Bioisosteric similarity of molecules based on structural alignment and observed chemical replacements in drugs

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1280-1297

  Krier, Markus ^a   Hutter, Michael C ^a  

^a SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALIGNMENT; BIOINFORMATICS;

AUTOMATED PROCEDURES; CHEMICAL DIVERSITY; EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS; PAIRWISE ALIGNMENT; PROTEIN SEQUENCES; SIMILARITY SEARCH; STRUCTURAL ALIGNMENTS; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

MOLECULES;

DRUG;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG SCREENING;

ALGORITHMS; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 66449127422     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci8003418     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. van de Waterbeemd, H.; Gifford, E. ADMET In Silico Modelling: Towards Prediction Paradise. Nat Rev.Drug Discovery 2003, 2, 192-204.
2. Bajorath, J. Selected Concepts and Investigations in Compound Classification, Molecular Descriptor Analysis, and Virtual Screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2002, 1, 882-894.
3. Willett, P.; Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical Similarity Searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 983-996.
4. Glen, R. C.; Adams, S. E. Similarity Metrices and Descriptor Spaces-Which Combinations to Choose? QSAR Comb. Sci. 2006, 25, 1133-1142.
5. Barnard, J. M. Substructure Searching Methods: Old and New. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1993, 33, 532-538.
6. Raymond, J. W.; Gardiner, E. J.; Willett, P. RASCAL: Calculation of Graph Similarity Using Maximum Common Edge Subgraphs. Computer J. 2002, 45, 631-644.
7. Raymond, J. W.; Blankley, C. J.; Willett, P. Comparison of Chemical Clustering Methods Using Graph-and Fingerprint-Based Similarity Methods. J, Mol. Graph. Model. 2003, 21, 421-433.
8. Martin, Y. C.; Bures, M. G.; Danaher, E. A.; DeLazzer, J.; Lico, I.; Pavlik, P. A. A Fast New Apporach to Pharmacophore Mapping and its Application to Domapinergic and Benzodiazepine Agonists. J. Com-put.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 83-102.
9. Goodford, P. J. A Computational Procedure for Determining Energetically Favorable Binding Sites on Biologically Important Macromol-ecules. J. Med. Chem. 1985, 28, 849-857.
10. Cramer, R. D. I.; 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.
11. Flower, D. R. On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity. J Chem Inf.Comput.Sci. 1998, 38, 379-386.
12. Schuffenhauer, A.; Gillet, V. J.; Willett, P. Similarity Searching in Files of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures: Analysis of the BIOSTER Database Using Two-Dimensional Fingerprints and Molecular Field Descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 295-307.
13. 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.
14. Xue, L.; Godden, J. W.; Stahura, F. L.; Bajorath, J. Design and Evaluation of a Molecular Fingerprint Involving the Transformation of Property Descriptor values into a Binary Classification Scheme. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1151-1157.
15. Senese, C. L.; Duca, J.; Pan, D.; Hopfinger, A. J.; Tseng, Y. J. 4D-Fingerprints, Universal QSAR and QSPR Descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1526-1539.
16. Wagener, M.; Lommerse, J. P. M. The Quest for Bioisosteric Replacements. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 677-685.
17. Lounkine, E.; Bajorath, J. Core Trees and Consensus Fragment Sequences for Molecular Representation and Similarity Analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1161-1166.
18. Rarey, M.; Dixon, J. S. Feature Trees: A new Molecular Similarity Measure Based on Tree Matching. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 471-490.
19. Rarey, M.; Stahl, M. Similarity Searching in large Combinatorial Chemistry Spaces. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 497-520.
