Advances in nuclear magnetic resonance for drug discovery

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Volumn 4, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 1077-1098

  Powers, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug discovery; Fragment based screening; Metabolomics; NMR; Structural biology

Indexed keywords

LIGAND;

ANALYTIC METHOD; AUTOMATION; CARBON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; DRUG EFFICACY; HUMAN; HYDROGEN BOND; IN VIVO STUDY; INDUSTRIALIZATION; LIGAND BINDING; LIPOPHILICITY; METABOLOMICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NITROGEN NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; NUCLEAR OVERHAUSER EFFECT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY;

EID: 70349392687     PISSN: 17460441     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17460440903232623     Document Type: Review

References (259)

1. Sams-Dodd F. Target-based drug discovery: is something wrong? Drug Discov Today 2005;10(2):139-147
2. Garnier J-P. Rebuilding the R&D engine in big pharma. Harv Bus Rev 2008;86(5):68-70, 2-6, 128
3. Weisbach JA, Moos WH. Diagnosing the decline of major pharmaceutical research laboratories: a prescription for drug companies. Drug Dev Res 1995;34(3):243-259
4. Horrobin DF. Realism in drug discovery-could Cassandra be right? Nat Biotechnol 2001;19(12):1099-1100
5. Cuatrecasas P. Drug discovery in jeopardy. J Clin Invest 2006;116(11):2837-2842
6. Kola I, Landis J. Opinion: can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3(8):711-716
7. Caldwell GW, Ritchie DM, Masucci JA, et al. The new pre-preclinical paradigm: compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem (Hilversum, Netherlands) 2001;1(5):353-366
8. Dickson M, Gagnon JP. Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3(5):417-429 • Provides a detailed analysis of the costs associated with the various stages of the drug discovery process. (Pubitemid 38618124)
9. Karlberg JPE. Trends in disease focus of drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7(8):639-640
10. Owens J. Big pharma slims down to bolster productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6(3):173-174 (Pubitemid 46349928)
11. Wermuth CG. Similarity in drugs: reflections on analogue design. Drug Discov Today 2006;11(7 & 8):348-354
12. Booth B, Zemmel R. Opinion: quest for the best. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2(10):838-841
13. Zhong X, Moseley GB, III. Mission possible: managing innovation in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25(8):945-946
14. Booth B, Zemmel R. Prospects for productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3(5):451-456
15. Cavalla D. The extended pharmaceutical enterprise. Drug Discov Today 2003;8(6):267-274
16. Frantz S. Chemistry outsourcing going global. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006;5(5):362-363
17. Ullman F, Boutellier R. Drug discovery: are productivity metrics inhibiting motivation and creativity? Drug Discov Today 2008;13(21/22):997-1001 • An analysis of the impact of applying the standard business practice of metrics to the pharmaceutical industry. Scientists from > 50 companies were interviewed regarding their employer's assessment protocol and the effect on their motivation and initiative.
18. Ullman F, Boutellier R. A case study of lean drug discovery: from project driven research to innovation studios and process factories. Drug Discov Today 2008;13(11/12):543-550
19. Mackay M, Street SDA, McCall JM. Risk reduction in drug discovery and development. Curr Top Med Chem (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) 2005;5(11):1087-1090 •• Illustrates a major trend and problem in the pharmaceutical industry. One approach to reduce cost is to reduce risk, which is being accomplished by shortening project timelines. Accelerated decision-making is being used to terminate projects at very early stages. (Pubitemid 41582122)
20. Lewis CT, O'Connor PM. Discovering novel anticancer drugs: practical aspects and recent advances. Methods Mol Biol (Totowa, NJ, US) 2003;223 (Tumor Suppressor Genes, Volume 2):425-463
21. Senn S. Some statistical issues in project prioritization in the pharmaceutical industry. Stat Med 1996;15(24):2689-2702 (Pubitemid 27011051)
22. Schmid Esther F, Smith Dennis A. Is pharmaceutical R&D just a game of chance or can strategy make a difference? Drug Discov Today 2004;9(1):18-26
23. Handen Jeffrey S. The industrialization of drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2002;7(2):83-85 • An editorial that articulates the current industry-wide philosophy to industrialize the science of drug discovery.
24. Pichler FB, Turner SJ. The power and pitfalls of outsourcing. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25(10):1093-1096
25. Adam M. What to expect from rational drug design. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2007;2(6):773-776 (Pubitemid 47287961)
26. Sams-Dodd F. Drug discovery: selecting the optimal approach. Drug Discov Today 2006;11(9 & 10):465-472
27. Lahana R. How many leads from HTS? Drug Discov Today 1999;4(10):447-448
28. McGovern SL, Caselli E, Grigorieff N, Shoichet BK. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J Med Chem 2002;45(8):1712-1722 • Demonstrates that high-throughput screens lack information on the mechanism of action of potential lead compounds that results in an abundance of false positives. (Pubitemid 34293537)
29. McGovern SL, Helfand BT, Feng B, Shoichet BK. A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. J Med Chem 2003;46(20):4265-4272
30. Rishton GM. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov Today 1997;2(9):382-384
31. Seidler J, McGovern SL, Doman TN, Shoichet BK. Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. J Med Chem 2003;46(21):4477-4486 (Pubitemid 37238749)
