The use of scoring functions in drug discovery applications

Reviews in Computational Chemistry

Volumn 18, Issue , 2002, Pages 41-87

  Böhm, Hans Joachim ^a   Stahl, Martin ^a  

^a F HOFFMANN LA ROCHE LTD   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77949977626     PISSN: 10693599     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1002/0471433519.ch2     Document Type: Article

References (219)

1. J. Greer, J. W. Erickson, and J. J. Baldwin, J. Med. Chem., 37, 1035 (1994). Application of the Three-Dimensional Structures of Protein Target Molecules in Structure-Based Drug Design.
2. M. von Itzstein, W.-Y. Wu, G. B. Kok, M. S. Pegg, J. C. Dyason, B. Jin, T. V. Phan, M. L. Smythe, H. F. White, S. W. Oliver, P. M. Colmant, J. N. Varghese, D. M. Ryan, J. M. Woods, R. C. Bethell, V. J. Hotham, J. M. Cameron, and C. R. Penn, Nature (London), 363, 418 (1993). Rational Design of Potent Sialidase-Based Inhibitors of Influenza Virus Replication.
3. W. Lew, X. Chen, and U. Choung, Curr. Med. Chem., 7, 663 (2000). Discovery and Development of GS 4104 (Oseltamivir): An Orally Active Influenza Neuraminidase Inhibitor.
4. S. W. Kaldor, V.J. Kalish,J. F. Davies, V. S. Bhasker,J. E. Fritz, K. Appelt, J. A. Burgess, K. M. Campanale, N. Y. Chirgadze, D. K. Clawson, B. A. Dressman, S. D. Hatch, D. A. Khalil, M. B. Kosa, P. P. Lubbehusen, M. A. Muesing, A. K. Patick, S. H. Reich, K. S. Su, and J. H. Tatlock, J. Med. Chem., 40, 3979 (1997). Viracept (Nelfinavir Mesylate, AG1343): A Potent, Orally Bioavailable Inhibitor of HIV-1 Protease.
5. R. S. Bohacek, C. McMartin, and W. C. Guida, Med. Res. Rev., 16, 3 (1996). The Art and Practice of Structure-Based Drug Design: A Molecular Modeling Perspective.
6. R. E. Babine and S. L. Bender, Chem. Rev., 97, 1359 (1997). Molecular Recognition of Protein-Ligand Complexes: Applications to Drug Design.
7. R. E. Hubbard, Curr. Opin. Biotechnology, 8, 696 (1997). Can Drugs Be Designed?
8. D. B. Boyd, in Rational Molecular Design in Drug Research, Proceedings of the Alfred Benzon Symposium No.42 (Copenhagen, June 8-12, 1997), T. Liljefors, F. S. Jorgensen, and P. Krogsgaard-Larsen, Eds., Munksgaard, Copenhagen, 1998, pp. 15-23. Progress in Rational Design of Therapeutically Interesting Compounds.
9. M. A. Murcko, P. R. Caron, and P. S. Charifson, Annu. Reports Med. Chem., 34, 297 (1999). Structure-Based Drug Design.
10. D. A. Gschwend, W. Sirawaraporn, D. V. Santi, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 29, 59 (1997). Specificity in Structure-Based Drug Design: Identification of a Novel, Selective Inhibitor of Pneumocystis carinii Dihydrofolate Reductase.
11. E. K. Kick, D. C. Roe, A. G. Skillman, G. Liu, T. J. A. Ewing, Y. Sun, I. D. Kuntz, and J. A. Ellman, Chem. Biol., 4, 297 (1997). Structure-Based Design and Combinatorial Chemistry Yield Low Nanomolar Inhibitors of Cathepsin D.
12. P. Burkhard, U. Hommel, M. Sanner, and M. D. WalkinshawJ. Mol. Biol, 287,853 (1999). The Discovery of Steroids and Other Novel FKBP Inhibitors Using a Molecular Docking Program.
13. J. H. Toney, P. M. D. Fitzgerald, N. Grover-Sharma, S. H. Olson, W. J. May, J. G. Sundelof, D. E. Vanderwall, K. A. Cleary, S. K. Grant, J. K. Wu, J. W. Kozarich, D. L. Pompliano, and G. G. Hammond, Chem. Biol., 5, 185 (1998). Antibiotic Sensitation Using Biphenyl Tetrazoles as Potent Inhibitors of Bacteroides fragilis Metallo-β-Lactamase.
14. H.-J. Boehm, M. Boehringer, D. Bur, H. Gmuender, W. Huber, W. Klaus, D. Kostrewa, H. Kuehne, T. Luebbers, N. Meunier-Keller, and F. Mueller, J. Med. Chem., 43, 2664 (2000). Novel Inhibitors of DNA Gyrase: 3D Structure-Based Needle Screening, Hit Validation by Biophysical Methods, and 3D Guided Optimization. A Promising Alternative to Random Screening.
15. S. Grueneberg, B. Wendt, and G. Klebe, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 40, 389 (2001). Subnanomolar Inhibitors From Computer Screening: A Model Study Using Human Carbonic Anhydrase II.
16. M. A. Murcko, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 1997, Vol.11, pp. 1-66. Recent Advances in Ligand Design Methods.
17. D. E. Clark, C. W. Murray, and J. Li, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 1997, Vol.11, pp. 67-125. Current Issues in De Novo Molecular Design.
18. I. Muegge and M. Rarey, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2001, Vol.17, pp. 1-60. Small Molecule Docking and Scoring.
19. P.J. Goodford, J. Med. Chem., 28, 849 (1985). A Computational Procedure for Determining Energetically Favored Binding Sites on Biologically Important Macromolecules.
20. H.-J. Boehm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 6, 61 (1992). The Computer Program LUDI: A New Method for the De Novo Design of Enzyme Inhibitors.
21. H.-J. Boehm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 6, 593 (1992). LUDI: Rule-Based Automatic Design of New Substituents for Enzyme Inhibitor Leads.
