Modeling approaches for ligand-based 3D similarity

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 2, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1547-1561

  Tresadern, Gary ^a   Bemporad, Daniele ^b  

^a JOHNSON AND JOHNSON   (United States)

^b JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; MOLECULAR SCAFFOLD;

ALLOSTERISM; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG MARKETING; EXPERT SYSTEM; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR MODEL; PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM; PHARMACOPHORE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; SCREENING TEST; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

ANIMALS; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SOFTWARE;

EID: 77958056046     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.10.244     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Reddy A, Pati S, KumarP, Pradeep H, Sastry G. Virtual screening in drug discovery -acomputational perspective. Curr. Protein Peptide Sci. 8, 329-351 (2007
2. Good A. Virtual screening. Comp. Med. Chem. II. 4, 459-494 (2006
3. HristozovD, OpreaT, GasteigerJ. Virtual screening applications; astudy of ligand based methods and different structure representations in fourdifferent scenarios. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 21, 617-640 (2007
4. Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. ZINC -afree database of commercially available compounds forvirtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45, 177-182 (2005
5. ChuprinaA, Lukin O, Demoiseaux R, Buzko A, Shivanyuk A. Drug-and lead-likeness, target class, and moleculardiversity analysis of 7.9 million commercially available organic compounds provided by 29 suppliers. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 470-479 (2010
6. Martin YC, Kofron JL, Traphagen LM. Do structurally similarmolecules have similarbiological activity? J. Med. Chem. 45, 4350-4358 (2002
7. Leach AR, Gillet VJ, Lewis RA, TaylorR. Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 53, 539-558 (2010
8. Kortagere S, Krasowski MD, Ekins S. The importance of discerning shape in molecularpharmacology. Trends in Pharma. Sci. 30, 138-147 (2009
9. Nicholls A, McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP et al. Molecularshape and medicinal chemistry: aperspective. J. Med. Chem. 53, 3862-3886 (2010
10. HopfingerAJ. A QSAR investigation of dihydrofolate reductase inhibition by Baker triazines based upon molecularshape analysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 102, 7196-7206 (1980
11. Goodford PJ. A computational procedure fordetermining energetically favorable binding sites on important marcomolecules. J. Med. Chem. 28, 849-857 (1985
12. CramerRD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecularfield analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrierproteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110, 5959-5967 (1988
13. Cross S, Cruciani G. Molecularfields in drug discovery: getting old orreaching maturity? Drug Discov. Today 15, 23-32 (2010
14. Shoichet BK. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 432, 862-865 (2004
15. Tresadern G, Bemporad D, Howe T. A comparison of ligand based virtual screening methods and application to corticotropin releasing factor1 receptor. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 27, 860-870 (2009
16. Tresadern G, Agrafiotis DK. Conformational sampling with stochastic proximity embedding and self-organizing superimposition: establishing reasonable parameters fortheirpractical use. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2786-2800 (2009
17. Cummings MD, Gibbs AC, DesJarlais RL. Processing of small molecule databases forautomated docking. Med. Chem. 3, 107-113 (2007
18. Knox AJ, Meegan MJ, CartaG, Lloyd DG. Considerations in compound database preparation -'hidden' impact on virtual screening results. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45, 1908-1919 (2005
19. Griewel A, KayserO, SchlosserJ, Rarey M. Conformational sampling forlarge-scale virtual screening: accuracy versus ensemble size. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2303-2311 (2009
20. YogendraP, Gillet V, Howe T, PastorJ, Oyarzabal J, Willett P. Assessment of additive/nonadditive effects in structure-activity relationships foriterative drug design. J. Med. Chem. 51, 7552-7562 (2008
21. Tresadern G, Cid JM, Macdonald GJ et al. Scaffold hopping from pyridones to imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 20, 175-179 (2010