32. Kubinyi H. Opinion: drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2(8):665-668 (Pubitemid 37368830)
33. Pellecchia M, Bertini I, Cowburn D, et al. Perspectives on NMR in drug discovery: a technique comes of age. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7(9):738-745
34. Davis B, Hubbard J. Applications of NMR in structure-based drug discovery. Struct-Based Drug Discov 2006;97-141
35. Zartler ER, Shapiro MJ. Protein NMR-based screening in drug discovery. Curr Pharm Des 2006;12(31):3963-3972
36. Jahnke W. Perspectives of biomolecular NMR in drug discovery: the blessing and curse of versatility. J Biomol NMR 2007;39(2):87-90 (Pubitemid 47377481)
37. Snyder DA, Chen Y, Denissova NG, et al. Comparisons of NMR spectral quality and success in crystallization demonstrate that NMR and X-ray crystallography are complementary methods for small protein structure determination. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127(47):16505-11 • Demonstrates, along with the companion manuscript by Yee, et al. 2005 [38], that the determination of a significant number of protein structures (20 - 40%) are only achievable using NMR. (Pubitemid 41740400)
38. Yee AA, Savchenko A, Ignachenko A, et al. NMR and X-ray crystallography, complementary tools in structural proteomics of small proteins. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127(47):16512-16517 (Pubitemid 41740401)
39. Montelione GT, Arrowsmith C, Girvin ME, et al. Unique opportunities for NMR methods in structural genomics. J Struct Funct Genomics 2009;10(2):101-106
40. Sprangers R, Gribun A, Hwang PM, et al. Quantitative NMR spectroscopy of supramolecular complexes: dynamic side pores in ClpP are important for product release. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102(46):16678-16683 (Pubitemid 41688836)
41. Jain NU, Wyckoff TJO, Raetz CRH, Prestegard JH. Rapid analysis of large protein-protein complexes using NMR-derived orientational constraints: the 95kDa complex of LpxA with acyl carrier protein. J Mol Biol 2004;343(5):1379-1389
42. Tugarinov V, Muhandiram R, Ayed A, Kay LE. Four-dimensional NMR spectroscopy of a 723-residue protein: chemical shift assignments and secondary structure of malate synthase G. J Am Chem Soc 2002;124(34):10025-10035 (Pubitemid 34919738)
43. Tugarinov V, Kay LE. Quantitative 13C and 2H NMR relaxation studies of the 723-residue enzyme malate synthase G reveal a dynamic binding interface. Biochemistry 2005;44(49):15970-15977 (Pubitemid 41785794)
44. Peterson FC, Gettins PGW. Insight into the mechanism of serpin-proteinase inhibition from 2D [1H-15N] NMR studies of the 69 kDa a1-proteinase inhibitor Pittsburgh-trypsin covalent complex. Biochemistry 2001;40(21):6284-6292
45. Liu D, Wang Y-S, Gesell JJ, et al. Backbone resonance assignments of the 45.3 kDa catalytic domain of human BACE1. J Biomol NMR 2004;29(3):425-426
46. Revington M, Zuiderweg ERP. Letter to the editor: TROSY-driven NMR backbone assignments of the 381-residue nucleotide-binding domain of the Thermus thermophilus DnaK molecular chaperone. J Biomol NMR 2004;30(1):113-114 (Pubitemid 39295142)
47. Amero C, Schanda P, Dura MA, et al. Fast two-dimensional NMR spectroscopy of high molecular weight protein assemblies. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131(10):3448- 3449
48. Mukrasch MD, Bibow S, Korukottu J, et al. Structural polymorphism of 441-residue tau at single residue resolution. PLoS Biol 2009;7(2):399-414
49. LeMaster DM. Deuterium labeling in NMR structural analysis of larger proteins. Q Rev Biophys 1990;23(2):133-174 (Pubitemid 20150815)
50. Kigawa T, Muto Y, Yokoyama S. Cell-free synthesis and amino acid-selective stable isotope labeling of proteins for NMR analysis. J Biomol NMR 1995;6(2):129-134
51. Goto NK, Kay LE. New developments in isotope labeling strategies for protein solution NMR spectroscopy. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2000;10(5):585-592
52. Zhu G, Yao X. TROSY-based NMR experiments for NMR studies of large biomolecules. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 2008;52(1):49-68
53. Keppetipola S, Kudlicki W, Nguyen BD, et al. From gene to HSQC in under five hours: high-throughput NMR proteomics. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128(14):4508-4509
54. Vinarov DA, Markley JL. High-throughput automated platform for nuclear magnetic resonance-based structural proteomics. Expert Rev Proteomics 2005;2(1):49-55
55. Folkers GE, van Buuren BNM, Kaptein R. Expression screening, protein purification and NMR analysis of human protein domains for structural genomics. J Struct Funct Genomics 2004;5(1-2):119-131 (Pubitemid 39030628)
56. Ozawa K, Headlam MJ, Schaeffer PM, et al. Optimization of an Escherichia coli system for cell-free synthesis of selectively 15N-labelled proteins for rapid analysis by NMR spectroscopy. Eur J Biochem 2004;271(20):4084-4093 (Pubitemid 39423106)
57. de Alba E, Tjandra N. Residual dipolar couplings in protein structure determination. Methods Mol Biol (Totowa, NJ, US) 2004;278 (Protein NMR techniques):89-106
58. Clore GM, Starich MR, Bewley CA, et al. Impact of residual dipolar couplings on the accuracy of NMR structures determined from a minimal number of NOE restraints. J Am Chem Soc 1999;121(27):6513-6514
59. Huang X, Moy F, Powers R. Evaluation of the utility of NMR structures determined from minimal NOE-based restraints for structure-based drug design, using MMP-1 as an example. Biochemistry 2000;39(44):13365-13375 (Pubitemid 30819822)
60. Gaponenko V, Sarma SP, Altieri AS, et al. Improving the accuracy of NMR structures of large proteins using pseudocontact shifts as long-range restraints. J Biomol NMR 2004;28(3):205-212 (Pubitemid 38220169)