22. C. A. Lipinski, F. Lombardo, B. W. Dominy, and P. J. Feeney, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev., 23, 3 (1997). Experimental and Computational Approaches to Estimate Solubility and Permeability in Drug Discovery and Development Settings.
23. D. E. Clark and S. D. Pickett, Drug Discovery Today, 5, 49 (2000). Computational Methods for the Prediction of "Drug-Likeness."
24. H.-J. Boehm and G. Klebe, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 35, 2588 (1996). What Can We Learn from Molecular Recognition in Protein-Ligand Complexes for the Design of New Drugs?
25. O. Roche, R. Kiyama, and C. L. Brooks III, J. Med. Chem., 44, 3592 (2001). Ligand-Protein Database: Linking Protein-Ligand Complex Structures to Binding Data.
26. I. K. McDonald and J. M. Thornton, J. Mol. Biol., 238, 777 (1994). Satisfying Hydrogen Bonding Potential in Proteins.
27. M. H. Parker, D. F. Ortwine, P. M. O'Brien, E. A. Lunney, C. A. Banotai, W. T. Mueller, P. McConnell, and C. G. Brouillette, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 10, 2427 (2000). Stereo-selective Binding of an Enantiomeric Pair of Stromelysin-1 Inhibitors Caused by Conformational Entropy Factors.
28. J. D. Dunitz, Chem. Biol., 2, 709 (1995). Win Some, Lose Some: Enthalpy-Entropy Compensation in Weak Molecular Interactions.
29. P. Gilli, V. Ferretti, G. Gilli, and P. A. Brea, J. Phys. Chem., 98, 1515 (1994). Enthalpy-Entropy Compensation in Drug-Receptor Binding.
30. D. H. Williams, D. P. O'Brien, and B. Bardsley, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 123,737 (2001). Enthalpy/Entropy Compensation as a Competition Between Dynamics and Bonding: The Relevance to Melting of Crystals and Biological Aggregates.
31. P. C. Weber, J. J. Wendoloski, M. W. Pantoliano, and F. R. Salemme, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 114, 3197 (1992). Crystallographic and Thermodynamic Comparison of Natural and Synthetic Ligands Bound to Streptavidin.
32. a. R. Fersht, J.-P. Shi, J. Knill-Jones, D. M. Lowe, A. J. Wilkinson, D. M. Blow, P. Brick, P. Carter, M. M. Y. Waye, and G. Winter, Nature (London), 314, 235 (1985). Hydrogen Bonding and Biological Specificity Analysed by Protein Engineering.
33. Y. W. Chen and A. R. Fersht, J. Mol. Biol., 234, 1158 (1993). Contribution of Buried Hydrogen Bonds to Protein Stability-The Crystal Structure of Two Barnase Mutants.
34. P. R. Connelly, R. A. Aldape, F. J. Bruzzese, S. P. Chambers, M. J. Fitzgibbon, M. A. Fleming, S. Itoh, D. J. Livingston, M. A. Navia, J. A. Thomson, and K. P. Wilson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 91, 1964 (1994). Enthalpy of Hydrogen-Bond Formation in a Protein-Ligand Binding Reaction.
35. B. P. Morgan, J. M. Scholtz, M. D. Ballinger, I. D. Zipkin, and P. A. Bartlett, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 113,297 (1991). Differential Binding Energy: A Detailed Evaluation of the Influence of Hydrogen Bonding and Hydrophobic Groups on the Inhibition of Thermolysin by Phosphorus-Containing Inhibitors.
36. B. A. Shirley, P. Stanssens, U. Hahn, and C. N. Pace, Biochemistry, 31, 725 (1992). Contribution of Hydrogen Bonding to the Conformational Stability of Ribonuclease T1.
37. U. Obst, D. W. Banner, L. Weber, and F. Diederich, Chem. Biol., 4, 287 (1997). Molecular Recognition at the Thrombin Active Site: Structure-Based Design and Synthesis of Potent and Selective Thrombin Inhibitors and the X-Ray Crystal Structures of Two Thrombin-Inhibitor Complexes.
38. H. Kubinyi, in Pharmacokinetic Optimization in Drug Research, B. Testa, H. van de Waterbeemd, G. Folkers, and R. Guy, Eds., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2001, pp. 513-524. Hydrogen Bonding, the Last Mystery in Drug Design?
39. H.-J. Schneider, T. Schiestel, and P. Zimmermann, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 114, 7698 (1992). The Incremental Approach to Noncovalent Interactions: Coulomb and van der Waals Effects in Organic Ion Pairs.
40. A. C. Tissot, S. Vuilleumier, and A. R. Fersht, Biochemistry, 35, 6786 (1996). Importance of Two Buried Salt Bridges in the Stability and Folding Pathway of Barnase.
41. J. D. Dunitz, Science, 264, 670 (1994). The Entropic Cost of Bound Water in Crystals and Biomolecules.
42. A. Ben-Naim, Hydrophobic Interactions, Plenum Press, New York, 1980.
43. C. Tanford, The Hydrophobic Effect, Wiley, New York, 1980.
44. C. Chothia, Nature (London), 254, 304 (1975). Structural Invariants in Protein Folding.
45. F. M. Richards, Annu. Rev. Biophys. Bioeng., 6, 151 (1977). Areas, Volumes, Packing, and Protein Structure.
46. K. A. Sharp, A. Nicholls, R. Friedman, and B. Honig, Biochemistry, 30, 9686 (1991). Extracting Hydrophobic Free Energies From Experimental Data: Relationship to Protein Folding and Theoretical Models.
47. H. Mack, T. Pfeiffer, W. Hornberger, H.-J. Boehm, and H. W. Hoeffken, J. Enzyme Inhib., 1, 73 (1995). Design, Synthesis and Biological Activity of Novel Rigid Amidino-Phenylalanine Derivatives as Inhibitors of Thrombin.
