Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 53, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 539-558

  Leach, Andrew R ^a   Gillet, Valerie J ^b   Lewis, Richard A ^c   Taylor, Robin ^d  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^c NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^d Taylor Cheminformatics Software   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SEROTONIN 2C ANTAGONIST;

ALGORITHM; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG STRUCTURE; PHARMACOPHORE; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ALGORITHMS; DRUG DELIVERY SYSTEMS; DRUG DISCOVERY; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MODELS, MOLECULAR; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 77249106566     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: 15204804     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm900817u     Document Type: Review

References (116)

1. Wermuth, C. G.; Ganellin, C. R.; Lindberg, P.; Mitscher, L. A. Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998). Pure Appl. Chem. 1998, 70, 1129-1143.
2. Allen, F. H. The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. Acta Crystallogr. 2002, B58, 380-388.
3. Marshall, G. R.; Barry, C. D.; Bosshard, H. E.; Dammkoehler, R. A.; Dunn, D. A. The Conformational Parameter in Drug Design: The Active Analog Approach. In Computer-Assisted Drug Design; Olson, E. C., Christoffersen, R. E., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Columbus, OH, 1979; pp 205-226.
4. Mayer, D.; Naylor, C. B.; Motoc, I.; Marshall, G. R. A unique geometry of the active site of angiotensin-converting enzyme. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1987, 1, 3-16.
5. Van Drie, J. H. Monty Kier and the origin of the pharmacophore concept. Internet Electron. J. Mol. Des. 2007, 6, 271-279.
6. Kier, L. B. Molecular orbital calculation of preferred conformations of acetylcholine, muscarine, and muscarone. Mol. Pharmacol. 1967, 3, 487-494.
7. Kier, L. B. Receptor Mapping UsingMOTheory. In Fundamental Concepts in Drug-Receptor Interactions; Danielli, J. F., Moran, J. F., Triggle, D. J., Eds.; Academic Press: New York, 1970.
8. Kier, L. B. MO Theory in Drug Research; Academic Press: New York, 1971; pp 164-169.
9. Guner, O. F., Ed. Pharmacophore Perception, Development and Use in Drug Design; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, 2000.
10. Mason, J. S.; Good, A. C.; Martin, E. J. 3-D pharmacophores in drug discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2001, 7, 567-597.
11. Van Drie, J. H. Pharmacophore discovery. Lessons learned. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003, 9, 1649-1664.
12. Langer, T., Hoffmann, R. D., Eds. Pharmacophores and Pharmacophore Searches; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2006.
13. Martin, Y. C. Pharmacophore Modeling: 1. Methods. In Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II; Taylor, J. B., Triggle, D. J., Mason, J. S., Eds.; Computer-Assisted Drug Design, Vol. 4; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2007; pp 119-147.
14. Martin, Y. C. Pharmacophore Modeling: 2. Applications. In Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II; Taylor, J. B., Triggle, D. J., Mason, J. S., Eds.; Computer-Assisted Drug Design, Vol. 4; Elsevier: Amsterdam, 2007; pp 515-536.
15. Hamprecht, D.; Micheli, F.; Tedesco, G.; Checchia, A.; Donati, D.; Petrone, M.; Terreni, S.; Wood, M. Isoindolone derivatives, a new class of 5-HT2C antagonists: synthesis and biological evaluation. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007, 17, 428-433.
16. Barnum, D.; Greene, J.; Smellie, A.; Sprague, P. Identification of common functional configurations among molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36, 563-571.
17. Richmond, N. J.; Abrams, C. A.; Wolohan, P. R. N.; Abrahamian, E.; Willett, P.; Clark, R. D. GALAHAD: 1. Pharmacophore identification by hypermolecular alignment of ligands in 3D. J. Comput.-AidedMol. Des. 2006, 20, 567-587.
18. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 532-549.
19. Molecular Operating Environment; Chemical Computing Group: Montreal, Canada; http://www.chemcomp.com/.
20. Dixon, S. L.; Smondyrev, A. M.; Knoll, E. H.; Rao, S. N.; Shaw, D. E.; Friesner, R. A. PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 647-671.