61. Huang YJ, Moseley HNB, Baran MC, et al. An integrated platform for automated analysis of protein NMR structures. Methods Enzymol 2005;394(NMR of Biological Macromolecules, Part C):111-141 (Pubitemid 40460914)
62. Acton TB, Gunsalus KC, Xiao R, et al. Robotic cloning and protein production platform of the northeast structural genomics consortium. Methods Enzymol 2005;394(NMR of Biological Macromolecules, Part C):210-243 (Pubitemid 40460917)
63. Hiller S, Fiorito F, Wuethrich K, Wider G. Automated projection spectroscopy (APSY). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102(31):10876-10881
64. Liu G, Shen Y, Atreya HS, et al. NMR data collection and analysis protocol for high-throughput protein structure determination. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005;102(30):10487-10492 •• Demonstrates the recent advancements from structural genomics to rapidly determine protein NMR structures in a high-throughput fashion. (Pubitemid 41061581)
65. Atreya HS, Szyperski T. G-matrix fourier transform NMR spectroscopy for complete protein resonance assignment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2004;101(26):9642-7 • Describes the G-matrix Fourier transform NMR approach that dramatically decreases NMR data acquisition time. GFT-NMR allows for a complete set of NMR spectra to assign a protein to be collected in ~ 1-2 days. (Pubitemid 38869289)
66. Eghbalnia HR, Bahrami A, Tonelli M, et al. High-resolution iterative frequency identification for NMR as a general strategy for multidimensional data collection. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127(36):12528-12536 (Pubitemid 41292171)
67. Coggins BE, Venters RA, Zhou P. Filtered backprojection for the reconstruction of a high-resolution (4,2)D CH3-NH NOESY spectrum on a 29 kDa protein. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127(33):11562-11563
68. Staykova DK, Fredriksson J, Bermel W, Billeter M. Assignment of protein NMR spectra based on projections, multi-way decomposition and a fast correlation approach. J Biomol NMR 2008;42(2):87-97
69. Szyperski T, Yeh DC, Sukumaran DK, et al. Reduced-dimensionality NMR spectroscopy for high-throughput protein resonance assignment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99(12):8009-8014 (Pubitemid 34650996)
70. Rovnyak D, Frueh DP, Sastry M, et al. Accelerated acquisition of high resolution triple-resonance spectra using non-uniform sampling and maximum entropy reconstruction. J Magn Reson 2004;170(1):15-21
71. Mobli M, Stern AS, Hoch JC. Spectral reconstruction methods in fast NMR: reduced dimensionality, random sampling and maximum entropy. J Magn Reson 2006;182(1):96-105 (Pubitemid 44293436)
72. Hoch JC, Maciejewski MW, Filipovic B. Randomization improves sparse sampling in multidimensional NMR. J Magn Reson 2008;193(2):317-320
73. Mandelshtam VA, Taylor HS, Shaka AJ. Application of the filter diagonalization method to one- and two-dimensional NMR spectra. J Magn Reson 1998;133(2):304-312 (Pubitemid 128450646)
74. Schmieder P, Stern AS, Wagner G, Hoch JC. Improved resolution in triple-resonance spectra by nonlinear sampling in the constant-time domain. J Biomol NMR 1994;4(4):483-490 • Demonstrates the feasibility of utilizing non-uniform data sampling to rapidly collect 3D NMR spectra to solve a protein structure.
75. Orekhov VY, Ibraghimov I, Billeter M. Optimizing resolution in multidimensional NMR by three-way decomposition. J Biomol NMR 2003;27(2):165-173 (Pubitemid 37045648)
76. Orekhov VY, Ibraghimov IV, Billeter M. MUNIN: a new approach to multi-dimensional NMR spectra interpretation. J Biomol NMR 2001;20(1):49-60 (Pubitemid 32519654)
77. Kazimierczuk K, Zawadzka A, Kozminski W. Optimization of random time domain sampling in multidimensional NMR. J Magn Reson 2008;192(1):123-130 (Pubitemid 351609413)
78. Kazimierczuk K, Zawadzka A, Kozminski W, Zhukov I. Random sampling of evolution time space and Fourier transform processing. J Biomol NMR 2006;36(3):157-168 (Pubitemid 44740879)
79. Kazimierczuk K, Kozminski W, Zhukov I. Two-dimensional fourier transform of arbitrarily sampled NMR data sets. J Magn Reson 2006;179(2):323-328
80. Kazimierczuk K, Zawadzka A, Kozminski W, Zhukov I. Lineshapes and artifacts in multidimensional fourier transform of arbitrary sampled NMR data sets. J Magn Reson 2007;188(2):344-356 (Pubitemid 47562815)
81. Schanda P, Van Melckebeke H, Brutscher B. Speeding Up three-dimensional protein NMR experiments to a few minutes. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128(28):9042-9043 (Pubitemid 44078980)
82. Schanda P, Kupce E, Brutscher B. SOFAST-HMQC experiments for recording two-dimensional heteronuclear correlation spectra of proteins within a few Seconds. J Biomol NMR 2005;33(4):199-211 • Extremely rapid acquisition of 2D 1H-15N HSQC spectra that is extremely beneficial to improving the throughput of NMR fragment-based screens. (Pubitemid 43118574)
83. Moseley HNB, Monleon D, Montelione GT. Automatic determination of protein backbone resonance assignments from triple resonance nuclear magnetic resonance data. Methods Enzymol 2001;339(NMR of Biological Macromolecules, Part B):91-108 (Pubitemid 32666558)
84. Zimmerman DE, Kulikowski CA, Huang Y, et al. Automated analysis of protein NMR assignments using methods from artificial intelligence. J Mol Biol 1997;269(4):592-610 (Pubitemid 27267872)
85. Lescop E, Brutscher B. Highly automated protein backbone resonance assignment within a few hours: the 'BATCH' strategy and software package. J Biomol NMR 2009;44(1):43-57
86. Bartels C, Billeter M, Guentert P, Wuethrich K. Automated sequence-specific NMR assignment of homologous proteins using the program GARANT. J Biomol NMR 1996;7(3):207-213 (Pubitemid 126709559)
87. Schmucki R, Yokoyama S, Guentert P. Automated assignment of NMR chemical shifts using peak-particle dynamics simulation with the DYNASSIGN algorithm. J Biomol NMR 2009;43(2):97-109