48. A. R. Khan, J. C. Parrish, M. E. Fraser, W. W. Smith, P. A. Bartlett, and M. N. G. James, Biochemistry, 37, 16841 (1998). Lowering the Entropic Barrier for Binding Conformationally Flexible Inhibitors to Enzymes.
49. M. S. Searle and D. H. Williams, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 114, 10690 (1992). The Cost of Conformational Order: Entropy Changes in Molecular Association.
50. M. S. Searle, D. H. Williams, and U. Gerhard, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 114, 10697 (1992). Partitioning of Free Energy Contributions in the Estimation of Binding Constants: Residual Motions and Consequences for Amide-Amide Hydrogen Bond Strengths.
51. M. A. Hossain and H.-J. Schneider, Chem. Eur. J., 5, 1284 (1999). Flexibility, Association Constants, and Salt Effects in Organic Ion Pairs: How Single Bonds Affect Molecular Recognition.
52. K. P. Murphy, D. Xie, K. S. Thompson, L. M. Amzel, and E. Freire, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 18, 63 (1994). Entropy in Biological Binding Processes: Estimation of Translational Entropy Loss.
53. J. Hermans and L. Wang, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 119, 2702 (1997). Inclusion of Loss of Translational and Rotational Freedom in Theoretical Estimates of Free Energies of Binding. Application to a Complex of Benzene and Mutant T4 Lysozyme.
54. R. S. Bohacek and C. McMartin, J. Med. Chem., 35, 1671 (1992). Definition and Display of Steric, Hydrophobic, and Hydrogen-Bonding Properties of Ligand Binding Sites in Proteins Using Lee and Richards Accessible Surface: Validation of a High-Resolution Graphical Tool for Drug Design.
55. D. H. Williams, M. S. Searle, J. P. Mackay, U. Gerhard, and R. A. Maplestone, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 90, 1172 (1993). Toward an Estimation of Binding Constants in Aqueous Solution: Studies of Associations of Vancomycin Group Antibiotics.
56. H.-J. Boehm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8, 243 (1994). The Development of a Simple Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Constant for a Protein-Ligand Complex of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
57. H.-J. Boehm, D. W. Banner, and L. Weber, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 13, 51 (1999). Combinatorial Docking and Combinatorial Chemistry: Design of Potent Non-Peptide Thrombin Inhibitors.
58. S.-S. So and M. Karplus, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 13, 243 (1999). A Comparative Study of Ligand-Receptor Complex Binding Affinity Prediction Methods Based on Glycogen Phosphorylase Inhibitors.
59. M. D. Miller, S. K. Kearsley, D. J. Underwood, and R. P. Sheridan, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8,153 (1994). FLOG: A System to Select "Quasi-Flexible" Ligands Complementary to a Receptor of Known Three-Dimensional Structure.
60. G. Jones, P. Willett, and R. C. Glen, J. Mol. Biol., 245, 43 (1995). Molecular Recognition of Receptor Sites Using a Genetic Algorithm With a Description of Desolvation.
61. G. Jones, P. Willett, R. C. Glen, A. R. Leach, and R. Taylor,;. Mol. Biol., 267, 727 (1997). Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking.
62. D. K. Gehlhaar, G. M. Verkhivker, P. A. Rejto, C. J. Sherman, D. B. Fogel, L. J. Fogel, and S. T. Freer, Chem. Biol., 2, 317 (1995). Molecular Recognition of the Inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 Protease: Conformationally Flexible Docking by Evolutionary Programming.
63. G. M. Verkhivker, D. Bouzida, D. K. Gehlhaar, P. A. Reijto, S. Arthurs, A. B. Colson, S. T. Freer, V. Larson, B. A. Luty, T. Marrone, and P. W. Rose, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 14, 731 (2000). Deciphering Common Failures in Molecular Docking of Ligand-Protein Complexes.
64. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, T. Lengauer, and G. Klebe, J. Mol. Biol., 261, 470 (1996). A Fast Flexible Docking Method Using an Incremental Construction Algorithm.
65. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 11, 369 (1997). Multiple Automatic Base Selection: Protein-Ligand Docking Based on Incremental Construction Without Manual Intervention.
66. M. Rarey, S. Wefing, and T. Lengauer, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 10, 41 (1996). Placement of Medium-Sized Molecular Fragments into Active Sites of Proteins.
67. M. Rarey, B. Kramer, and T. Lengauer, Bioinformatics, 15, 243 (1999). Docking of Hydrophobic Ligands With Interaction-Based Matching Algorithms.
68. R. D. Head, M. L. Smythe.T. I. Oprea, C. L. Waller, S. M. Green, and G. R. Marshall, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 118, 3959 (1996). VALIDATE: A New Method for the Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities of Novel Ligands.
69. A. N. Jain, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 10, 427 (1996). Scoring Non-Covalent Protein Ligand Interactions: A Continuous Differentiable Function Tuned to Compute Binding Affinities.
70. W. Welch, J. Ruppert, and A. N. Jain, Chem. Biol, 3, 449 (1996). Hammerhead: Fast, Fully Automated Docking of Flexible Ligands to Protein Binding Sites.
71. M. D. Elridge, C. W. Murray, T. R. Auton, G. V. Paolini, and R. P. Mee, J. Comput.-Aided Mol Design, 11, 425 (1997). Empirical Scoring Functions. I. The Development of a Fast Empirical Scoring Function to Estimate the Binding Affinity of Ligands in Receptor Complexes.
72. C. W. Murray, T. R. Auton, and M. D. Elridge,;. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 503 (1999). Empirical Scoring Functions. II. The Testing of an Empirical Scoring Function for the Prediction of Ligand-Receptor Binding Affinities and the Use of Bayesian Regression to Improve the Quality of the Method.
73. H.-J. Boehm, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12,309 (1998). Prediction of Binding Constants of Protein Ligands: A Fast Method for the Prioritization of Hits Obtained From De Novo Design or 3D Database Search Programs.