21. Anghelescu, A. V.; DeLisle, R. K.; Lowrie, J. F.; Klon, A. E.; Xie, X.; Diller, D. J. Technique for generating three-dimensional alignments of multiple ligands from one-dimensional alignments. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1041-1054.
22. Cho, S. J.; Sun, Y.FLAME: a program to flexibly align molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 298-306.
23. Feng, J.; Sanil, A.; Young, S. S. PharmID: pharmacophore identification using Gibbs sampling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1352-1359.
24. Marialke, J.; Koerner, R.; Tietze, S.; Apostolakis, J. Graph-based molecular alignment (GMA). J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 591-601.
25. Podolyan, Y.; Karypis, G. Common pharmacophore identification using frequent clique detection algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 13-21.
26. Schneidman-Duhovny, D.; Dror, O.; Inbar, Y.; Nussinov, R.; Wolfson, H. J. Deterministic pharmacophore detection via multiple flexible alignment of drug-like molecules. J. Comput. Biol. 2008, 15, 737-754.
27. Todorov, N. P.; Alberts, I. L.; de Esch, I. J. P.; Dean, P. M. QUASI: a novel method for simultaneous superposition of multiple flexible ligands and virtual screening using partial similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1007-1020.
28. Zhu, F.; Agrafiotis, D. K. Recursive distance partitioning algorithm for common pharmacophore identification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47 (4), 1619-1625.
29. Taminaua, J.; Thijsa, G.; De Winter, H. Pharao: pharmacophore alignment and optimization. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2008, 27, 161-169.
30. Greene, J.; Kahn, S.; Savoj, H.; Sprague, P.; Teig, S. Chemical function queries for 3D database search. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 1297-1308.
31. Wolber, G.; Seidel, T.; Bendix, F.; Langer, T. Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discovery Today 2008, 13, 23-29.
32. Pierce, A. C.; Sandretto, K. L.; Bemis, G. W. Kinase inhibitors and the case for CH3 3 3O hydrogen bonds in protein-ligand binding. Proteins 2002, 49, 567-576.
33. Oellien, F.; Cramer, J.; Beyer, C.; Ihlenfeldt, W.-D.; Selzer, P. M. The impact of tautomer forms on pharmacophore-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2006, 46, 2342-2354.
34. Milletti, F.; Storchi, L.; Sforna, G.; Cross, S.; Cruciani, G. Tautomer enumeration and stability prediction for virtual screening on large chemical databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2009, 49, 68-75.
35. SMARTS. Language for Describing Molecular Patterns; Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.: Aliso Viejo, CA; http://www.daylight.com/.
36. Boehm, H.-J.; Brode, S.; Hesse, U.; Klebe, G. Oxygen and nitrogen in competitive situations: Which is the hydrogen-bond acceptor? Chem.; Eur. J. 1996, 2, 1509-1513.
37. Chau, P.; Dean, P. Electrostatic complementarity between proteins and ligands. 2. Ligand moieties. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 527-544.
38. Abraham, M. H.; Ibrahim, A.; Zissimos, A. M.; Zhao, Y. H.; Comer, J.; Reynolds, D. P. Application of hydrogen bonding calculations in property based drug design. Drug Discovery Today 2002, 7, 1056-1063.
39. Laurence, C.; Brameld, K. A.; Graton, J.; Le Questel, J.-Y.; Renault, E. The pKBHX database: towards a better understanding of hydrogen-bond basicity for medicinal chemists. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52, 4073-4086.
40. Cheeseright, T. J.; Mackey, M. D.; Melville, J. L.; Vinter, J. G. FieldScreen: virtual screening using molecular fields. Application to the DUD data set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2108-2117.
41. Voth, A. R.; Khuu, P.; Oishi, K.; Ho, P. S. Halogen bonds as orthogonal molecular interactions to hydrogen bonds. Nat. Chem. 2009, 1, 74-79.