88. Lin H-N, Wu K-P, Chang J-M, et al. GANA - a genetic algorithm for NMR backbone resonance assignment. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33(14):4593-4601 (Pubitemid 41222573)
89. Volk J, Herrmann T, Wuthrich K. Automated sequence-specific protein NMR assignment using the memetic algorithm MATCH. J Biomol NMR 2008;41(3):127-138
90. Eghbalnia HR, Bahrami A, Wang L, et al. Probabilistic Identification of Spin Systems and their Assignments including Coil-Helix Inference as Output (PISTACHIO). J Biomol NMR 2005;32(3):219-233 (Pubitemid 41258802)
91. Ferentz AE, Wagner G. NMR spectroscopy: a multifaceted approach to macromolecular structure. Q Rev Biophys 2000;33(1):29-65 (Pubitemid 30786258)
92. Guentert P. Automated structure determination from NMR spectra. Eur Biophys J 2009;38(2):129-143
93. Huang YJ, Tejero R, Powers R, Montelione GT. A topology-constrained distance network algorithm for protein structure determination from NOESY data. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 2006;62(3):587-603
94. Rieping W, Habeck M, Bardiaux B, et al. ARIA2: automated NOE assignment and data integration in NMR structure calculation. Bioinformatics 2007;23(3):381-382 (Pubitemid 46323164)
95. Grishaev A, Llinas M. Protein structure elucidation from minimal NMR data: the CLOUDS approach. Methods Enzymol 2005;394(Nuclear Magnetic Resonance of Biological Macromolecules, Part C):261-295 (Pubitemid 40460919)
96. Guntert P. Automated NMR structure calculation with CYANA. Methods Mol Biol (Totowa, NJ, US) 2004;278(Protein NMR Techniques):353-378
97. Kuszewski J, Schwieters CD, Garrett DS, et al. Completely automated, highly error-tolerant macromolecular structure determination from multidimensional nuclear overhauser enhancement spectra and chemical shift assignments. J Am Chem Soc 2004;126(20):6258-6273 (Pubitemid 38657053)
98. Lopez-Mendez B, Guentert P. Automated protein structure determination from NMR spectra. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128(40):13112-13122
99. Rohl CA. Protein structure estimation from minimal restraints using Rosetta. Methods Enzymol 2005;394(NMR of Biological Macromolecules, Part C):244-260
100. Schwieters CD, Kuszewski JJ, Clore GM. Using Xplor-NIH for NMR molecular structure determination. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 2006;48(1):47-62
101. Mal TK, Bagby S, Ikura M. Protein structure calculation from NMR data. Methods Mol Biol (Totowa, NJ, US) 2002;173(Calcium-Binding Protein Protocols, Volume 2):267-283
102. Jee J, Guentert P. Influence of the completeness of chemical shift assignments on NMR structures obtained with automated NOE assignment. J Struct Funct Genomics 2003;4(2-3):179-189 (Pubitemid 37356272)
103. Herrmann T, Gntert P, Wthrich K. Protein NMR structure determination with automated NOE assignment using the new software CANDID and the torsion angle dynamics algorithm DYANA. J Mol Biol 2002;319(1):209-227 (Pubitemid 34729497)
104. Guntert P. Automated NMR protein structure calculation. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 2003;43(3-4):105-125
105. Delaglio F, Kontaxis G, Bax A. Protein structure determination using molecular fragment replacement and NMR dipolar couplings. J Am Chem Soc 2000;122(9):2142-2143 (Pubitemid 30143929)
106. Prestegard JH, Mayer KL, Valafar H, Benison GC. Determination of protein backbone structures from residual dipolar couplings. Methods Enzymol 2005;394(NMR of Biological Macromolecules, Part C):175-209 (Pubitemid 40460916)
107. Shen Y, Vernon R, Baker D, Bax A. De novo protein structure generation from incomplete chemical shift assignments. J Biomol NMR 2009;43(2):63-78 •• Describes the CS-ROSETTA protocol to determine a protein structure from chemical shift assignments. Has the potential to significantly revolutionize NMR structural biology.
108. Bhattacharya A, Tejero R, Montelione GT. Evaluating protein structures determined by structural genomics consortia. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 2007;66(4):778-795
109. Chakravarti B, Lewis SJ, Chakravarti DN, Raval A. Three dimensional structures of proteins and protein complexes from chemical cross-linking and mass spectrometry: a biochemical and computational overview. Curr Proteomics 2006;3(1):1-21 (Pubitemid 43764651)
110. Mori S, Abeygunawardana C, Johnson MON, van Zijl PCM. Improved sensitivity of HSQC spectra of exchanging protons at short interscan delays using a new fast HSQC (FHSQC) detection scheme that avoids water saturation. J Magn Reson Ser B 1995;108(1):94-98
111. Haner RL, Llanos W, Mueller L. Small volume flow probe for automated direct-injection NMR analysis: design and performance. J Magn Reson 2000;143(1):69-78
112. Stark J, Powers R. Rapid protein-ligand costructures using chemical shift perturbations. J Am Chem Soc 2008;130(2):535-545 • Chemical shift perturbations are used to guide and filter an AutoDock simulation to rapidly determine protein-ligand models.
113. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 1998;19(14):1639-1662
114. Huey R, Morris GM, Olson AJ, Goodsell DS. A semiempirical free energy force field with charge-based desolvation. J Comput Chem 2007;28(6):1145-1152
115. Loll PJ, Lattman EE. The crystal structure of the ternary complex of staphylococcal nuclease, calcium, and the inhibitor pdTp, refined at 1.65 Ã. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 1989;5(3):183-201
116. Dominguez C, Boelens R, Bonvin AMJJ. HADDOCK: a protein-protein docking approach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125(7):1731-1737 •• HADDOCK uses chemical shift perturbations in combination with ambiguous interaction constraints to quickly and efficiently model protein-protein complexes.
