Improving quantitative structure-activity relationships through multiobjective optimization

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2290-2302

  Nicolotti, Orazio ^a   Giangreco, Ilenia ^a   Miscioscia, Teresa Fabiola ^a   Carotti, Angelo ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMINO ACIDS; BINDING ENERGY; BIOCHEMISTRY; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS; ENZYMES; GENETIC ALGORITHMS; K-MEANS CLUSTERING; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS; MULTIOBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION;

BINDING CONFORMATIONS; BIOLOGICAL AFFINITY; LIGAND BINDING AFFINITY; MOLECULAR DETERMINANTS; NONDOMINATED SOLUTIONS; PROTEIN-BINDING SITES; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SEQUENCE SIMILARITY;

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY;

PHENYLALANINE; THROMBIN; TRYPSIN; TRYPSIN INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG ANTAGONISM; DRUG DESIGN; ENZYME SPECIFICITY; METABOLISM; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

DRUG DESIGN; MODELS, MOLECULAR; PHENYLALANINE; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SUBSTRATE SPECIFICITY; THROMBIN; TRYPSIN; TRYPSIN INHIBITORS;

EID: 70350512848     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci9002409     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Gillet, V. J.; Nicolotti, O. Evaluation of reactant-based and productbased approaches to the design of combinatorial libraries. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des.n 2000, 20, 265-287.
2. Kitchen, D. B.; Decornez, H.; Furr, J. R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 935-949.
3. (3) Cottrell, S. J.; Gillet, V. J.; Taylor, R. Incorporating partial matches within multi-objective pharmacophore identification. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 735-749. (Pubitemid 46476943)
4. (4) Vainio, M. J.; Johnson, M. S. Generating conformer ensembles using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 2462-2474. (Pubitemid 350275111)
5. Dey, F.; Caflisch, A. Fragment-based de novo ligand design by multiobjective evolutionary optimization. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 679-690.
6. Birchall, K.; Gillet, V. J.; Harper, G.; Pickett, S. D. Evolving interpretable structure-activity relationship models. 2. Using multiobjective optimization to derive multiple models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1558-1570.
7. Nicolotti, O.; Gillet, V. J.; Fleming, P.; Green, D. A Novel approach to deriving accurate and chemically intuitive QSAR models. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 5069-5080.
8. Nicolotti, O.; Gillet, V. J.; Fleming, P.; Green, D. Blackwell Publishing 003, 264. A multi-objective approach to deriving QSAR models. In Ford, M., Livingstone, D., Dearden, J., Van De Waterbeemd, H. Designing Drug And Crop Protectants: Processes, Problems and Solutions; Blackwell Publishing: Massachusetts, U.S.A., ISBN: 1-4051-2516-0.
9. (9) Nicolotti, O.; Carotti, A. QSAR and QSPR studies of a highly structured physicochemical domain. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 264-276. (Pubitemid 43282121)
10. Stockfisch, T. P. J. Partially unified multiple property recursive partitioning (PUMP-RP): a new method for predicting and understanding drug selectivity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1608-1613.
11. Cruz-Monteagudo, M.; Borges, F.; Cordeiro, M. N. Desirability-based multiobjective optimization for global QSAR studies: application to the design of novel NSAIDs with improved analgesic, antiinflammatory, and ulcerogenic profiles. J. Comput. Chem. 2008, 29, 2445-2459.
12. Nicolaou, C. A.; Brown, N.; Pattichis, C. S. Molecular optimization using multi-objective methods. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2007, 10, 316-324.
13. Nicolotti, O.; Miscioscia, T. F.; Carotti, A.; Leonetti, F.; Carotti, A. An integrated approach to ligand- and structure-based drug design: development and application to a series of serine protease inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1211-1226.
14. Dorfman, R. J.; Smith, K. M.; Masek, B. B.; Clark, R. D. A knowledge-based approach to generating diverse but energetically representative ensembles of ligand conformers. J. Comput-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 681-691.
15. (15) Böhm, M.; Stürzebecher, J.; Klebe, G. Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Analyses using Comparative Molecular Field Analysis and Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis to elucidate selectivity differences of inhibitors binding to trypsin, thrombin, and factor Xa. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 458-477. (Pubitemid 29085107)
16. Murcia, M.; Morreale, A.; Ortiz, A. R. Comparative binding energy analysis considering multiple receptors: a step toward 3D-QSAR models for multiple targets. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6241-6253.
17. Nicolotti, O.; Giangreco, I.; Miscioscia, T. F.; Carotti, A. Investigating enzyme selectivity and hit enrichment by automatically interfacing ligand- and structure-based molecular design. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2009, 28, 861-864.
18. Berman, H. M.; Westbrook, J.; Feng, Z.; Gilliland, G.; Bhatt, N.; Shindyalov, I. N.; Bourne, P. E. The protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acid Res. 2000, 28, 235-242.
19. SYBYL, version 7.1; Tripos Inc.: 1699 South Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144, 2007.
20. Maestro, Version 7.5.112; Schröedinger, LLC: New York, 2006.
21. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C.; Leach, A. R. L.; Taylor, R. Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
22. Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Murray, C. W.; Taylor, R. D. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 2003, 52, 609-623.
23. Jain, A. K.; Murty, M. N.; Flynn, P. J. Data Clustering: a Review. ACM Comput. Surv. 1999, 31, 264-323.
24. Goodford, P. J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favourable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 1985, 28, 849-857.
25. Baroni, M.; Costantino, G.; Cruciani, G.; Riganelli, D.; Valigi, R.; Clementi, S. Generating Optimal Linear PLS Estimations (GOLPE): An Advanced Chemometric Tool for Handling 3D-QSAR Problems. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1993, 12, 9-20.
26. (26) Wold, S.; Trygg, J.; Berglund, A.; Antti, H. Some recent developments in PLS modeling. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58, 131-150. (Pubitemid 33033284)
27. (27) Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Clementi, S. Smart region definition: a new way to improve the predictive ability and interpretability of threedimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 1455-1464. (Pubitemid 27200762)
28. (28) Willett, P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug DiscoVery Today 2006, 11, 1046-1053. (Pubitemid 44792477)
29. Tropsha, A.; Grammatica, P.; Gombar, V. J. The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2003, 22, 69-77.
30. Doweyko, A. 3D-QSAR illusions. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18, 587-596.
31. (31) Illgen, K.; Enderle, T.; Broger, C.; Weber, L. Simulated molecular evolution in a full combinatorial library. Chem. Biol. 2000, 7, 433-441. (Pubitemid 30400046)
32. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
33. (33) Nicolotti, O.; Miscioscia, T. F.; Leonetti, F.; Muncipinto, G.; Carotti, A. Screening of matrix metalloproteinases available from the PDB: insights into biological functions, domain organization and zinc binding groups. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 2439-2448. (Pubitemid 350275108)