42. Lu, Y.; Shi, T.; Wang, Y.; Yang, H.; Yan, X.; Luo, X.; Jiang, H.; Zhu, W. Halogen bonding. A novel interaction for rational drug design? J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52, 2854-2862.
43. Wolber, G.; Dornhofer, A. A.; Langer, T. Efficient overlay of small organic molecules using 3D pharmacophores. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2006, 20, 773-788.
44. Bostrom, J.; Norrby, P.-O.; Liljefors, T. Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 383-396.
45. Bostrom, J. Reproducing the conformations of protein-bound ligands: a critical evaluation of several popular conformational searching tools. J. Comput-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 1137-1152.
46. Perola, E.; Charifson, P. S. Conformational analysis of druglike molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 2499-2510.
47. Agrafiotis, D. K.; Gibbs, A. C.; Zhu, F.; Izrailev, S.; Martin, E. Conformational sampling of bioactive molecules: a comparative study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1067-1086.
48. Chen, I.-J.; Foloppe, N. Conformational sampling of druglike molecules with MOE and Catalyst: implications for pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1773-91.
49. Martin, Y. C.; Bures, M. G.; Danaher, A. A.; DeLazzer, J.; Lico, I.; Pavlik, P. A. A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 83-102.
50. Martin, Y. C. DISCO: What We Did Right and What We Missed. In Pharmacophore Perception, Development and Use in Drug Design; Guner, O. F., Ed.; International University Line: La Jolla, CA, 2000; pp 51-66.
51. Labute, P.; William, C.; Feher, M.; Sourial, E.; Schmidt, J. M. Flexible alignment of small molecules. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1483-1490.
52. Cottrell, S. J.; Gillet, V. J.; Taylor, R.; Wilton, D. J. Generation of multiple pharmacophore hypotheses using multiobjective optimisation techniques. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18, 665-682.
53. Martin, Y. C. 3D database searching in drug design. J. Med. Chem. 1992, 35, 2145-2154.
54. Manallack, D. T. Getting that hit: 3D database searching in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today 1996, 1, 231-238.
55. Clark, D. E.; Westhead, D. R.; Sykes, R. A.; Murray, C. W. Active-site-directed 3D database searching: pharmaocophore extraction and validation of hits. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1996, 10, 397-416.
56. Good, A. C.; Mason, J. S. Three-Dimensional Structure Database Searches. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K. B., Boyd, D. B., Eds.; VCH Publishers: New York, 1996; Vol. 7, pp 67-117.
57. UNITY, Tripos. http://www.tripos.com/
58. Hurst, T. Flexible 3D Searching: The Directed Tweak Technique. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 190-196.
59. Smellie, A. S.; Kahn, S. D.; Teig, S. L. Analysis of conformational coverage. 1. Validation and estimation of coverage. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1995, 35, 285-294.
60. Smellie, A. S.; Teig, S. L.; Towbin, P. Poling: promoting conformational variation. J. Comput. Chem. 1995, 16, 171-187.
61. Mason, J. S.; Morize, I.; Menard, P. R.; Cheney, D. L.; Hulme, C.; Labaudiniere, R. F. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 3251-3264.
62. Good, A. C.; Lewis, R. A. New methodology for profiling combinatorial libraries and screening sets: cleaning up the design process with HARPick. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 3926-3936.
63. McGregor, M. J.; Muskal, S. M. Pharmacophore fingerprinting. 1. Application to QSAR and focused library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 569-574.
64. DeAnda, F.; Stewart, E. L. Application of the PharmPrint methodology to two protein kinases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1803-1809.
65. Greenidge, P. A.; Carlsson, B.; Bladh, L.-G.; Gillner, M. Pharmacophores Incorporating numerous excluded volumes defined by X-ray crystallographic structure in three-dimensional database searching: application to the thyroid hormone receptor. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 2503-2512.
