How similar are those molecules after all? Use two descriptors and you will have three different answers

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Volumn 5, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1141-1151

  Bender, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

circular fingerprints; enrichment; molecular descriptors; molecular similarity; retrieval rates; virtual screening

Indexed keywords

MOLECULAR SCAFFOLD;

ALGORITHM; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; LIGAND BASED VIRTUAL SCREENING; PHARMACOPHORE; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REFERENCE DATABASE; REVIEW;

EID: 78649358317     PISSN: 17460441     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17460441.2010.517832     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Bender A, Glen RC. Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004;2:3204-18
2. Todeschini R, Consonni V. Handbook of molecular descriptors. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim; 2000
3. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov Today 2002;7:903-11
4. Clark DE. What has virtual screening ever done for drug discovery? Expert Opin Drug Discov 2008;3:841-51
5. Kim KH, Kim KD, Seong BL. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening: a review of recent applications. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2010;5:205-22
6. Koeppen H. Virtual screening-What does it give us? Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2009;12:397-407
7. Seifert MHJ, Lang M. Essential factors for successful virtual screening. Mini Rev Med Chem 2008;8:63-72
8. Geppert H, Vogt M, Bajorath J. Current trends in ligand-based virtual screening: molecular representations, data mining methods, new application areas, and performance evaluation. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:205-16
9. Timmers LFSM, Pauli I, Caceres RA, et al. Drug-binding databases. Curr Drug Targets 2008;9:1092-9
10. Bender A. Databases: compound bioactivities go public. Nat Chem Biol 2010;6:309
11. Briem H, Kuntz ID. Molecular similarity based on DOCK-generated fingerprints. J Med Chem 1996;39:3401-8
12. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, et al. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:1177-85
13. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2006;49:6789-801
14. Rohrer SG, Baumann K. Maximum unbiased validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on pubchem bioactivity data. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49(2):169-84
15. Sastry M, Lowrie JF, Dixon SL, et al. Large-scale systematic analysis of 2D fingerprint methods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:771-84
16. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, et al. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org Biomol Chem 2004;2:3256-66
17. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Scheiber J, et al. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:108-19
18. Adamson GW, Lynch MF, Town WG. Analysis of structural characteristics of chemical compounds in a large computer-based file. Part II. Atom-centred fragments. J Chem Doc 1973;13(3):158-62
19. Rogers D, Hahn M. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:742-54
20. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC, et al. Molecular similarity searching using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naive bayesian classifier. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:170-8
21. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC, et al. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:1708-18
22. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC. Screening for dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors using MOLPRINT 2D, a fast fragment-based method employing the naive Bayesian classifier: limitations of the descriptor and the importance of balanced chemistry in training and test sets. J Biomol Screen 2005;10:658-66
23. Doddareddy MR, Klaasse EC, Shagufta, et al. Prospective validation of a comprehensive in silico hERG model and its applications to commercial compound and drug databases. ChemMedChem 2010;5:716-29
24. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996;39:2887-93
25. Fergus S, Bender A, Spring DR. Assessment of structural diversity in combinatorial synthesis. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2005;9:304-9
26. Spandl RJ, Bender A, Spring DR. Diversity-oriented synthesis; a spectrum of approaches and results. Org Biomol Chem 2008;6:1149-58
27. Medina-Franco JL, Martinez-Mayorga K, Bender A, et al. Scaffold diversity analysis of compound data sets using an entropy-based measure. QSAR Comb Sci 2009;28:1551-60
28. Bender A, Glen RC. A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:1369-75
29. Williams DH, Davies NL, Zerella R, et al. Noncovalent interactions: defining cooperativity. Ligand binding aided by reduced dynamic behavior of receptors. Binding of bacterial cell wall analogues to ristocetin A. J Am Chem Soc 2004;126:2042-9
30. Abdo A, Salim N. Similarity-based virtual screening with a Bayesian inference network. Chem Med Chem 2009;4:210-18
31. Rees DC, Congreve M, Murray CW, et al. Fragment-based lead discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004;3:660-72
32. McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, et al. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:1504-19
33. Von Korff M, Freyss J, Sander T. Comparison of ligand-and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:209-31
34. Good AC, Hermsmeier MA, Hindle SA. Measuring CAMD technique performance: a virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2004;18:529-36
35. Tiikkainen P, Markt P, Wolber G, et al. Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:2168-78
36. Clark RD, Shepphird JK, Holliday J. The effect of structural redundancy in validation sets on virtual screening performance. J Chemometrics 2009;9:471-8
37. Prathipati P, Dixit A, Saxena AK. Computer-aided drug design: integration of structure-based and ligand-based approaches in drug design. Curr Comp Aided Drug Des 2007;3:133-48
38. Kruger DM, Evers A. Comparison of structure-and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors. Chem Med Chem 2010;5:148-58
39. Salim N, Holliday J, Willett P. Combination of fingerprint-based similarity coefficients using data fusion. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:435-42
40. Klon AE. Bayesian modeling in virtual high throughput screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 2009;12:469-83
41. Hu Y, Lounkine E, Bajorath J. Improving the search performance of extended connectivity fingerprints through activity-oriented feature filtering and application of a bit-density-dependent similarity function. Chem Med Chem 2009;4:540-8
42. Nisius B, Bajorath J. Molecular fingerprint recombination: generating hybrid fingerprints for similarity searching from different fingerprint types. Chem Med Chem 2009;4:1859-63
43. Ballester PJ, Richards WG. Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes. J Comput Chem 2007;28:1711-23
44. Wilson JA, Bender A, Kaya T, et al. Alpha shapes applied to molecular shape characterization exhibit novel properties compared to established shape descriptors. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:2231-41
45. Parker CN. McMaster university data-mining and docking competition-Computational models on the catwalk. J Biomol Screen 2005;10:647-8
46. Mittal RR, McKinnon RA, Sorich MJ. Comparison data sets for benchmarking QSAR methodologies in lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:1810-20