Quantifying biogenic bias in screening libraries

Nature Chemical Biology

Volumn 5, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 479-483

  Hert, Jéôrme ^a   Irwin, John J ^a   Laggner, Christian ^a   Keiser, Michael J ^a   Shoichet, Brian K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL COMPOSITION; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; MOLECULAR SIZE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCREENING TEST; SUBSTITUTION REACTION;

BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEINS; SELECTION BIAS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 67650299761     PISSN: 15524450     EISSN: 15524469     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.180     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Wilhelm, S. et al. Discovery and development of sorafenib: a multikinase inhibitor for treating cancer. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 835-844 (2006).
2. Spencer, R.W. High-throughput screening of historic collections: observations on file size, biological targets, and file diversity. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 61, 61-67 (1998).
3. Fox, S., Farr-Jones, S., Sopchak, L., Boggs, A. & Comley, J. High-throughput screening: searching for higher productivity. J. Biomol. Screen. 9, 354-358 (2004).
4. Macarron, R. Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 11, 277-279 (2006).
5. Pereira, D.A. & Williams, J.A. Origin and evolution of high throughput screening. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152, 53-61 (2007).
6. Bohacek, R., McMartin, C. & Guida, W. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 16, 3-50 (1996).
7. Roth, B., Sheffler, D. & Kroeze, W. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 353-359 (2004).
8. Paolini, G., Shapland, R., van Hoorn, W., Mason, J. & Hopkins, A. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 805-815 (2006).
9. Yildirim, M., Goh, K.-I., Cusick, M., Barabasi, A.-L. & Vidal, M. Drug-target network. Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 1119-1126 (2007).
10. Martin, Y.C. Diverse viewpoints on computational aspects of molecular diversity. J. Comb. Chem. 3, 231-250 (2001).
11. Breinbauer, R., Vetter, I.R. & Waldmann, H. From protein domains to drug candidates - natural products as guiding principles in the design and synthesis of compound libraries. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41, 2879-2890 (2002).
12. Koehn, F. & Carter, G. The evolving role of natural products in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 206-220 (2005).
13. Arve, L, Voigt, T. & Waldmann, H. Charting biological and chemical space: PSSC and SCONP as guiding principles for the development of compound collections based on natural product scaffolds. QSAR Comb. Sci. 25, 449-456 (2006).
14. Ertl, P., Roggo, S. & Schuffenhauer, A. Natural product-likeness score and its application for prioritization of compound libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 68-74 (2008).
15. Gupta, S. Aires-de-Sousa, J. Comparing the chemical spaces of metabolites and available chemicals: models of metabolite-likeness. Mol. Divers. 11, 23-36 (2007).
16. Fink, T. & Reymond, J.L. Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C, N, O, F: assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ring systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 342-353 (2007).
17. Sadowski, J. & Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. J. Med. Chem. 41, 3325-3329 (1998).
18. Good, A.C. & Hermsmeier, M.A. Measuring CAMD technique performance. 2. How "druglike" are drugs? Implications of random test set selection exemplified using druglikeness classification models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 110-114 (2007).
19. Glen, R.C. et al. Circular fingerprints: flexible molecular descriptors with applications from physical chemistry to ADME. IDrugs 9, 199-204 (2006).
20. Bem is, G.W. & Murcko, M.A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39, 2887-2893 (1996).
21. Schreiber, S. Target-oriented and diversity-oriented organic synthesis in drug discovery. Science 287, 1964-1969(2000).
22. Haggarty, S., Clemons, P., Wong, J. & Schreiber, S. Mapping chemical space using molecular descriptors and chemical genetics: deacetylase inhibitors. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 7, 669-676 (2004).
23. Shang, S. & Tan, D.S. Advancing chemistry and biology through diversity-oriented synthesis of natural product-like libraries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 9, 248-258 (2005).
24. Gregori-Puigjané, E. & Mestres, J. Coverage and bias in chemical library design. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12, 359-365 (2008).
25. Ertl, P., Jelfs, S., Muhlbacher, J., Schuffenhauer, A. & Selzer, P. Quest for the rings. In silico exploration of ring universe to identify novel bioactive heteroaromatic scaffolds. J. Med. Chem. 49, 4568-4573 (2006).
26. Wester, M.J. et al. Scaffold topologies. 2. Analysis of chemical databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 1311-1324 (2008).
27. Wetzel, S., Schuffenhauer, A., Roggo, S., Ertl, P. & Waldmann, H. Cheminformatic analysis of natural products and their chemical space. Chimia 61, 355-360 (2007).
28. Fink, T., Bruggesser, H. & Reymond, J.L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 1504-1508 (2005).
29. Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 27-30 (2000).
30. Buckingham, J. Dictionary of Natural Products (Chapman & Hall/CRC, United Kingdom, 2008).
31. Irwin, J.J. & Shoichet, B.K. ZINC-a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45, 177-182 (2005).
32. Morgan, H.L. Generation of a unique description for chemical structures-a technique developed at Chemical Abstract Service. J. Chem. Doc. 5, 107-113 (1965).
33. Hert, J. et al. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2, 3256-3266 (2004).
34. Koch, M. et al. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 17272-17277 (2005).