66. Tintori, C.; Corradi, V.; Magnani, M.; Manetti, F.; Cotta, M. Targets looking for drugs: a multistep computational protocol for the development of structure-based pharmacophores and their applications for hit discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2166-2179.
67. Rella, M.; Rushworth, C. A.; Guy, J. L.; Turner, A. J.; Langer, T.; Jackson, R. M. Structure-based pharmacophore design and virtual screening for novel angiotensin converting enzyme 2 inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46 (2), 708-716.
68. Grant, J. A.; Gallardo, M. A.; Pickup, B. T. A fast method of molecular shape comparison. A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 1653-1666.
69. Hahn, M. Three-dimensional shape-based searching of conformationally flexible compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 80-86.
70. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. FlexS: a method for fast flexible ligand superposition. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 4502-4520.
71. Goodford, P. J. A computational-procedure for determining energetically favorable binding-sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 1985, 28 (7), 849-857.
72. Bohm, H. J. The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1992, 6, 61-78.
73. Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C.; Taylor, R. SuperStar: a knowledge-based approach for identifying interaction sites in proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 1999, 289, 1093-1108.
74. Venkatachalam, C. M.; Kirchoff, P.; Waldman, M. Receptor-Based Pharmacophore Perception and Modeling. In Pharmacophore Perception, Development and Use in Drug Design; Guner, O. F., Ed.; IUL Biotechnology Series: La Jolla, CA, 2000; pp 339-350.
75. Wolber, G.; Langer, T. LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 160-169.
76. Baroni, M.; Cruciani, G.; Sciabola, S.; Perruccio, F.; Mason, J. S. A common reference framework for analyzing/comparing proteins and ligands. fingerprints for ligands and proteins (FLAP): theory and application. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 279-294.
77. Cruciani, G.; Carosati, E.; De Boeck, B.; Ethirajulu, K.; Mackie, C.; Howe, T.; Vianello, R. MetaSite: understanding metabolism in human cytochromes from the perspective of the chemist. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 6970-6979.
78. Kuhn, D.; Weskamp, N.; Schmitt, S.; Hullermeier, E.; Klebe, G. From the similarity analysis of protein cavities to the functional classification of protein families using Cavbase. J. Mol. Biol. 2006, 359 (4), 1023-1044.
79. Shatsky, M.; Shulman-Peleg, A.; Nussinov, R.; Wolfson, H. J. The multiple common point set problem and its application to molecule binding pattern detection. J. Comput. Biol. 2006, 13, 407-428.
80. Deng, Z. D.; Chuaqui, C.; Singh, J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 337-344.
81. Brewerton, S. C. The use of protein-ligand interaction fingerprints in docking. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 2008, 11, 356-364.
82. Chuaqui, C.; Deng, Z.; Singh, J. Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 121-133.
83. Kelly, M. D.; Mancera, R. L. Expanded interaction fingerprint method for analyzing ligand binding modes in docking and structure-based drug design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1942-1951.
84. Cross, S.; Cruciani, G. Molecular fields in drug discovery: getting old or reaching maturity? Drug Discovery Today 2009, 1-10.
85. Good, A. C.; Hodgkin, E. E.; Richards, W. G. Utilization of Gaussian functions for the rapid evaluation of molecular similarity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1992, 32, 188-191.
86. McMahon, A. J.; King, P. M. Optimization of carbo molecular similarity index using gradient methods. J. Comput. Chem. 1997, 18, 151-158.
87. Wild, D. J.; Willett, P. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures. Alignment of molecular electrostatic potential fields with a genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36, 159-167.
88. Nissink, J. W. M.; Verdonk, M. L.; Klebe, G. Simple knowledge-based descriptors to predict protein-ligand interactions. Methodology and validation. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 787-803.
89. Pastor, M., G.; Cruciani, G.; McLay, I.; Pickett, S.; Clementi, S. GRid-INdependent descriptors (GRIND): a novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3233-3243.
90. Durán, A.; Martinez, G. C.; Pastor, M. Development and validation of AMANDA, a new algorithm for selecting highly relevant regions in molecular interaction fields. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1813-1823.