117. Nilges M. Ambiguous distance data in the calculation of NMR structures. Folding Des 1997;2(4):S53-S7 (Pubitemid 127740541)
118. Zhang N, Liu LH, Liu F, et al. NMR-based model reveals the structural determinants of mammalian arylamine N-acetyltransferase substrate specificity. J Mol Biol 2006;363(1):188-200 (Pubitemid 44414850)
119. Moy FJ, Chanda PK, Chen JM, et al. NMR solution structure of the catalytic fragment of human fibroblast collagenase complexed with a sulfonamide derivative of a hydroxamic acid compound. Biochemistry 1999;38(22):7085-7096 (Pubitemid 129515010)
120. Chen JM, Nelson FC, Levin JI, et al. Structure-based design of a novel, potent, and selective inhibitor for MMP-13 utilizing NMR spectroscopy and computer-aided molecular design. J Am Chem Soc 2000;122(40):9648-9654
121. John M, Pintacuda G, Park AY, et al. Structure determination of protein-ligand complexes by transferred paramagnetic shifts. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128(39):12910-12916 (Pubitemid 44527769)
122. Medek A, Hajduk PJ, Mack J, Fesik SW. The use of differential chemical shifts for determining the binding site location and orientation of protein-bound ligands. J Am Chem Soc 2000;122(6):1241-1242 (Pubitemid 30117473)
123. Hajduk PJ, Mack JC, Olejniczak ET, et al. SOS-NMR: a Saturation transfer NMR-based method for determining the structures of protein-ligand complexes. J Am Chem Soc 2004;126(8):2390-2398
124. Sem DS, Yu L, Coutts SM, Jack R. Object-oriented approach to drug design enabled by NMR SOLVE: first real-time structural tool for characterizing protein-ligand interactions. J Cell Biochem 2001(Suppl 37):99-105 (Pubitemid 34135912)
125. Pellecchia M, Meininger D, Dong Q, et al. NMR-based structural characterization of large protein-ligand interactions. J Biomol NMR 2002;22(2):165-173 (Pubitemid 34173235)
126. Metzler WJ, Claus BL, McDonnell PA, et al. Application of protein-ligand NOE matching to the rapid evaluation of fragment binding poses. Fragm-Based Drug Discov 2008;99-133
127. Dove A, Marshall A. Drug screening-beyond the bottleneck. Nat Biotechnol 1999;17(9):859-863
128. Goode DR, Totten RK, Heeres JT, Hergenrother PJ. Identification of promiscuous small molecule activators in high-throughput enzyme activation screens. J Med Chem 2008;51(8):2346-2349
129. Lipinski CA. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2001;44(1):235-249
130. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997;23(1-3):3-25 (Pubitemid 27046991)
131. Andrews CW, Bennett L, Yu LX. Predicting human oral bioavailability of a compound: development of a novel quantitative structure-bioavailability relationship. Pharm Res 2000;17(6):639-644 (Pubitemid 30670626)
132. Viswanadhan VN, Balan C, Hulme C, et al. Knowledge-based approaches in the design and selection of compound libraries for drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2002;5(3):400-406 (Pubitemid 36285645)
133. Matter H, Baringhaus K-H, Naumann T, et al. Computational approaches towards the rational design of drug-like compound libraries. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2001;4(6):453-475 (Pubitemid 32808063)
134. Xu J, Stevenson J. Drug-like index: a new approach to measure drug-like compounds and their diversity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40(5):1177-1187
135. Jelic D, Mesar V, Basic I, et al. Novel approach to drug discovery in PLIVA - establishing of HTS unit and unique compounds library. PharmaChem 2003;2(6):64-67
136. Xue L, Bajorath J. Molecular descriptors in chemoinformatics, computational combinatorial chemistry, and virtual screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2000;3(5):363-372 (Pubitemid 30780528)
137. Lewis RA, Pickett SD, Clark DE. Computer-aided molecular diversity analysis and combinatorial library design. Rev Comput Chem 2000;16:1-51
138. Willett P. Chemoinformatics - similarity and diversity in chemical libraries. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2000;11(1):85-88 (Pubitemid 30099044)
139. Spellmeyer DC, Grootenhuis PDJ. Recent developments in molecular diversity. Computational approaches to combinatorial chemistry. Annu Rep Med Chem 1999;34:287-296
140. Gorse D, Lahana R. Functional diversity of compound libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2000;4(3):287-294
141. Villar HO, Koehler RT. Comments on the design of chemical libraries for screening. Mol Divers 2000;5(1):13-24
142. Bohacek RS, McMartin C, Guida WC. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med Res Rev 1996;16(1):3-50 (Pubitemid 26037075)
143. Mestres J, Veeneman GH. Identification of "Latent Hits" in compound screening collections. J Med Chem 2003;46(16):3441-3444
144. Kozikowski BA, Burt TM, Tirey DA, et al. The effect of freeze/thaw cycles on the stability of compounds in DMSO. J Biomol Screen 2003;8(2):210-215 (Pubitemid 40503625)
145. Kozikowski BA, Burt TM, Tirey DA, et al. The effect of room-temperature storage on the stability of compounds in DMSO. J Biomol Screen 2003;8(2):205-209 (Pubitemid 40503624)
146. Posner BA. High-throughput screening-driven lead discovery: meeting the challenges of finding new therapeutics. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2005;8(4):487-494
147. Jahnke W. Fragment-based approaches. Compr Med Chem II 2006;3:939-957
148. Schultz J. Practical aspects of using NMR in fragment-based screening. Fragm-Based Drug Discov 2008;63-98
149. Gribbon P, Sewing A. High-throughput drug discovery: what can we expect from HTS? Drug Discov Today 2005;10(1):17-22 • An analysis of the Pfizer corporate library and the impact on screening results. The analysis indicates a continual trend toward higher molecular weight and low solubility compounds that result in an increase in apparent inhibition and false leads.
150. Schmitt W, Willmann S. Physiology-based pharmacokinetic modeling: ready to be used. Drug Discov Today Technol 2004;1(4):449-456 (Pubitemid 40186349)
151. Wienkers LC, Heath TG. Predicting in vivo drug interactions from in vitro drug discovery data. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005;4(10):825-833
152. Zimmerman RJ. How and when to apply absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity. Compr Med Chem II 2006;2:559-572
153. Korfmacher W. Strategies and techniques for higher throughput ADME/PK assays. High-Throughput Anal Pharm Ind 2009;205-231
154. Schuffenhauer A, Ruedisser S, Marzinzik AL, et al. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr Top Med Chem (Sharjah, United Arab Emirates) 2005;5(8):751-762 (Pubitemid 41179715)
155. Erlanson DA. Fragment-based lead discovery: a chemical update. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2006;17(6):643-652
156. Jencks WP. On the attribution and additivity of binding energies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1981;78(7):4046-4050
157. Fischer M, Hubbard RE. Fragment-based ligand discovery. Mol Interv 2009;9(1):22-30
158. Congreve M, Murray CW, Carr R, Rees DC. Fragment-based lead discovery. Annu Rep Med Chem 2007;42:431-448
159. Siegal G, Ab E, Schultz J. Integration of fragment screening and library design. Drug Discov Today 2007;12(23&24):1032-1039 (Pubitemid 350180558)
160. Mercier KA, Germer K, Powers R. Design and characterization of a functional library for NMR screening against novel protein targets. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2006;9(7):515-534 (Pubitemid 44156709)
161. Hopkins Andrew L, Groom Colin R, Alex A. Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. Drug Discov Today 2004;9(10):430-431 • Describes the concept of ligand efficiency, a major paradigm shift in the philosophy of drug discovery that supports the expanding role of fragment-based screens. Binding energy is interpreted on a per atom basis instead of a per molecule. (Pubitemid 38510559)
162. Fink T, Bruggesser H, Reymond J-L. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 D. Angew Chem Int Ed 2005;44(10):1504-1508
163. Hajduk PJ. SAR by NMR: putting the pieces together. Mol Interv 2006;6(5):266-272
164. Hajduk PJ, Greer J. A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6(3):211-219 •• A review describing the benefits and continuing growth of NMR fragment-based screening. Of particular note are the documented successes of fragment-based screening and the impact the procedure is having on the drug discovery business.
