Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2168-2178

  Tiikkainen, Pekka ^a,b   Markt, Patrick ^c   Wolber, Gerhard ^c   Kirchmair, Johannes ^c   Distinto, Simona ^c   Poso, Antti ^d   Kallioniemi, Olli ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TURKU   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK   (Austria)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA FUSION; LIGANDS; MOLECULES;

ACTIVE COMPOUNDS; CHEMICAL DIVERSITY; ENRICHMENT FACTORS; PERFORMANCE METRICS; PHARMACOPHORE MODELING; POTENTIAL PROBLEMS; SIMILARITY SEARCH; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

PHARMACODYNAMICS;

LIGAND;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DRUG SCREENING; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ALGORITHMS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; LIGANDS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 70350501165     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci900249b     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Kirchmair, J.; Markt, P.; Distinto, S.; Schuster, D.; Spitzer, G. M.; Liedl, K. R.; Langer, T.; Wolber, G. The Protein Data Bank (PDB), its related services and software tools as key components for in silico guided drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 22, 7021-7040.
2. (2) Hristozov, D. P.; Oprea, T. I.; Gasteiger, J. Virtual screening applications: a study of ligand-based methods and different structure representations in four different scenarios. J. Comout.-Aided Mol. Des. 2007, 10-11, 617-640. (Pubitemid 50003623)
3. Markt, P.; Feldmann, C.; Rollinger, J. M.; Raduner, S.; Schuster, D.; Kirchmair, J.; Distinto, S.; Spitzer, G. M.; Wolber, G.; Laggner, C.; Altmann, K. H.; Langer, T.; Gertsch, J. Discovery of novel CB2 receptor ligands by a pharmacophore-based virtual screening workflow. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 2, 369-378.
4. Markt, P.; Petersen, R. K.; Flindt, E. N.; Kristiansen, K.; Kirchmair, J.; Spitzer, G.; Distinto, S.; Schuster, D.; Wolber, G.; Laggner, C.; Langer, T. Discovery of novel PPAR ligands by a virtual screening approach based on pharmacophore modeling, 3D shape, and electrostatic similarity screening. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 20, 6303-6317.
5. Schwarz, O.; Jakupovic, S.; Ambrosi, H. D.; Haustedt, L. O.; Mang, C.; Muller-Kuhrt, L. Natural products in parallel chemistry-novel 5-lipoxygenase inhibitors from BIOS-based libraries starting from alpha-santonin. J. Comb. Chem. 2007, 6, 1104-1113.
6. Mochalkin, I.; Miller, J. R.; Narasimhan, L.; Thanabal, V.; Erdman, P.; Cox, P. B.; Prasad, J. V.; Lightle, S.; Huband, M. D.; Stover, C. K. Discovery of antibacterial biotin carboxylase inhibitors by virtual screening and fragment-based approaches. ACS Chem. Biol. 2009, 6, 473-483.
7. MDL Drug Data Report. Symyx Technologies. 2009.
8. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 23, 6789-6801.
9. (9) 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, 4, 1504-1519. (Pubitemid 47210053)
10. (10) Evers, A.; Hessler, G.; Matter, H.; Klabunde, T. Virtual screening of biogenic amine-binding G-protein coupled receptors: comparative evaluation of protein- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 17, 5448-5465. (Pubitemid 41209243)
11. Irwin, J. J. Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 3-4, 193-199.
12. Mackey, M. D.; Melville, J. L. Better than random? The chemotype enrichment problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 5, 1154-1162.
13. Rohrer, S. G.; Baumann, K. Maximum unbiased validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on PubChem bioactivity data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 2, 169-184.
14. The Pubchem Project. http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed month day, year).
15. Good, A. C.; Oprea, T. I. Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 3-4, 169-178.
16. (16) Willett, P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discovery Today 2006, 23-24, 1046-1053. (Pubitemid 44792477)
17. Tiikkainen, P.; Poso, A.; Kallioniemi, O. Comparison of structure fingerprint and molecular interaction field based methods in explaining biological similarity of small molecules in cell-based screens. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2009, 4, 227-239.
18. Tervo, A. J.; Ronkko, T.; Nyronen, T. H.; Poso, A. BRUTUS: optimization of a grid-based similarity function for rigid-body molecular superposition. 1. Alignment and virtual screening applications. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 12, 4076-4086.
19. Ronkko, T.; Tervo, A. J.; Parkkinen, J.; Poso, A. BRUTUS: optimization of a grid-based similarity function for rigid-body molecular superposition. II. Description and characterization. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 4, 227-236.
20. (20) Rush, T. S., III; Grant, J. A.; Mosyak, L.; Nicholls, A. A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial proteinprotein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 5, 1489-1495. (Pubitemid 40364556)
21. Kirchmair, J.; Distinto, S.; Markt, P.; Schuster, D.; Spitzer, G. M.; Liedl, K. R.; Wolber, G. How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: choosing the right query and including chemical information, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 3, 678-692.
22. Openeye Scientific Software, Inc. EON; 2007.
23. Openeye Scientific Software, Inc. OMEGA2; 2007.
24. Accelrys, Inc. Pipeline Pilot Student version 6.1.5.0; 2007.
25. (25) Whittle, M.; Gillet, V. J.; Willett, P.; Loesel, J. Analysis of data fusion methods in virtual screening: similarity and group fusion. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 6, 2206-2219. (Pubitemid 46008096)
26. Kaufman, L.; Rousseeuw, P. J. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis; Wiley: New York, 1990.
27. Guha, R.; Van Drie, J. H. Assessing how well a modeling protocol captures a structure-activity landscape. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 8, 1716-1728.
28. Guha, R.; Van Drie, J. H. Structure-activity landscape index: identifying and quantifying activity cliffs, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 3, 646-658.
29. Clement, O. O.; Mehl, A. T. HipHop: Pharmacophores based on multiple common-feature alignments. In Pharmacophore perception, development, and use in drug design; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, U.S.A., 2000; pp 71-84.
30. Accelrys, Inc. Catalyst; 2005.
31. Chemical Computing Group. MOE; 2007.
32. Bemis, G. W.; Murcko, M. A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 15, 2887-2893.
33. Schneider, G.; Schneider, P.; Renner, S. Scaffold-Hopping: How Far Can You Jump. OSAR Comb. Sci. 2006, 12, 1162-1171.
34. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 22, 3256-3266.
35. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. New methods for ligand-based virtual screening: use of data fusion and machine learning to enhance the effectiveness of similarity searching, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 2, 462-470.
36. (36) Crisman, T. J.; Parker, C. N.; Jenkins, J. L.; Scheiber, J.; Thoma, M.; Kang, Z. B.; Kim, R.; Bender, A.; Nettles, J. H.; Davies, J. W.; Glick, M. Understanding false positives in reporter gene assays: in silico chemogenomics approaches to prioritize cell-based HTS data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 4, 1319-1327. (Pubitemid 47210036)
37. Kalliokoski, T.; Ronkko, T.; Poso, A. FieldChopper, a new tool for automatic model generation and virtual screening based on molecular fields. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 6, 1131-1137.