91. Vinter, J. G. Extended electron distributions applied to the molecular mechanics of some intermolecular interactions. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 653-668.
92. Cheeseright, T.; Mackey, M.; Rose, S.; Vinter, A. Molecular field extrema as descriptors of biological activity: definition and validation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 665-676.
93. Thorner, D. A.; Wild, D. J.; Willett, P.; Wright, P. M. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: flexible field-based searching of molecular electrostatic potentials. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1996, 36, 900-908.
94. Jewell, N. E.; Turner, D. B.; Willett, P.; Sexton, G. J. Automatic generation of alignments for 3D QSARanalyses. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2001, 20, 111-121.
95. Cheeseright, T.; Mackey, M.; Rose, S.; Vinter, A. Molecular field technology applied to virtual screening and finding the bioactive conformation. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2007, 2, 131-144.
96. Doweyko, A. M. QSAR: dead or alive? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 81-89.
97. Tanrikulu, Y; Schneider, G. Psuedoreceptor models in drug design: bridging ligand- and receptor-based virtual screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2008, 7, 667-677.
98. Jain, A. N; Nicholls, A. Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 133-139.
99. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Warren, G. L.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 179-190.
100. Good, A. C.; Oprea, T. O. Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 169-178.
101. Truchon, J.-F.; Bayly, C. I. Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the early recognition problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508.
102. Good, A. C.; Hermsmeier, M. A.; Hindle, S. A. Measuring CAMD technique performance: a virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18, 529-536.
103. Mackey, M. D.; Melville, J. L. Better than random? The chemotype enrichment problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1154-1162.
104. Evans, D. A.; Doman, T. N.; Thorner, D. A.; Bodkin, M. J. 3D QSAR methods: phase and catalyst compared. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1248-1257.
105. Kristam, R; Gillet, V. J.; Lewis, R. A.; Thorner, D. Comparison of conformational analysis techniques to generate pharmacophore hypotheses using Catalyst. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 461-476.
106. Hartshorn, M. J.; Verdonk, M. L.; Chessari, G.; Brewerton, S. C.; Mooij, W. T.; Mortenson, P. N.; Murray, C. W. Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 726-741.
107. Patel, Y.; Gillet, V. J.; Bravi, G.; Leach, A. R.A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 653-681.
108. Schneider, G.; Schneider, P.; Renner, S. Scaffold-hopping: how far can you jump? QSAR Comb. Sci. 2006, 12, 1162-1171.
109. Clark, D. E. What has virtual screening ever done for drug discovery? Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2008, 3, 841-851.
110. Green, D. V. S. Virtual screening of chemical libraries for drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discovery 2008, 3, 1011-1026.
111. Sun, H. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Curr. Med. Chem. 2008, 15, 1018-1024.
112. Wang, H.; Duffy, R. A.; Boykow, G. C.; Chackalamannil, S.; Madison, V. Identification of novel cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonists by using virtual screening with a pharmacophore model. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51, 2439-2446.
113. Clackers, M.; Coe, D.; Demaine, D. A.; Hardy, G.. W.; Humphreys, D.; Inglis, G. G. A.; Johnston, M. J.; Jones, H. T.; House, D.; Loiseau, R.; Minick, D. J.; Skone, P. A.; Uings, I.; McLay, I. M.; Macdonald, S. J. F. Non-steroidal glucocorticoid agonists. The discovery of aryl pyrazoles as A-ring mimetics. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2007, 17, 4737-4745.
114. Bostrom, J; Hogner, A.; Schmitt, S. Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion? J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6716-6725.
115. Feng, J.; Sanil, A.; Young, S. S. PharmID: pharmacophore identification using Gibbs sampling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1352-1359.
116. Martin, Y. C.; Jarboe, C. H.; Krause, R. A.; Lynn, K. R.; Dunnigan, D.; Holland, J. B. Potential anti-Parkinson drugs designed by receptor mapping. J. Med. Chem. 1973, 16, 147-150.