165. Mayr LM, Fuerst P. The future of high-throughput screening. J Biomol Screen 2008;13(6):443-448
166. Schade M. Fragment-based lead discovery by NMR. Front Drug Des Discov 2007;3:105-119
167. Clore GM, Gronenborn AM. Structures of larger proteins, protein-ligand and protein-DNA complexes by multidimensional heteronuclear NMR. Protein Sci 1994;3:372-390 (Pubitemid 24103708)
168. Cooke RM. Protein NMR extends into new fields of structural biology. Curr Opin Chem Biol 1997;1(3):359-364
169. Kay LE. NMR methods for the study of protein structure and dynamics. Biochem Cell Biol 1997;75(1):1-15 (Pubitemid 127733122)
170. Roberts GCK. Applications of NMR in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2000;5(6):230-240
171. Rossi C, Donati A, Sansoni MR. Nuclear magnetic resonance as a tool for the identification of specific DNA-ligand interaction. Chem Phys Lett 1992;189(3):278-280
172. Hajduk PJ, Olejniczak ET, Fesik SW. One-dimensional relaxation- and diffusion-edited NMR methods for screening compounds that bind to macromolecules. J Am Chem Soc 1997;119(50):12257-12261
173. Lin M, Shapiro MJ, Wareing JR. Screening mixtures by affinity NMR. J Org Chem 1997;62(25):8930-8931
174. Lin M, Shapiro MJ, Wareing JR. Diffusionedited NMR-affinity NMR for direct observation of molecular interactions. J Am Chem Soc 1997;119(22):5249- 5250
175. Waldeck AR, Kuchel PW, Lennon AJ, Chapman BE. NMR diffusion measurements to characterize membrane transport and solute binding. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 1997;30(1-2):39-68
176. Wüthrich K. NMR of proteins and nucleic acids. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 1986 • The now classic book by the Noble prize winning author that describes the fundamental concepts behind the application of NMR to solve protein and nucleic acid structures.
177. Shirakawa M, Lee SJ, Takimoto M, et al. Interaction of the l-cro repressor protein with operator DNA fragments monitored as to amide proton magnetic resonances. J Mol Struct 1991;242:355-366
178. Otting G. Experimental NMR techniques for studies of protein-ligand interactions. Curr Opin Struct Biol 1993;3(5):760-768 (Pubitemid 23295585)
179. Ni F. Recent developments in transferred NOE methods. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 1994;26(6):517-606 (Pubitemid 124003834)
180. Vogtherr M, Peters T. Application of NMR based binding assays to identify key hydroxy groups for intermolecular recognition. J Am Chem Soc 2000;122(25):6093-6099 (Pubitemid 30451114)
181. Mayer M, Meyer B. Characterization of ligand binding by saturation transfer difference NMR spectroscopy. Angew Chem, Int Ed 1999;38(12):1784-1788 • 1D 1H NMR STD experiments introduced ligand-detected approaches to NMR high-throughput ligand affinity screens. (Pubitemid 29290947)
182. Dalvit C, Pevarello P, Tato M, et al. Identification of compounds with binding affinity to proteins via magnetization transfer from bulk water. J Biomol NMR 2000;18(1):65-68 (Pubitemid 30782901)
183. Chen A, Shapiro MJ. NOE pumping: a novel NMR technique for identification of compounds with binding affinity to macromolecules. J Am Chem Soc 1998;120(39):10258-10259 (Pubitemid 28473606)
184. 2- secretase inhibitors with nanomolar potency, cellular activity, and high ligand efficiency. J Med Chem 2007;50(24):5912-5925
185. Dixon AK, Fisch HU. Animal models and ethological strategies for early drug-testing in humans. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1998;23(2):345-358
186. Preziosi P. Predictive values of animal versus clinical testing in drug evaluation, problems and difficulties. Adv Clin Pharmacol 1977;13(Probl Clin Pharmacol Ther Res: Phase 1 Proc Int Symp Clin Pharmacol 14th):41-69
187. Fox TM. Strains and species variations in pharmacological responses. Symp Ser Immunobiol Stand 1967;5:133-148
188. Halket JM, Waterman D, Przyborowska AM, et al. Chemical derivatization and mass spectral libraries in metabolic profiling by GC/MS and LC/MS/MS. J Exp Bot 2005;56(410):219-243 (Pubitemid 40181128)
189. Wilson ID, Plumb R, Granger J, et al. HPLC-MS-based methods for the study of metabonomics. J Chromatogr B: Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci 2005;817(1):67-76
190. Pan Z, Raftery D. Comparing and combining NMR spectroscopy and mass spectrometry in metabolomics. Anal Bioanal Chem 2007;387(2):525-527 (Pubitemid 46067468)
191. Chen H, Pan Z, Talaty N, et al. Combining desorption electrospray ionization mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance for differential metabolomics without sample preparation. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 2006;20(10):1577-1584 (Pubitemid 43752088)
192. Crockford DJ, Holmes E, Lindon JC, et al. Statistical heterospectroscopy, an approach to the integrated analysis of NMR and UPLC-MS data sets: application in metabonomic toxicology studies. Anal Chem 2006;78(2):363-371 (Pubitemid 43100366)
193. Crockford DJ, Maher AD, Ahmadi KR, et al. 1H NMR and UPLC-MSE statistical heterospectroscopy: characterization of drug metabolites (Xenometabolome) in epidemiological studies. Anal Chem (Washington, DC, USA) 2008;80(18):6835-6844
194. Dumas M-E, Canlet C, Debrauwer L, et al. Selection of biomarkers by a multivariate statistical processing of composite metabonomic data sets using multiple factor analysis. J Proteome Res 2005;4(5):1485-1492 (Pubitemid 41464772)
195. Pan Z, Gu H, Talaty N, et al. Principal component analysis of urine metabolites detected by NMR and DESI-MS in patients with inborn errors of metabolism. Anal Bioanal Chem 2007;387(2):539-549 (Pubitemid 46067471)
196. Powers R. NMR metabolomics and drug discovery. Magn Reson Chem 2009; published online(5 Jun 2009)
197. Robertson DG, Reily MD, Baker JD. Metabonomics in pharmaceutical discovery and development. J Proteome Res 2007;6(2):526-539
198. Wishart DS. Applications of metabolomics in drug discovery and development. Drugs R D 2008;9(5):307-322
199. Stoyanova R, Brown TR. NMR spectral quantitation by principal component analysis. NMR Biomed 2001;14(4):271-277 • Provides an introduction to the application of the principal component analysis statistical technique for the analysis of NMR metabolomics data. (Pubitemid 32611439)
200. Halouska S, Chacon O, Fenton RJ, et al. Use of NMR metabolomics to analyze the targets of D-cycloserine in mycobacteria: role of D-alanine racemase. J Proteome Res 2007;6(12):4608-4614
201. 1H NMR and principal component analysis.
