Effectiveness of 2D fingerprints for scaffold hopping

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 405-414

  Gardiner, Eleanor J ^a   Holliday, John D ^a   O'Dowd, Caroline ^a   Willett, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANGIOTENSIN II ANTAGONIST; ANGIOTENSIN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST; ANTI HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS AGENT; BLOOD CLOTTING FACTOR 10A INHIBITOR; CATHEPSIN G INHIBITOR; CHOLINESTERASE INHIBITOR; CYCLIC AMP DEPENDENT PROTEIN KINASE INHIBITOR; DOPAMINE 2 RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR ALPHA COACTIVATOR BINDING INHIBITOR; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR ALPHA COACTIVATOR BINDING POTENTIATOR; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR BETA COACTIVATOR BINDING INHIBITOR; FOCAL ADHESION KINASE INHIBITOR; HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN 90 INHIBITOR; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS PROTEINASE INHIBITOR; MATRIX METALLOPROTEINASE INHIBITOR; PHOSPHODIESTERASE INHIBITOR; PROSTAGLANDIN SYNTHASE INHIBITOR; PROTEIN KINASE C INHIBITOR; RENIN INHIBITOR; RHO KINASE 2 INHIBITOR; RHO KINASE INHIBITOR; SEROTONIN 1A AGONIST; SEROTONIN 1A ANTAGONIST; SEROTONIN 3 ANTAGONIST; SEROTONIN UPTAKE INHIBITOR; SPHINGOSINE 1 PHOSPHATE RECEPTOR 1 AGONIST; STEROIDOGENIC FACTOR 1 INHIBITOR; SUBSTANCE P ANTAGONIST; THROMBIN INHIBITOR; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; UNINDEXED DRUG;

ARTICLE; DATA BASE; DRUG ACTIVITY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG SCREENING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TWO DIMENSIONAL FINGERPRINT; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DESIGN; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 79953656228     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.11.4     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Eckert H, Bajorath J. Molecular similarity ana lysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitation and novel approaches. Drug Discov. Today 12, 225-233 (2007).
2. Glen RC, Adams SE. Similarity metrics and descriptor spaces-which combinations to choose? QSAR Combin. Sci. 25, 1133-1142 (2006). (Pubitemid 46052450)
3. Willett P. Similarity methods in chemoinformatics. Ann. Review Inf. Sci. Technol. 43, 3-71 (2009).
4. Sheridan RP. Chemical similarity searches: when is complexity justifed? Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2, 423-430 (2007). (Pubitemid 47073070)
5. Willett P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fngerprints. Drug Discov. Today 11, 1046-1053 (2006). (Pubitemid 44792477)
6. Brown N, Jacoby E. On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. Mini-Rev. Med. Chem. 6, 1217-1229 (2006). (Pubitemid 44697101)
7. Martin YC, Muchmore S. Beyond QSAR: lead hopping to different structures. QSAR Combin. Sci. 28, 797-801 (2009).
8. Renner S, Schneider G. Scaffold hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. Chem Med Chem 1, 181-185 (2006). (Pubitemid 43700297)
9. Schneider G, Schneider P, Renner S. Scaffold-hopping: how far can you jump? QSAR Combin. Sci. 25, 1162-1171 (2006). (Pubitemid 46052453)
10. Böhm HJ, Flohr A, Stahl M. Scaffold hopping. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 1, 217-224 (2004). (Pubitemid 40197570)
11. Zhou H. Scaffold selection and scaffold hopping in lead generation: a medicinal chemistry approach. Drug Discov. Today 12, 149-154 (2006).
12. 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. 2, 3256-3266 (2004).
13. Gardiner EJ, Gillet VJ, Haranczyk M et al. Turbo similarity searching: effect of fngerprint and dataset on virtual-screening performance. Stat. Anal. Data Mining 2, 103-114 (2009).
14. Rohrer SG, Baumann K. Maximum unbiased validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on PubChem bioactivity data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 169-184 (2009).
15. Xu YJ, Johnson M. Using molecular equivalence numbers to visually explore structural features that distinguish chemical libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci. 42, 912-926 (2002). (Pubitemid 35355241)
16. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39, 2887-2893 (1996). (Pubitemid 26251026)
17. Cleves AE, Jain AN. Effects of inductive bias on computational evaluations of ligand-based modeling and on drug discovery. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 22, 147-159 (2008).
18. Good AC, Oprea TI. Optimization of CAMD techniques. 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des 22, 169-178 (2008).
19. Gasteiger J, Engel T. Chemoinformatics: A Textbook. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2003).
20. Leach AR, Gillet VJ. An Introduction to Chemoinformatics. (2nd Edition). Wolters Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (2007).
21. Sastry M, Lowrie JF, Dixon SL et al. Large-scale systematic ana lysis of 2D fngerprint methods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 771-748 (2010).
22. Duan J, Dixon SL, Lowrie JE, Sherman W. Analysis and comparison of 2D fngerprints: insights into database screening performance using eight fngerprint methods. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 29, 157-170 (2010).
23. Holliday JD, Hu CY, Willett P. Grouping of coeffcients for the calculation of inter-molecular similarity and dissimilarity using 2D fragment bit-strings. Combin. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 5, 155-166 (2002). (Pubitemid 34475167)
24. Arif SM, Holliday JD, Willett P. Analysis and use of fragment occurrence data in similarity-based virtual screening. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Design 23, 655-668 (2009).
25. Siegel S, Castellan NJ. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. (2nd Edition. (Eds). McGraw-Hill, NY, USA (1988).
26. Rogers D, Hahn M. Extended-connectivity fngerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 742-754 (2010).
27. Vogt M, Stumpfe D, Geppert H et al. Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fngerprints: true potential, black magic, or a hopeless endeavor? Guidelines for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 53, 5707-5715 (2010).
28. Willett P. Enhancing the effectiveness of ligand-based virtual screening using data fusion. QSAR Combin. Sci. 25, 1143-1152 (2006). (Pubitemid 46052451)
29. Muchmore SW, Debe DA, Metz JT, Brown SP, Martin YC, Hajduk PJ. Application of belief theory to similarity data fusion for use in analog searching and lead hopping. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48, 941-948 (2008).