74. Y. Takamatsu and A. Itai, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 33,62 (1998). A New Method for Predicting Binding Free Energy Between Receptor and Ligand.
75. R. Wang, L. Liu, L. Lai, and Y. Tang, J. Mol Model, 4, 379 (1998). SCORE: A New Empirical Method for Estimating the Binding Affinity of a Protein-Ligand Complex.
76. D. Rognan, S. L. Lauemoller, A. Holm, S. Buus, and V. Tschinke, J. Med. Chem., 42, 4650 (1999). Predicting Binding Affinities of Protein Ligands from Three-Dimensional Models: Application to Peptide Binding to Class I Major Histocompatibility Proteins.
77. C. Bissantz, G. Folkers, and D. Rognan, J. Med. Chem., 43, 4759 (2000). Protein-Based Virtual Screening of Chemical Databases. 1. Evaluation of Different Docking/Scoring Combinations.
78. M. Stahl and M. Rarey, J. Med. Chem., 44, 1035 (2001). Detailed Analysis of Scoring Functions for Virtual Screening.
79. G. E. Kellogg, G. S. Joshi, and D.J. Abraham, Med. Chem. Res., 1,444 (1991). New Tools for Modeling and Understanding Hydrophobicity and Hydrophobic Interactions.
80. E. C. Meng, I. D. Kuntz, D. J. Abraham, and G. E. Kellogg, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8, 299 (1994). Evaluating Docked Complexes With the HINT Exponential Function and Empirical Atomic Hydrophobicities.
81. C. Zhang, G. Vasmatzis, J. L. Cornette, and C. DeLisi, J. Mol. Biol, 267, 707 (1997). Determination of Atomic Solvation Energies from the Structure of Crystallized Proteins.
82. R.S. DeWitte and E.I. Shakhnovich J. Am. Chem. Soc., 118, 11733 (1996). SMoG:DeNovo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence.
83. R. S. DeWitte, A. V. Ishchenko, and E. I. Shakhnovich J. Am. Chem. Soc, 119, 4608 (1997). SMoG: De Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 2. Case Studies in Molecular Design.
84. J. B. O. Mitchell, R. A. Laskowski, A. Alex, and J. M. Thornton, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1165 (1999). BLEEP-A Potential of Mean Force Describing Protein-Ligand Interactions. I. Generating the Potential.
85. J. B. O. Mitchell, R. A. Laskowski, A. Alex, M. J. Forster, and J. M. Thornton, J. Comput. Chem., 20, 1177 (1999). BLEEP-A Potential of Mean Force Describing Protein-Ligand Interactions. II. Calculation of Binding Energies and Comparison With Experimental Data.
86. I. Muegge and Y. C. Martin, J. Med. Chem., 42, 791 (1999). A General and Fast Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions: A Simplified Potential Approach.
87. I. Muegge, Y. C. Martin, P. J. Hajduk, and S. W. Fesik, J. Med. Chem., 42, 2498 (1999). Evaluation of PMF Scoring in Docking Weak Ligands to the FK506 Binding Protein.
88. I. Muegge, Med. Chem. Res., 9, 490 (1999). The Effect of Small Changes in Protein Structure PMF-Scoring in DOCK4.
89. I. Muegge, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 20, 99 (2000). A Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein-Ligand Interactions: Probing the Reference State.
90. I. Muegge, J. Comput. Chem., 22, 418 (2001). Effect of Ligand Volume Correction on PMF Scoring.
91. M. Stahl, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 20, 83 (2000). Modifications of the Scoring Function in FlexX for Virtual Screening Applications.
92. H. Gohlke, M. Hendlich, and G. Klebe, J. Mol. Biol., 295, 337 (2000). Knowledge-Based Scoring Function to Predict Protein-Ligand Interactions.
93. H. Gohlke, M. Hendlich, and G. Klebe, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 20, 115 (2000). Predicting Binding Modes, Binding Affinities and "Hot Spots" for Protein-Ligand Com-plexes Using a Knowledge-Based Scoring Function.
94. E. C. Meng, B. K. Shoichet, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 13, 505 (1992). Automated Docking With Grid-Based Energy Evaluation.
95. I. D. Kuntz, J. M. Blaney, S. J. Oatley, R. Langridge, and T. Ferrin, J. Mol. Biol., 161, 269 (1982). A Geometric Approach to Macromolecule-Ligand Interactions.
96. B. K. Shoichet, D. L. Bodian, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 13, 380 (1992). Molecular Docking Using Shape Descriptors.
97. E. C. Meng, D. A. Gschwend, J. M. Blaney, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 17, 266 (1993). Orientational Sampling and Rigid-Body Minimization in Molecular Docking.
98. T. J. A. Ewing and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 18, 1175 (1997). Critical Evaluation of Search Algorithms for Automated Molecular Docking and Database Screening.
99. S. Makino and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput. Chem., 18,1812 (1997). Automated Flexible Ligand Docking Method and Its Application for Database Search.
100. M. Vieth, J. D. Hirst, A. Kolinski, and C. L. Brooks III, J. Comput. Chem., 19,1612 (1998). Assessing Energy Functions for Flexible Docking.
101. G. M. Morris, D. S. Goodsell, R. S. Halliday, R. Huey, W. E. Hart, R. K. Belew, and A. J. Olson, J. Comput. Chem., 14, 1639 (1998). Automated Docking Using a Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm and an Empirical Binding Free Energy Function.
102. M. Schapira, M. Trotov, and R. Abagyan, J. Mol. Recognition, 12,177 (1999). Prediction of the Binding Energy for Small Molecules, Peptides and Proteins.
103. B. K. Shoichet, A. R. Leach, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 34, 4 (1999). Ligand Solvation in Molecular Docking.
104. B. N. Dominy and C. L. Brooks III, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 36, 318 (1999). Methodology for Protein-Ligand Binding Studies: Application to a Model for Drug Resistance, the HIV/FIV Protease System.