20. Fischer, J. R.; Rarey, M. SwiFT: An Index Structure for Reduced Graph Descriptors in Virtual Screening and Clustering. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1341-1353; http://public.zbh.uni-hamburg.de/ftrees/ query.py (accessed May 12, 2008).
21. Hanke, V.; Hofmann, B.; Grgat, T.; Proschak, E.; Steinhilber, D.; Schneider, G. PhAST: Pharmacophore Alignment Search Tool. J. Comput. Chem. 2009, 30, 761-771.
22. Frohlich, H.; Wegner, J. K.; Sieker, F.; Zell, A. Kernel Functions for Attributed Molecular Graphs-A New Similarity-Based Approach to ADME Prediction in Classification and Regression. QSARComb Sci. 2006, 25, 317-326.
23. Wegner, J. K.; Frohlich, H.; Mielenz, H. M.; Zell, A. Data and Graph Mining in Chemical Space for ADME and Activity Data Sets. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2006, 25, 205-220.
24. Gillet, V. J.; Willett, P.; Bradshaw, J. Similarity Searching Using Reduced Graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 338-345.
25. Schneider, G.; Werner, N.; Giller, T.; Schmid, G. "Scaffold- Hopping" by Topological Pharmacophore Search: A Contribution to Virtual Screening. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 1999, 38, 2894-2896.
26. Weber, A.; Teckentrup, A.; Briem, H. Flexsim-R: A Virtual Affinity Fingerprint Descriptor to Calculate Similarities of Functional Groups. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 903-916.
27. Patani, G. A.; LaVoie, E. J. Bioisosterism: A Rational Approach in Drug Design. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 3147-3176.
28. Lima, L. M.; Barreiro, E. J. Bioisosterism: A Useful Strategy for Molecular Modification and Drug Design. Curr. Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 23-49.
29. Haubertin, D. Y.; Bruneau, P. A Database of Historically-Observed Chemical Replacements. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1294-1302.
30. Ujvary, I. BIOSTER-A Database of Structurally Analogous Compounds. Pestic. Sci. 1997, 51, 92-95.
31. Sheridan, R. P. The Most Common Chemical Replacements in Drug like Compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 103-108.
32. Ertl, P. Cheminformatics Analysis of Organic Substituents: Identification of the Most Common Substituents, Calculation of Substituent Properties, and Automatic Identification of Drug-like Bioisosteric Groups. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 374-380.
33. Lewell,X.Q.;Judd,D.B.;Watson,S.P.;Hann,M.M.RECAP-Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure: A Powerful New Technique for Identifying Priviledged Molecular Fragements with Useful Applications in Combinatorial Chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998,38, 511-522.
34. Stewart, K. D.; Shiroda, M.; James, C. A. Drug Guru: A Computer Software Program for Drug Design Using Medicinal Chemistry Rules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2006, 14, 7011-7022.
35. Sayle, R.; Nicholls, A. Electrostatic Evaluation of Isosteric Analogues. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 191-208.
36. Balakin, K. V.; Tkachenko, S. E.; Okun, I.; Skorenko, A. V.; Savchuk, N. P.; Ivanshchenko, A. A.; Nikolsky, Y. Bioisosteric Morphing in Primary Hit Optimization. Chim. Oggi-Chem. Today 2004, 22, 15-18.
37. Brood: Fragment replacement for Medicinal Chemistry, version 1.1.1; OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, 2007; http:// www.eyesopen.com.
38. Reid, D.; Sadjad, B. S.; Zsoldos, Z.; Simon, A. LASSO-Ligand Activity by Surface Similarity Order: A new Tool for Ligand Based Virtual Screening. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 479-487.
39. Dayhoff, M. O.; Schwartz, R. M.; Orcutt, B. C. A Model of Evolutionary Change in Proteins Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure; National Biomedical Research Foundation: Washington, DC, 1978; pp345-352.
40. Henikoff, S.; Henikoff, J. G. Amino Acid Substitution Matrices from Protein Blocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1992, 89, 10195-10919.
41. 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.
42. Smith, T. F.; Waterman, M. S. Identification of Common Molecular Sequences. J. Mol. Biol. 1981, 147, 195-197.
