007, 23, 555-562.
196. Didziapetris, R.; Japertas, P.; Avdeef, A.; Petrauskas, A. Classification Analysis of P-glycoprotein substrate specificity. J. Drug Target., 2003, 11, 391-406.
197. Renner, S.; Schneider, G. Fuzzy pharmacophore models from molecular alignments for correlation-vector-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem., 2004, 47, 4653-4664.
198. Fabry-Asztalos, L.; Andonie, R.; Collar, C.J.; Abdul-Wahid, S.; Salim, N. A genetic algorithm optimized fuzzy neural network analysis of the affinity of inhibitors for HIV-1 protease. Bioorg. Med. Chem., 2008, 16, 2903-2911.
199. Radestock, S.; Bohm, M.; Gohlke, H. Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48, 5466-5479.
200. Mooij, W.T.M; Verdonk, M.L. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Proteins: Struct. Func. Bioinf., 2005, 61, 272-287.