Self-organizing molecular fingerprints: A ligand-based view on drug-like chemical space and off-target prediction

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 1, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 213-218

  Schneider, Gisbert ^a,b   Tanrikulu, Yusuf ^a   Schneider, Petra ^b  

^a GOETHE UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b Schneider Consulting GbR   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEINASE INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DRUG TARGETING; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; PHARMACOPHORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; SELF ORGANIZING MAP TECHNIQUE; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

CLUSTER ANALYSIS; DRUG DESIGN; LIGANDS; METABOLIC NETWORKS AND PATHWAYS; PEPTIDE HYDROLASES; PROTEASE INHIBITORS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 77952664105     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.09.11     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Morphy R, Rankovic Z. Fragments, network biology and designing multiple ligands. Drug Discov. Today 12(3-4), 156-160 (2007).
2. Chong CR, Sullivan DJ Jr. New uses for old drugs. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 448(8), 645-646 (2007).
3. Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, Schmid G. "Scaffold-hopping" by topological pharmacophore search: a contribution to virtual screening. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38(19), 2894-2896 (1999).
4. Schneider G, Schneider P, Renner S. Scaffold-hopping: how far can you jump? QSAR Comb. Sci. 25(12), 1162-1171 (2006)
5. Zhao H. Scaffold selection and scaffold hopping in lead generation: a medicinal chemistry perspective. Drug Discov. Today 12(3-4), 149-155 (2007).
6. Kupas K, Ultsch A, Klebe G. Large scale analysis of protein-binding cavities using self-organizing maps and wavelet-based surface patches to describe functional properties, selectivity discrimination, and putative crossreactivity. Proteins 71(3), 1288-1306 (2008).
7. An J, Totrov M, Abagyan R. Comprehensive identification of "druggable" protein ligand binding sites. Genome Inform. 15(2), 31-41 (2004).
8. Zhang Z, Grigorov MG. Similarity networks of protein binding sites. Proteins 62(2), 470-478 (2006).
9. Wolber G, Seidel T, Bendix F, Langer T. Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discov. Today 13(1-2), 23-29 (2008).
10. Rarey M, Dixon JS. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12(5), 471-490 (1998).
11. Klabunde T, Evers A. GPCR antitarget modeling: pharmacophore models for biogenic amine binding GPCRs to avoid GPCR-mediated side effects. ChemBioChem 6(5), 876-889 (2005).
12. Schneider P, Tanrikulu Y, Schneider G. Self-organizing maps in drug discovery: library design, scaffold-hopping, repurposing. Curr. Med. Chem. 16(3), 285-1266(2009).
13. Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN, Ernsberger P, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(2), 197-206 (2007).
14. Park K, Kim D. Binding similarity network of ligand. Proteins 71(2), 960-971 (2008).
15. Bajorath J. Computational analysis of ligand relationships within target families. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12(3), 352-358 (2008).
16. Ekins S. Predicting undesirable drug interactions with promiscuous proteins in silico. Drug Discov. Today. 9(6), 276-285 (2004).
17. Noeske T, Sasse BC, Stark H, Parsons CG, Weil T, Schneider G. Predicting compound selectivity by self-organizing maps: cross-activities of metabotropic glutamate receptor antagonists. ChemMedChem 1(10), 1066-1068 (2006).
18. Kohonen T. Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biol. Cybern. 43, 59-69 (1982).
19. Schneider P, Schneider G. Collection of bioactive compounds for focused library design. QSAR Comb. Sci. 22(7), 713-718 (2003).
20. Anzali S, Barnickel G, Krug M et al. The comparison of geometric and electronic properties of molecular surfaces by neural networks: application to the analysis of corticosteroid-binding globulin activity of steroids. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 10(6), 521-534 (1996).
21. Renner S, Hechenberger M, Noeske T et al. Searching for drug scaffolds with 3D pharmacophores and neural network ensembles. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 46(28), 5336-5339 (2007).
22. Schmuker M, Schneider G. Processing and classification of chemical data inspired by insect olfaction. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104(51), 20285-20289 (2007).
23. Selzer P, Ertl P. Applications of selforganizing neural networks in virtual screening and diversity selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(6), 2319-2323 (2006).
24. Fechner U, Schneider G. Optimization of a pharmacophore-based correlation vector descriptor. QSAR Comb. Sci. 23(1), 19-22 (2004).