43. 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.
44. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc., Suite 550, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. For full details of SMILES and SMARTS, see http:// www.daylight.com (accessed May 12, 2008).
45. Weininger, D.; Weininger, A.; Weininger, J. L. SMILES. 2. Algorithm for Generation of Unique SMILES Notation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1989, 29, 97-101.
46. World Health Organization. The Use of Stems in the Selection of International Nonproprietary Names (INN) for Pharmaceutical Substances. ttp://www.who.int/medicines/services/inn/en/ (accessed Oct 18, 2007).
47. The PubChem Database at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/(accessed Oct 18, 2007).
48. Oellien, F.; Nicklaus, M. C. Online SMILES Translator.http:// cactus.nci.nih.gov/translate (accessed Jan 7, 2008).
49. Saitou, N.; Nei, M. The Neighbor-Joining Methods: A new Method for Reconstructing Phylogenetic Trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1987, 4, 406-425.
50. Carhart, R. E.; Smith, D. H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom Pairs as Molecular Features in Structure-Activity Studies: Definition and Applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1985, 25, 64-73.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. Schneider, N.; Jackels, C.; Andres, C.; Hutter, M. C. Gradual in Silico Filtering for Druglike Substances. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 613-628.
54. Sigma-Aldrich Co. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com (accessed Feb 27, 2008).
55. Berman, M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhat, T. N.; Weissig, H.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
56. Prous Science Drugs ofthe Future; Thompson Reuters: Philadelphia, PA, 2008.
57. Guha, R.; Howard, M. T.; Hutchison, G. R.; Murray-Rust, P.; Rzepa, H.; Steinbeck, C.; Wegner, J. K.; Willighagen, E. The Blue Obelisk-Interoperability in Chemical Informatics. J. Chem. Inf. Model.2006, 46, 991-998.
58. The Open Babel Package; version 2.2.0b4. http://openbabel.source- forge.net/ (accessed May 6, 2008).
59. Acharya, K. R.; Sturrock, E. D.; Riordan, J. F.; Ehlers, M. R. W. ACE Revisited: A New Target for Structure-Based Drug Design. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2003, 2, 891-902.
60. Tovar, A.; Eckert, H.; Bajorath, J. Comparison of 2D Fingerprint Methods for Multiple-Template Similarity Searching on Compound Activity Classes of Increasing Structural Diversity. ChemMedChem 2007, 2, 208-217.
61. Vidal, D.; Thormann, M.; Pons, M. LINGO, an Efficient Holographic Text Based Method To Calculate Biophysical Properties and Inter-molecular Similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 386-393.
62. Viswanadhan, V. N.; Ghose, A. K.; Rebankar, G. R.; Robins, R. K. Atomic Physicochemical Parameters for Three Dimensional Structure Directed Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships. 4. Additional Parameters for Hydrophobic and Dispersive Interactions and Their Application for an Automated Superposition of Certain Naturally Occuring Nucleoside Antibiotics. J Chem In Comput Sci. 1989, 29, 163-172.
63. Hutter, M. C. Separating Drugs from Nondrugs: A Statistical Approach Using Atom Pair Distributions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 186-194.
64. Oprea, T. I.; Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J.; Leeson, P. D. Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1308-1315.
65. Leach, A. G.; Jones, H. D.; Cosgrove, D. A.; Kenny, P. W.; Ruston, L.; MacFaul, P.; Wood, J. M.; Colclough, N.; Law, B. Matched Molecular Pairs as a Guide in the Optimization of Pharmaceutical Properties: A Study of Aqueous Solubility, Plasma Protein Binding and Oral Exposure. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6672-6682.
66. Bohm, H.-J.; Klebe, G.; Brode, S.; Hesse, U. Oxygen and Nitrogen in Competitive Situations: Which Is The Hydrogen-Bond Acceptor? Chem.-Eur. J. 1996, 2, 1509-1513.