202. Lienemann K, Ploetz T, Pestel S. NMR-based urine analysis in rats: prediction of proximal tubule kidney toxicity and phospholipidosis. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2008;58(1):41-49
203. Clarke CJ, Haselden JN. Metabolic profiling as a tool for understanding mechanisms of toxicity. Toxicol Pathol 2008;36(1):140-147
204. Park J-C, Hong Y-S, Kim YJ, et al. A metabonomic study on the biochemical effects of doxorubicin in rats using 1H-NMR spectroscopy. J Toxicol Environ Health A 2009;72(6):374-384
205. Shi C, Wu C-Q, Cao A-M, et al. NMR-spectroscopy-based metabonomic approach to the analysis of Bay41-4109, a novel anti-HBV compound, induced hepatotoxicity in rats. Toxicol Lett 2007;173(3):161-167 (Pubitemid 47391548)
206. Dieterle F, Schlotterbeck G, Ross A, et al. Application of metabonomics in a compound ranking study in early drug development revealing drug-induced excretion of choline into urine. Chem Res Toxicol 2006;19(9):1175-1181 (Pubitemid 44454033)
207. Cui Q, Lewis IA, Hegeman AD, et al. Metabolite identification via the madison metabolomics consortium database. Nat Biotechnol 2008;26(2):162-164 • A valuable metabolomics database (http:// mmcd.nmrfam.wisc.edu/) that contains 1D and 2D NMR reference spectra for known metabolites and tools to assist in the analysis of complex metabolome mixtures. (Pubitemid 351225941)
208. Robinette SL, Zhang F, Bruschweiler-Li L, Bruschweiler R. Web server based complex mixture analysis by NMR. Anal Chem (Washington, DC, Us) 2008;80(10):3606-3611 (Pubitemid 351705859)
209. Wishart DS, Tzur D, Knox C, et al. HMDB: the Human Metabolome Database. Nucleic Acids Res 2007;35(Database Iss):D521-6
210. Frishman D, Mokrejs M, Kosykh D, et al. The PEDANT genome database. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31(1):207-211
211. Mewes HW, Frishman D, Gueldener U, et al. MIPS: a database for genomes and protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2002;30(1):31-34 (Pubitemid 34679496)
212. Thomas PD, Kejariwal A, Campbell MJ, et al. PANTHER: a browsable database of gene products organized by biological function, using curated protein family and subfamily classification. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31(1):334-341 (Pubitemid 36150398)
213. Bernal A, Ear U, Kyrpides N. Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD): a monitor of genome projects world-wide. Nucleic Acids Res 2001;29(1):126-127
214. Black MT, Hodgson J. Novel target sites in bacteria for overcoming antibiotic resistance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2005;57(10):1528-1538 (Pubitemid 40984605)
215. Jensen LJ, Gupta R, Staerfeldt HH, Brunak S. Prediction of human protein function according to gene ontology categories. Bioinformatics 2003;19(5):635-642 (Pubitemid 36417058)
216. Pouliot Y, Gao J, Su QJ, et al. DIAN: a novel algorithm for genome ontological classification. Genome Res 2001;11(10):1766-1779 (Pubitemid 33040504)
217. Brenner SE. Target selection for structural genomics. Nat Struct Biol 2000;7(Suppl):967-969
218. Buysse JM. The role of genomics in antibacterial target discovery. Curr Med Chem 2001;8(14):1713-1726 (Pubitemid 33072256)
219. Kramer R, Cohen D. Functional genomics to new drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3(11):965-972 (Pubitemid 39529932)
220. Roses AD, St Jean PL, Ehm MG. Use of whole-genome association scans in disease gene identification, drug discovery and development. IDrugs 2007;10(11):797-804
221. Powers R, Copeland J, Mercier K. Application of FAST-NMR in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2008;13(3-4):172-179
222. Mercier KA, Baran M, Ramanathan V, et al. FAST-NMR: Functional Annotation Screening Technology using NMR Spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 2006;128(47):15292- 15299 •• NMR fragment-based ligand affinity screens, rapid protein-ligand co-structure determination and bioinformatic tools that compare similarities in active-sites are combined to assign a function to novel, unannotated proteins.