22. Oyarzabal J, Howe T, AlcazarJ et al. Novel approach forchemotype hopping based on annotated databases of chemically feasible fragments and aprospective case study: new melanin concentrating hormone antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 52, 2076-2089 (2009
23. Langdon SR, Ertl P, Brown N. Bioisosteric replacement and scaffold hopping in lead generation and optimization. Mol. Inf. 29, 366-385 (2010
24. SchneiderG. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 273-276 (2010
25. Brown RD, Martin YC. Use of structure-activity datato compare structure-based clustering methods and descriptors foruse in compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36, 572-584 (1996
26. MatterH, PötterT. Comparing 3D pharmacophore triplets and 2D fingerprints forselecting diverse compound subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 1211-1225 (1999
27. SchuffenhauerA, Gillet VJ, Willett P. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: analysis of the BIOSTER database using two-dimensional fingerprints and molecularfield descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 295-307 (2000
28. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 7, 903-911 (2002
29. SchneiderG, SchneiderP, RennerS. Scaffold-hopping: how farcan you jump? QSAR Combin. Sci. 25, 1162-1171 (2006
30. Mackey MD, Melville JL. Betterthan random? The chemotype enrichment problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 1154-1162 (2009
31. Vogt M, Stumpfe D, Geppert H, Bajorath J. Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fingerprints: true potential, black magic, orahopeless endeavor? Guidelines forvirtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 53, 5707-5715 (2010
32. Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Nicholls A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 50, 74-82 (2007
33. GünerOF. History and evolution of the pharmacophore concept in computer-aided drug design. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2, 1321-1332 (2002
34. Grant JA, Gallardo MA, Pickup BT. A fast method of molecularshape comparison: asimple application of gaussian description of molecularshape. J. Comp. Chem. 17, 1653-1666 (1996
35. Rush TS, Grant JA, Mosyak L, Nicholls A. A shape-based 3D scaffold hopping method and its application to abacterial protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 48, 1489-1495 (2005
36. Fan Y, Lai MH, Sullivan K et al. The identification of neurotensin NTS1 receptorpartial agonists through aligand based virtual screening approach. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18, 5789-5791 (2008
37. Perruccio F, Mason JS, SciabolaS, Baroni M. FLAP: 4-Point Pharmacophore Fingerprints From GRID. GRID-Based Molecular Interaction Field in Cheminoformatics and Drug Design. Cruciani G (Ed). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 83-102 (2005
38. Baroni M, Cruciani G, SciabolaS, Perruccio F, Mason JS. A common reference framework foranalyzing/comparing proteins and ligands. Fingerprints forligands and proteins (FLAP): theory and application. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 279-294 (2007
39. Carosati E, Cruciani G, Chiarini A et al. Calcium channel antagonists discovered by amultidisciplinary approach. J. Med. Chem. 49, 5206-5216 (2006
40. CramerRD, Jilek RJ, Andrews KM. Dbtop: topomersimilarity searching of conventional structure databases. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20, 447-462 (2002
41. Jilek RJ, CramerRD. Topomers: avalidated protocol fortheirself-consistent generation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44,. 1221-1227.
42. Chiu TL, Solberg J, Patil S et al. Identification of novel nonhydroxamate anthrax toxin lethal factorinhibitors by topomeric searching, docking and scoring, and in vitro screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2726-2734 (2009
43. VinterJG, Trollope KI. Multiconformational composite molecular-potential fields in the analysis of drug-action. 1. methodology and first evaluation using 5-HT and histamine action as examples. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 9, 297-307 (1995
44. Cheeseright T, Mackey M, Rose S, VinterA. Molecularfield extremaas descriptors of biological activity: definition and validation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 665-676 (2006
45. Cheeseright TJ, Mackey MD, Melville JL, VinterJG. Fieldscreen: virtual screening using molecularfields. Application to the DUD dataset. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 2108-2117 (2008