105. X. Zou, Y. Sun, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 121, 8033 (1999). Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand-Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized Born Model.
106. I. Massova and P. A. Kollman, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 121, 8133 (1999). Computational Alanine Scanning to Probe Protein-Protein Interactions: A Novel Approach to Evaluate Binding Free Energies.
107. O. A. T. Donini and P. A. Kollman, J. Med. Chem., 43, 4180 (2000). Calculation and Prediction of Binding Free Energies for the Matrix Metalloproteinases.
108. B. Kuhn and P. A. Kollman,J. Am. Chem. Soc, 122,3909 (2000). A Ligand That is Predicted to Bind Better to Avidin Than Biotin: Insights From Computational Fluorine Scanning.
109. J. Aquist, C. Medina, and J.-E. Samuelsson, Protein Eng., 7, 385 (1994). A New Method for Predicting Binding Affinity in Computer-Aided Drug Design.
110. T. Hansson,J. Marelius, and J. Aquist, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12,27 (1998). Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction by Linear Interaction Energy Methods.
111. I. D. Wall, A. R. Leach, D. W. Salt, M. G. Ford, and J. W. Essex, J. Med. Chem., 42, 5142 (1999). Binding Constants of Neuraminidase Inhibitors: An Investigation of the Linear Interaction Energy Method.
112. R. C. Rizzo, J. Tirado-Rives, and W. L. Jorgensen, J. Med. Chem., 44,145 (2001). Estimation of Binding Affinities for HEPT and Nevirapine Analogues With HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase via Monte Carlo Simulations.
113. D. A. PearlmanJ. Med. Chem., 42, 4313 (1999). Free Energy Grids: A Practical Qualitative Application of Free Energy Perturbation to Ligand Design Using the OWFEG Method.
114. D. A. Pearlman and P. A. Charifson, J. Med. Chem., 44, 502 (2001). Improved Scoring of Ligand-Protein Interactions Using OWFEG Free Energy Grids.
115. D. N. A. Boobbyer, P.J. Goodford, P. M. McWhinnie, and R. C. Wade, J. Am. Chem., 32, 1083 (1989). New Hydrogen-Bond Potentials for Use in Determining Energetically Favorable Binding Sites on Molecules of Known Structure.
116. R. C. Wade, K. J. Clark, and P. J. Goodford, J. Med. Chem., 36, 140 (1993). Further Development of Hydrogen-Bond Functions for Use in Determining Energetically Favorable Binding Sites on Molecules of Known Structure. 1. Ligand Probe Groups With the Ability to Form Two Hydrogen Bonds.
117. R. C. Wade and P. J. Goodford, J. Med. Chem., 36, 148 (1993). Further Development of Hydrogen Bond Functions for Use in Determining Energetically Favorable Binding Sites on Molecules of Known Structure. 2. Ligand Probe Groups With the Ability to Form More Than Two Hydrogen Bonds.
118. M. K. Gilson, J. A. Given, B. L. Bush, and J. A. McCammon, Biophys. J., 72,1047 (1997). The Statistical-Thermodynamic Basis for Computation of Binding Affinities: A Critical Review.
119. T. P. Straatsma, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., VCH Publishers, New York, 1991, Vol.9, pp. 81-127. Free Energy by Molecular Simulation.
120. P. A. Kollman, Acc. Chem. Res., 29, 461 (1996). Advances and Continuing Challenges in Achieving Realistic and Predictive Simulations of the Properties of Organic and Biological Molecules.
121. M. L. Lamb and W. L. Jorgensen, Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 1, 449 (1997). Computational Approaches to Molecular Recognition.
122. M. R. Reddy, M. D. Erion, and A. Agarwal, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2000, Vol.16, pp. 217-304. Free Energy Calculations: Use and Limitations in Predicting Ligand Binding Affinities.
123. M. K. Gilson, J. A. Given, and M. S. Head, Chem. Biol., 4, 87 (1997). A New Class of Models for Computing Receptor-Ligand Binding Affinities.
124. A. E. Mark and W. F. van Gunsteren, J. Mol. Biol., 240, 167 (1994). Decomposition of the Free Energy of a System in Terms of Specific Interactions.
125. D. Williams and B. Bardsley, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 17, 43 (1999). Estimating Binding Constants-The Hydrophobic Effect and Cooperativity.
126. P. R. Andrews, D. J. Craik, and J. L. Martin, J. Med. Chem., 27, 1648 (1984). Functional Group Contributions to Drug-Receptor Interactions.
127. H.-J. Schneider, Chem. Soc. Rev., 227 (1994). Linear Free Energy Relationships and Pairwise Interactions in Supramolecular Chemistry.
128. T. J. Stout, C. R. Sage, and R. M. Stroud, Structure, 6, 839 (1998). The Additivity of Substrate Fragments in Enzyme-Ligand Binding.
129. M. K. Holloway, J. M. Wai, T. A. Halgren, P. M. D. Fitzgerald, J. P. Vacca, B. D. Dorsey, R. B. Levin, W. J. Thompson, L. J. Chen, S. J. deSolms, N. Gaffin, T. A. Lyle, W. A. Sanders, T. J. Tucker, M. Wiggins, C. M. Wiscount, O. W. Woltersdorf, S. D. Young, P. L. Darke, and J. A. Zugay, J. Med. Chem., 38, 305 (1995). A Priori Prediction of Activity for HIV-Protease Inhibitors Employing Energy Minimization in the Active Site.
130. P. D. J. Grootenhuis and P. J. M. van Galen, Acta Crystallogr., Sect. D, 51, 560 (1995). Correlation of Binding Affinities With Non-Bonded Interaction Energies of Thrombin-Inhibitor Complexes.
131. S. J. Weiner, P. A. Kollman, D. A. Case, U. C. Singh, C. Ghio, G. Alagona, S. Profeta Jr., and P. Weiner, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 106,765 (1984). A New Force Field for Molecular Mechanical Simulation of Nucleic Acids and Proteins.