223. Livingstone CD, Barton GJ. Protein sequence alignments: a strategy for the hierarchical analysis of residue conservation. CABIOS Comput Appl Biosci 1993;9(6):745-756
224. Mirny LA, Shakhnovich EI. Universally conserved positions in protein folds: reading evolutionary signals about stability, folding kinetics and function. J Mol Biol 1999;291(1):177-196
225. Gerlt JA, Babbitt PC. Divergent evolution of enzymatic function: mechanistically diverse superfamilies and functionally distinct suprafamilies. Annu Rev Biochem 2001;70:209-246
226. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Fesik SW. Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J Med Chem 2005;48(7):2518-2525
227. English AC, Groom CR, Hubbard RE. Experimental and computational mapping of the binding surface of a crystalline protein. Protein Eng 2001;14(1):47-59
228. Allen KN, Bellamacina CR, Ding X, et al. An experimental approach to mapping the binding surfaces of crystalline proteins. J Phys Chem 1996;100(7):2605-2611 (Pubitemid 126793213)
229. Liepinsh E, Otting G. Organic solvents identify specific ligand-binding sites on protein surfaces. Nat Biotechnol 1997;15(3):264-268 (Pubitemid 27118272)
230. Takai-Igarashi T, Kaminuma T. A pathway finding system for the cell signaling networks database. In Silico Biol 1999;1(3):129-146
231. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, et al. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32(Database):D277-80
232. Krieger CJ, Zhang P, Mueller LA, et al. MetaCyc: a multiorganism database of metabolic pathways and enzymes. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32(Database):D438-42 (Pubitemid 38081694)
233. Gubernator K, Boehm HJ. Examples of active areas of structure based-design. Methods Princ Med Chem 1998;6:15-36
234. Kubinyi H. Structure-based design of enzyme inhibitors and receptor ligands. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 1998;1(1):4-15 (Pubitemid 128731837)
235. Sintchak MD, Nimmesgern E. The structure of inosine 5′- monophosphate dehydrogenase and the design of novel inhibitors. Immunopharmacology 2000;47(2-3):163-184 (Pubitemid 30394537)
236. Mihelich ED, Schevitz RW. Structure-based design of a new class of anti-inflammatory drugs: secretory phospholipase A2 inhibitors, SPI. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Biol Lipids 1999;1441(2-3):223-228
237. Mercier KA, Shortridge M, Powers R. A multi-step NMR screen for the identification and evaluation of chemical leads for drug discovery. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2009;12(3):285-295
238. Powers R, Copeland JC, Germer K, et al. Comparison of protein active site structures for functional annotation of proteins and drug design. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 2006;65(1):124-135 (Pubitemid 44320622)
239. Mercier Kelly A, Cort John R, Kennedy Michael, et al. Structure and function of Pseudomonas aeruginosa protein PA1324 (21-170). Protein Sci 2009;18(3):606-618
240. Shortridge MD, Powers R. Structural and functional similarity between the bacterial type III secretion system needle protein PrgI and the eukaryotic apoptosis Bcl-2 proteins. PLoS ONE 2009; submitted
241. Lee GM, Craik CS. Trapping moving targets with small molecules. Science (Washington, DC, US) 2009;324(5924):213-215
242. Boehr DD, McElheny D, Dyson HJ, Wright PE. The dynamic energy landscape of dihydrofolate reductase catalysis. Science (Washington, DC, US) 2006;313(5793):1638-1642 •• An exceptional manuscript that experimentally defines the range of conformational changes for the DHFR catalytic cycle. The results support the selected-fit model of ligand binding.
243. Mauldin RV, Carroll MJ, Lee AL. Dynamic dysfunction in dihydrofolate reductase results from antifolate drug binding: modulation of dynamics within a structural state. Structure (Cambridge, MA, US) 2009;17(3):386-94 •• An important companion paper to the manuscript by Boehr et al. 2006 [242] that illustrates the role that dynamics plays in enzyme activity. The results demonstrate that an inhibitor may also function by disrupting a functionally vital dynamic process.
244. Lange OF, Lakomek N-A, Fares C, et al. Recognition dynamics up to microseconds revealed from an RDC-derived ubiquitin ensemble in solution. Science (Washington, DC, US) 2008;320(5882):1471-1475 •• Another critical paper in redefining the mechanism of protein-ligand binding and further supporting the selection model. An ensemble of ubiquitin structures determined from RDC data comprises all observed ubiquitin structural changes resulting from complex formation.
245. Teague SJ. Implications of protein flexibility for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2003;2(7):527-541 (Pubitemid 37361745)
246. Moy FJ, Chanda PK, Chen J, et al. Impact of mobility on structure-based drug design for the MMPs. J Am Chem Soc 2002;124(43):12658-12659 (Pubitemid 35215979)
247. Zintsmaster JS, Wilson BD, Peng JW. Dynamics of ligand binding from 13C NMR relaxation dispersion at natural abundance. J Am Chem Soc 2008;130(43):14060-14061
248. Peng JW. Communication breakdown: protein dynamics and drug design. Structure (Cambridge, MA, US) 2009;17(3):319-320
249. Palmer AG. NMR characterization of the dynamics of biomacromolecules. Chem Rev (Washington, DC, US) 2004;104(8):3623-3640
250. Terstappen GC, Schluepen C, Raggiaschi R, Gaviraghi G. Target deconvolution strategies in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6(11):891-903 • A collection of analytical techniques for identifying molecular targets obtained from a chemical genetics screening effort are illustrated. The manuscript demonstrates methodologies the pharmaceutical industry could readily adopt to change the current drug discovery paradigm from target-focused to a system biology approach.
251. Strausberg RL, Schreiber SL. From knowing to controlling: a path from genomics to drugs using small molecule probes. Science (Washington, DC, US) 2003;300(5617):294-295
252. Dalvit C, Ardini E, Fogliatto GP, et al. Reliable high-throughput functional screening with 3-FABS. Drug Discov Today 2004;9(14):595-602 (Pubitemid 38900509)
253. Bista M, Kowalska K, Janczyk W, et al. Robust NMR screening for lead compounds using tryptophan-containing proteins. J Am Chem Soc 2009;131(22):7500-7501
254. D'Silva L, Ozdowy P, Krajewski M, et al. Monitoring the effects of antagonists on protein-protein interactions with NMR spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127(38):13220-13226 (Pubitemid 41377613)
255. Dalvit C, Fagerness PE, Hadden DTA, et al. Fluorine-NMR experiments for high-throughput screening: theoretical aspects, practical considerations, and range of applicability. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125(25):7696-7703 (Pubitemid 36750291)
256. Moy FJ, Haraki K, Mobilio D, et al. MS/NMR: a structure-based approach for discovering protein ligands and for drug design by coupling size exclusion chromatography, mass spectrometry, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Anal Chem 2001;73(3):571-581 (Pubitemid 32116449)
257. Zartler ER, Hanson J, Jones BE, et al. RAMPED-UP NMR: multiplexed NMR-based screening for drug discovery. J Am Chem Soc 2003;125(36):10941-10946 (Pubitemid 37087553)
258. Shuker SB, Hajduk PJ, Meadows RP, Fesik SW. Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science (Washington, DC) 1996;274(5292):1531- 1534 •• A seminal paper that demonstrates the practicality of using NMR for ligand-affinity screens and initiated the fragment-based drug discovery trend.
259. Jahnke W, Ruedisser S, Zurini M. Spin label enhanced NMR screening. J Am Chem Soc 2001;123(13):3149-3150 (Pubitemid 32879588)