46. Cheeseright TJ, Holm M, Lehmann F et al. Novel lead structures forp38 MAP kinase viafieldscreen virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 52, 4200-4209 (2009
47. Bellenie BR, Barton NP, Emmons AJ, Heer JP, Salvagno C. Discovery and optimization of highly ligand-efficient oxytocin receptorantagonists using structure-based drug design. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 990-994 (2009
48. Hurst TJ. Flexible 3D searching: the directed tweak technique. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 34, 190-196 (1994
49. Sprague PW. De Novo Design. MullerK (Ed.). Leiden: ESCOM Science Publishers, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1-20 (1995
50. KhedkarSA, AlpeshkumarKM, Countinho EC, SrivastavaS. Pharmacophore modeling in drug discovery and development: an overview. Med. Chem. 3, 187-197 (2007
51. Foloppe N, Benwell K, Brooks TD et al. Discovery and functional evaluation of diverse novel human CB1 receptorligands. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 19, 4183-4190 (2009
52. Nicholls A, MacCuish NE, MacCuish JD. Variable selection and model validation of 2D and 3D moleculardescriptors. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 18, 451-474 (2004
53. Bergmann R, Liljefors T, Sorensen MD, ZamoraI. SHOP: receptor-based scaffold hopping by GRID-based similarity searches. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 658-669 (2009
54. Fontaine F, Cross S, PlasenciaG, PastorM, ZamoraI. SHOP: amethod forstructure-based fragment and scaffold hopping. ChemMedChem. 4, 427-439 (2009
55. Bergmann R, Linusson A, ZamoraI. SHOP: scaffold hopping by GRID-based similarity searches. J. Med. Chem. 50, 2708-2717 (2007
56. Ahlström MM, Ridderström M, Luthman K, ZamoraI. Virtual screening and scaffold hopping based on GRID molecularinteraction fields. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45, 1313-1323 (2005
57. Maass P, Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M, Rarey M. Recore: afast and versatile method forscaffold hopping based on small molecule crystal structure conformations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 390-399 (2007
58. PastorM, Cruciani G, McLay I, Pickett S, Clementi S. Grid independent descriptors (GRIND). A novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional moleculardescriptors. J. Med. Chem. 43, 3233-3243 (2000
59. Fontaine F, PastorM, Sanz F. Incorporating molecularshape into the alignment-free grid-independent descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 47, 2805-2815 (2004
60. Duran A, ZamoraI, PastorM. Suitability of GRIND-based principal properties forthe description of molecularsimilarity and ligand based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2129-2138 (2009
61. Fontaine F, PastorM, ZamoraI, Sanz F. Filling the gap between standard 3D QSAR and the grind-independent descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 48, 2687-2694 (2005
62. CramerRD. TopomerCoMFA: adesign methodology forrapid lead optimization. J. Med. Chem. 46, 374-388 (2003
63. CramerRD, Cruz P, Stahl G et al. Virtual screening forR-groups, including predicted pIC50 contributions, within large structural databases, using topomerCoMFA. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 2180-2195 (2008
64. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 7, 903-911 (2002
65. Willett P. Enhancing the effectiveness of ligand based virtual screening using datafusion. QSAR Combin. Sci. 25, 1143-1152 (2006
66. Tan L, Geppert H, Sisay MT, Gutschow M, Bajorath J. Integrating structure and ligand based virtual screening: comparison of individual, parallel, and fused moleculardocking and similarity search calculations on multiple targets. ChemMedChem. 3, 1566-1571 (2008
67. Chen J, Holliday J, Bradshaw J. A machine learning approach to weighting schemes in the datafusion of similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 185-194 (2009
68. Muchmore SW, Debe DA, Metz JT, Brown SP, Martin YC, Hajduk PJ. Application of belief theory to similarity datafusion foruse in analog searching and lead hopping. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 941-948 (2008
69. Truchon JF, Nicholls A, Roux B, Iftimie RI, Bayly CI. Integrated continuum dielectric approaches to treat molecularpolarizability and the condensed phase: refractive index and implicit solvation. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 5, 1785 -1802 (2009
70. MolecularOperating Environment, Chemical Computing Group Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canadawww.chemcomp.com
71. BROOD™, OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc., SantaFe, NM, USA www.eyesopen.com