132. S.J. Weiner, P. A. Kollman, D.T. Nguyen, and D. A. Case, J. Comput. Chem., 7,230 (1986). An All Atom Force Field for Simulations of Proteins and Nucleic Acids.
133. B. R. Brooks, R. E. Bruccoleri, B. D. Olafson, D. J. States, S. Swaminathan, and M. Karplus, J. Comput. Chem., 4, 187 (1983). CHARMM: A Program for Macromolecular Energy, Minimization, and Dynamics Calculations.
134. A. Nicholls and B. Honig, Science, 268,1144 (1995). Classical Electrostatics in Biology and Chemistry.
135. N. Majeux, M. Scarsi, J. Apostolakis, C. Ehrhardt, and A. Caflisch, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 37, 88 (1999). Exhaustive Docking of Molecular Fragments with Electrostatic Solvation.
136. W. C. Still, A. Tempczyk, R. C. Hawley, and T. Hendrickson, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 112, 6127 (1990). Semianalytical Treatment of Solvation for Molecular Mechanics and Dynamics.
137. M. L. Lamb, K. W. Burdick, S. Toba, M. M. Young, A. G. Skillman, X. Zou, J. R. Arnold, and I. D. Kuntz, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 42, 296 (2001). Design, Docking and Evaluation of Multiple Libraries Against Multiple Targets.
138. T. Zhang and D. E. Koshland Jr., Protein Sci., 5, 348 (1996). Computational Method for Relative Binding Free Energies of Enzyme-Substrate Complexes.
139. P. H. Huenenberger, V. Helms, N. Narayana, S. S. Taylor, and J. A. McCammon, Biochemistry, 38, 2358 (1999). Determinants of Ligand Binding to cAMP-Dependent Protein Kinase.
140. H. Meirovitch, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd, Eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 1998, Vol.11, pp. 1-74. Calculation of the Free Energy and the Entropy of Macromolecular Systems by Computer Simulation.
141. J. Greer, J. W. Erickson, J. J. Baldwin, and M. D. Varney, J. Med. Chem., 37, 1035 (1994). Application of the Three-Dimensional Structures of Protein Target Molecules in Structure-Based Design.
142. J. Bostrom, P.-O. Norrby, and T. Liljefors, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 383 (1998). Conformational Energy Penalties of Protein-Bound Ligands.
143. M. Vieth, J. D. Hirst, and C. L. Brooks III, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 563 (1998). Do Active Site Conformations of Small Ligands Correspond to Low Free-Energy Solution Structures ?
144. G. Klebe and T. MietznerJ. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8, 583 (1994). A Fast and Efficient Method to Generate Biologically Relevant Conformations.
145. I. D. Kuntz, K. Chen, K. A. Sharp, and P. A. Kollman, Proc Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 96, 9997 (1999). The Maximal Affinity of Ligands.
146. Ajay and M. A. Murcko, J. Med. Chem., 38,4953 (1995). Computational Methods to Predict Binding Free Energy in Ligand-Receptor Complexes.
147. J.D. Hirst, Cttrr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev., 1,28(1998). Predicting Ligand-Binding Energies.
148. R. M. A. Knegtel and P. D.J. Grootenhuis, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 9-11,99 (1998). Binding Affinities and Non-Bonded Interaction Energies.
149. T. I. Oprea and G. R. Marshall, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 9-11,3 (1998). Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Activities.
150. J.R.H. Tame, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 13, 99 (1999). Scoring Functions: A View From the Bench.
151. H.-J. Boehm and M. Stahl, Med. Chem. Res., 9, 445 (1999). Rapid Empirical Scoring Functions in Virtual Screening Applications.
152. P. J. Goodford, J. Mol. Graphics, 3, 107 (1985). Favored Sites for Drug Design.
153. M. Matsumara, W. J. Becktel, and B. W. Matthews, Nature (London), 334, 406 (1988). Hydrophobic Stabilization in T4 Lysozyme Determined Directly by Multiple Substitutions of Ile 3.
154. V. Nauchatel, M. C. Villaverde, and F. Sussman, Protein Sci., 4, 1356 (1995). Solvent Accessibility as a Predictive Tool for the Free Energy of Inhibitor Binding to the HIV-1 Protease.
155. A. M. Davis and S. J. Teague, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed., 38, 736 (1999). Hydrogen Bonding, Hydrophobic Interactions, and Failure of the Rigid Receptor Hypothesis.
156. L. Wesson and D. Eisenberg, Protein Sci., 1, 227 (1992). Atomic Solvation Parameters Applied to Molecular Dynamics of Proteins in Solution.
157. S. Vajda, Z. Weng, R. Rosenfeld, and C. DeLisi, Biochemistry, 33, 13977 (1994). Effect of Conformational Flexibility and Solvation on Receptor-Ligand Binding Free Energies.
158. S. Miyazawa and R. L. Jernigan, Macromolecules, 18, 534 (1985). Estimation of Effective Interresidue Contact Energies From Protein Crystal Structures: Quasi-Chemical Approximation.
159. P. Rose, Computer Assisted Molecular Design Course, Jan 16-18, 1997, University of California, San Francisco, CA.
160. E. Gallicchio, M. M. Kubo, and R. M. Levy, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 120, 4526 (1998). Entropy-Enthalpy Compensation in Solvation and Ligand Binding Revisited.
161. F. C. Bernstein, T. F. Koetzle, G. J. B. Williams, E. F. Meyer Jr., M. D. Brice, J. R. Rodgers, O. Kennard, T. Shimanouchi, and M. Tasumi, J. Mol. Biol., 112, 535 (1977). The Protein Data Bank: A Computer-Based Archival File for Macromolecular Structures, http://www.rcsb.org/pdb.
162. H. Gohlke and G. Klebe, Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 11, 231 (2001). Statistical Potentials and Scoring Functions Applied to Protein-Ligand Binding.