25. Fechner U, Franke L, Renner S, Schneider P, Schneider G. Comparison of correlation vector methods for ligand-based similarity searching. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17(10), 687-698 (2003).
26. Schneider G, Wrede P. Artificial neural networks for computer-based molecular design. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 70(3), 175-222 (1998).
27. Schneider G, Schneider P. Navigation in chemical space: ligand-based design of focused compound libraries. In: Chemogenomics in Drug Discovery. Kubinyi H, Müller H (Eds). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany 341-376 (2004).
28. Zupan J, Gasteiger J. Neural Networks in Chemistry and Drug Design. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany (1999).
29. Kohonen T. Self-Organizing Maps. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany (2001).
30. Steinmetzer T, Stürzebecher J. Progress in the development of synthetic thrombin inhibitors as new orally active anticoagulants. Curr. Med. Chem. 11(17), 2297-2321 (2004).
31. Banner D. Principles of enzyme-inhibitor design. In: Protein-Ligand Interactions. Böhm HJ, Schneider G (Eds). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany 163-186 (2003).
32. Schneider G, Nettekoven M. Ligand-based combinatorial design of selective purinergic receptor (A2A) antagonists using selforganizing maps. J. Comb. Chem. 5(3), 233-237 (2003).
33. Proschak E, Zettl H, Tanrikulu Y et al. From molecular shape to potent bioactive agents I: bioisosteric replacement of molecular fragments. ChemMedChem 4(1), 45-48 (2009).
34. Howell S, Nalbantoglu J, Crine P. Neutral endopeptidase can hydrolyze b-amyloid(1-40) but shows no effect on b-amyloid precursor protein metabolism. Peptides 16(4), 647-652 (1995).
35. Higaki J, Catalano R, Guzzetta AW et al. Processing of b-amyloid precursor protein by cathepsin D. J. Biol. Chem. 271(50), 31885-31893 (1996).
36. Martoglio B, Golde TE. Intramembranecleaving aspartic proteases and disease: presenilins, signal peptide peptidase and their homologs. Hum. Mol. Genet. 12(2), 201-206 (2003)
37. Beavers M, Myers M, Shah P et al. Molecular docking of cathepsin l inhibitors in the binding site of papain. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(7), 1464-1472 (2008).
38. Grakoui A, McCourt DW, Wychowski C et al. A second hepatitis C virus encoded proteinase. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 90(22), 10583-10587 (1993).
39. Hijikata M, Mizushima H, Akagi T et al. Two distinct proteinase activities required for the processing of a putative nonstructural precursor protein of hepatitis C virus. J. Virol. 67(8), 4665-4675 (1993).
40. Lorenz IC, Marcotrigiano J, Dentzer TG, Rice CM. Structure of the catalytic domain of the hepatitis C virus NS2-3 protease. Nature 442(7104), 831-835 (2006).
41. Welbourn S, Pause A. The hepatitis C virus NS2/3 protease. Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 9(1), 63-69 (2007).
42. Kim JL, Morgenstern KA, Lin C et al. Crystal structure of the hepatitis C virus NS3 protease domain complexed with a synthetic NS4A cofactor peptide. Cell 87(2), 343-355 (1996).
43. Lin C, Lindenbach BD, Pragai BM, McCourt DW, Rice CM. Processing in the hepatitis C virus E2-NS2 region: identification of p7 and two distinct E2-specific products with different C termini. J. Virol. 68(8), 5063-5073 (1994).
44. Lohmann V, Koch JO, Bartenschlager R. Processing pathways of the hepatitis C virus proteins. J. Hepatol. 24(Suppl. 2), 11-19 (1996).
45. Lin C, Kwong AD, Perni RB. Discovery and development of VX-950, a novel, covalent, and reversible inhibitor of hepatitis C virus NS3.4A serine protease. Infect. Disord. Drug Targets 6(1), 3-16 (2006).
46. Rupp M, Schneider P, Schneider G. Distance phenomena in high-dimensional chemical descriptor spaces: consequences for similarity-based approaches. J. Comput. Chem. DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21218 (2009) (Epub ahead of print).
47. Weisel M, Proschak E, Kriegl JM, Schneider G. Form follows function: shape analysis of protein cavities for receptor-based drug design. Proteomics 9(2), 451-459 (2009).
48. Poroikov VV, Filimonov DA. How to acquire new biological activities in old compounds by computer prediction. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16(11), 819-824 (2002).
49. Dunkel M, Günther S, Ahmed J, Wittig B, Preissner R. SuperPred: drug classification and target prediction. Nucl. Acids Res. 36(Web Server issue), W55-W59 (2008).
50. Nettles JH, Jenkins JL, Bender A, Deng Z, Davies JW, Glick M. Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 49(23), 6802-6810 (2006).
51. Niwa T. Prediction of biological targets using probabilistic neural networks and atom-type descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 47(10), 2645-2650 (2004).