163. M.J. Sippl, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 7, 473 (1993). Boltzmann's Principle, Knowledge-Based Mean Fields and Protein Folding. An Approach to the Computational Determination of Protein Structures.
164. G. Verkhivker, K. Appelt, S. T. Freer, and J. E. Villafranca, Protein Eng., 8, 677 (1995). Empirical Free Energy Calculations of Ligand-Protein Crystallographic Complexes. I. Knowledge-Based Ligand Protein Interaction Potentials Applied to the Prediction of Human Immunodeficiency Virus 1 Protease Binding Affinity.
165. A. Wallqvist, R. L. Jernigan, and D. G. Covell, Protein Sci., 4, 1181 (1995). A Preference-Based Free-Energy Parameterization of Enzyme-Inhibitor Binding. Applications to HIV-1-Protease Inhibitor Design.
166. A. Wallqvist and D. G. Covell, Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet., 25, 403 (1996). Docking Enzyme-Inhibitor Complexes Using a Preference-Based Free-Energy SurfAcc.
167. Y. Sun, T. J. A. Ewing, A. G. Skillman, and I. D. Kuntz, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 12, 579 (1998). CombiDOCK: Structure-Based Combinatorial Docking and Library Design.
168. E. J. Martin, R. E. Critchlow, D. C. Spellmeyer, S. Rosenberg, K. L. Spear, and J. M. Blaney, Pharmacochem. Libr., 29, 133 (1998). Diverse Approaches to Combinatorial Library-Design.
169. DOCK User Manual, Regents of the University of California, San Francisco, CA. http://www.cmpharm.ucsf.edu/kuntz/kuntz.html.
170. R. M. A. Knegtel, D. M. Bayada, R. A. Engh, W. von der Saal, V. J. van Geerestein, and P. D. J. Grootenhuis, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 13, 167 (1999). Comparison of Two Imple-mentations of the Incremental Construction Algorithm in Flexible Docking of Thrombin Inhibitors.
171. M. Stahl and H.-J. Boehm, J. Mol. Graphics Modeli, 16, 121 (1998). Development of Filter Functions for Protein-Ligand Docking.
172. C. Lemmen, T. Lengauer, and G. Klebe, J. Med. Chem., 41, 4502 (1998). FlexS: A Method for Fast Flexible Ligand Superposition.
173. C. Lemmen, A. Zien, R. Zimmer, and T. Lengauer, Abstracts of the Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, Big Island, Hawaii, January 4-9,1999, pp. 482-493 Application of Parameter Optimization to Molecular Comparison.
174. G. R. Desiraju and T. Steiner, The Weak Hydrogen Bond in Chemistry and Biology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1999.
175. G. Parkinson, A. Gunasekera, J. Vojtechovsky, X. Zhang, T. Kunkel, H. Berman, and R. H. Ebright, Nature Struct. Biol., 3, 837 (1996). Aromatic Hydrogen Bond in Sequence-Specific Protein DNA Recognition.
176. J. P. Gallivan and D. A. Dougherty, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 96, 9459 (1999). Cation-π Interactions in Structural Biology.
177. J. P. Gallivan and D. A. Dougherty, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 122, 870 (2000). A Computational Study of Cation-π Interactions vs. Salt Bridges in Aqueous Media: Implications for Protein Engineering.
178. G. B. McGaughey, M. Gagné, and A. K. Rappé, J. Biol. Chem., 273, 15458 (1998). π-Stacking Interactions.
179. C. Chipot, R. Jaffe, B. Maigret, D. A. Pearlman, and P. A. Kollman, J. Am. Chem. Soc, 118, 11217 (1996). The Benzene Dimer: A Good Model for π-π Interactions in Proteins? A Comparison Between the Benzene and the Toluene Dimers in the Gas Phase and in Aqueous Solution.
180. T. G. Davies, R. E. Hubbard, and J. R. H. Tame, Protein Sci., 8, 1432 (1999). Relating Structure to Thermodynamics: The Crystal Structures and Binding Affinity of Eight OppA-Peptide Complexes.
181. G. Klebe, F. Dullweber, and H.-J. Boehm, in Drug-Receptor Thermodynamics: Introduction and Applications, R. B. Raffa, Ed., Wiley, Chichester, UK, 2001, pp. 83-103. Thermo-dynamic Models of Drug-Receptor Interactions: A General Introduction.
182. S. Ha, R. Andreani, A. Robbins, and I. Muegge, J. Comput.-Aided Mol.
183. I. Massova and P. A. Kollman, Perspect. Drug Discovery Design, 18, 113 (2000). Combined Molecular Mechanical and Continuum Solvent Approach (MM-PBSA/GBSA) to Predict Ligand Binding.
184. B. Kuhn and P. A. Kollman, J. Med. Chem., 43, 3786 (2000). Binding of a Diverse Set of Ligands to Avidin and Streptavidin: An Accurate Quantitative Prediction of Their Relative Affinities by a Combination of Molecular Mechanics and Continuum Solvent Models.
185. N. Froloff, A. Windemuth, and B. Honig, Protein Sci., 6, 1293 (1997). On the Calculation of Binding Free Energies Using Continuum Methods: Application to MHC Class I Protein-Peptide Interactions.
186. J. Shen, J. Med. Chem., 40, 2953 (1997). A Theoretical Investigation of Tight-Binding Thermolysin Inhibitors.
187. C. J. Woods, M. A. King, and J. W. Essex, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 15, 129 (2001). The Configurational Dependence of Binding Free Energies: A Poisson-Boltzmann Study of Neuraminidase Inhibitors.
188. G. Archontis, T. Simonson, and M. Karplus, J. Mol. Biol., 306, 307 (2001). Binding Free Energies and Free Energy Components from Molecular Dynamics and Poisson-Boltzmann Calculations. Application to Amino Acid Recognition by Aspartyl-tRNA Synthetase.
189. A. R. Leach, J. Mol. Biol., 235, 345 (1994). Ligand Docking to Proteins With Discrete Side-Chain Flexibility.
190. R. M. A. Knegtel, I. D. Kuntz, and C. M. Oshiro, J. Mot. Biol., 266, 424 (1997). Molecular Docking to Ensembles of Protein Structures.
191. C. McMartin and R. S. Bohacek, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 11, 333 (1997). QXP: Powerful, Rapid Computer Algorithms for Structure-Based Drug Design.
192. J. Apostolakis, A. Plückthun, and A. Caflisch, J. Comput. Chem., 19, 21 (1998). Docking Small Ligands in Flexible Binding Sites.
193. V. Schnecke, C. A. Swanson, E. D. Getzoff, J. A. Tainer, and L. A. Kuhn, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 33, 74 (1998). Screening a Peptidyl Database for Potential Ligands to Proteins With Side-Chain Flexibility.
194. 80 and Flexible Docking of 9-Deazaguanine Inhibitors to PNP.
195. H. B. Broughton, J. Mol. Graphics Modell., 18, 247 (2000). A Method for Including Protein Flexibility in Protein-Ligand Docking: Improving Tools for Database Mining and Virtual Screening.
196. H. Claussen, C. Buning, M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, J. Mol. Biol., 308, 377 (2001). FlexE:Efficient Molecular Docking Considering Protein Structure Variations.
197. M. D. Miller, R. P. Sheridan, S. K. Kearsley, and D.J. Underwood, in Methods in Enzymology, L. C. Kuo and J. A. Shafer, Eds., Academic Press, San Diego, 1994, Vol.241, pp. 354-370. Advances in Automated Docking Applied to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease.
198. P. S. Charifson, J. J. Corkery, M. A. Murcko, and W. P. Walters, J. Med. Chem., 42, 5100 (1999). Consensus Scoring: A Method for Obtaining Improved Hit Rates from Docking Databases of Three-Dimensional Structures into Proteins.
199. C. A. Baxter, C. W. Murray, D. E. Clark, D. R. Westhead, and M. D. Eldridge, Proteins: Struct., Fund., Genet., 33, 367 (1998). Flexible Docking Using Tabu Search and an Empirical Estimate of Binding Affinity.
200. WDI: World Drug Index, 1996, Derwent Information, http://www.derwent.com.
201. Protherics PLC, Runcorn, Cheshire, UK. The data set was formerly available at http://Www. protherics.com/crunchJ.
202. S. B. Shuker, P. J. Hajduk, R. P. Meadows, and S. W. Fesik, Science, 274, 1531 (1996). Discovering High-Affinity Ligands for Proteins: SAR by NMR.
203. N. Tomioka and A. ItaiJ. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8, 347 (1994). GREEN: A Program Package for Docking Studies in Rational Drug Design.
204. T. Toyoda, R. K. B. Brobey, G.-I. Sano, T. Horii, N. Tomioka, and A. Itai, Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun., 235, 515 (1997). Lead Discovery of Inhibitors of the Dihydrofolate Reductase Domain of Plasmodium falciparum Dihydrofolate Reductase-Thymidylate Synthase.
205. P. Burkhard, P. Taylor, and M. D. Walkinshaw J. Mol. Biol, 111, 449 (1998). An Example of a Protein Ligand Found by Database Mining: Description of the Docking Method and Its Verification by a 2.3 A• X-Ray Structure of a Thrombin-Ligand Complex.
206. R. Abagyan, M. Trotov, and D. Kuznetsov, J. Comput. Chem., 15,488 (1994). ICM-A New Method for Protein Modeling and Design: Applications to Docking and Structure Prediction from the Distorted Native Conformation.
207. M. Schapira, B. M. Raaka, H. H. Samuels, and R. Abagyan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 97, 1008 (2000). Rational Discovery of Novel Nuclear Hormone Receptor Antagonists.
208. A. V. Filikov, V. Monan, T. A. Vickers, R. H. Griffey, P. D. Cook, R. A. Abagyan, and T. L. James, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 14, 593 (2000). Identification of Ligands for RNA Targets via Structure-Based Virtual Screening: HIV-1 TAR.
209. Available Chemicals Directory, MDL Information Systems, Inc., San Leandro, CA, USA. http://www.mdl.com.
210. D. W. Christianson and C. A. Fierke, Acc. Chem. Res., 29, 331 (1996). Carbonic Anhydrase: Evolution of the Zinc-Binding Site by Nature and by Design.
211. Maybridge Database, Maybridge Chemical Co. Ltd., UK, 1999. http://www.maybridge.com and http://www.daylight.com.
212. LeadQuest Chemical Compound Libraries, Vol.1-3,2000, Tripos Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA. http://www.tripos.com.
213. J. Sadowski, C. Rudolph, and J. Gasteiger, Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol., 3, 537 (1990). Automatic Generation of 3D Atomic Coordinates for Organic Molecules.
214. J. Sadowski, C. H. Schwab, and J. Gasteiger, Corina, 1998, Molecular Networks GmbH Computerchemie, Erlangen, Germany, http://www.mol-net.de/.
215. Unity Chemical Information Software, Version 4.1.1., Tripos, Inc., St. Louis, MO, USA.
216. A. Maxwell, Biochem. Soc. Trans., 27, 48 (1999). DNA Gyrase as a Drug Target.
217. D. Bailey and D. Brown, Drug Discovery Today, 6, 57 (2001). High-Throughput Chemistry and Structure-Based Design: Survival of the Smartest.
218. R. M. Eglen, G. Scheider, and H.-J. Boehm, in Virtual Screening for Bioactive Molecules, G. Schneider and H.-J. Boehm, Eds., Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2000, pp. 1-14. High-Throughput Screening and Virtual Screening: Entry Points to Drug Discovery.
219. R. Lahana, Drug Discovery Today, 4, 447 (1999). How Many Leads from HTS?