Theoretical and computational approaches to ligand-based drug discovery

Frontiers in Bioscience

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 1276-1290

  Favia, Angelo D ^a  

^a ISTITUTO ITALIANO DI TECNOLOGIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

3D QSAR; 3D QSPR; CoMFA; CoMSIA; Ligand based drug design; Molecular descriptor; Pharmacophore; PLS; Review; Structure based drug design

Indexed keywords

LIGAND;

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA MINING; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA MINING; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 79954989328     PISSN: 27686701     EISSN: 27686698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2741/3788     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Y. C. Martin, J. L. Kofron and L. M. Traphagen: Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J Med Chem, 45(19), 4350-8 (2002) (Pubitemid 35025581)
2. T. I. Oprea and J. Gottfries: Chemography: the art of navigating in chemical space. J Comb Chem, 3(2), 157-66 (2001) (Pubitemid 33614499)
3. T. Engel: Basic overview of chemoinformatics. J Chem Inf Model, 46(6), 2267-77 (2006) (Pubitemid 46008100)
4. J. Gasteiger: Chemoinformatics: a new field with a long tradition. Anal Bioanal Chem, 384(1), 57-64 (2006) (Pubitemid 41817843)
5. Handbook of Molecular Descriptors. In: Ed R. Mannhold, H. Kubinyi&H. Timmerman. WILEY-VCH, Verlag GmbH, D-69469, Wemhem (Federal Republic of Germany) (2000)
6. H. Kubinyi: Chance favors the prepared mind-from serendipity to rational drug design. J Recept Signal Transduct Res, 19(1-4), 15-39 (1999) (Pubitemid 29152173)
7. M. C. Richet: Noté sur le rapport entre la toxicité et les proprietés physiques des corps. Compt Rend Soc Biol, 45, 775-776 (1893)
8. H. Meyer: Theorie der alkoholnarkose. Arch Exp Pathol Pharmakol, 42, 109-18 (1899)
9. E. Overton: Über die osmotischen eigenschaften der lebenden pflanzen und tierzelle. Vierteljahrsshriften Naturforschungen Ges Zurich, 40, 159-201 (1895)
10. L. P. Hammett: The effect of structure upon the reactions of organic compounds. Benzene derivatives. J Am Chem Soc, 59(1), 96-103 (1937)
11. C. Hansch and T. Fujita: ρ-σ-φ analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc, 86(8), 1616-1626 (1964)
12. H. Kubinyi and O. H. Kehrhahn: Quantitative structureactivity relationships. VI. Non-linear dependence ofbiological activity on hydrophobic character: calculation procedures for bilinear model. Arzneimittelforschung, 28(4), 598-601 (1978) (Pubitemid 8312629)
13. H. Kubinyi: Quantitative structure-activity relationships. 7. The bilinear model, a new model for nonlinear dependence of biological activity on hydrophobic character. J Med Chem, 20(5), 625-9 (1977) (Pubitemid 8095432)
14. S. M. Free, Jr. and J. W. Wilson: A Mathematical Contribution to Structure-Activity Studies. J Med Chem, 7, 395-9 (1964)
15. H. Berman, K. Henrick and H. Nakamura: Announcing the worldwiDe Protein Data Bank. Nat Struct Biol, 10(12), 980 (2003) (Pubitemid 37500485)
16. R. D. Cramer, D. E. Patterson and J. D. Bunce: Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc, 110(18), 5959-5967 (1988)
17. S. Wold, A. Ruhe, H. Wold, W. J. Dunn and III: The Collinearity Problem in Linear Regression. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Generalized Inverses. SIAM Journal on Scientific and Statistical Computing, 5(3), 735-743 (1984)
18. P. J. Goodford: A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J Med Chem, 28(7), 849-57 (1985) (Pubitemid 15012490)
19. J. Nilsson, H. Wikstrom, A. Smilde, S. Glase, T. Pugsley, G. Cruciani, M. Pastor and S. Clementi: GRID/GOLPE 3D quantitative structure-activity relationship study on a set of benzamides and naphthamides, with affinity for the dopamine D3 receptor subtype. J Med Chem, 40(6), 833-40 (1997) (Pubitemid 27131612)
20. G. Cruciani and K. A. Watson: Comparative molecular field analysis using GRID force-field and GOLPE variable selection methods in a study of inhibitors of glycogen phosphorylase b. J Med Chem, 37(16), 2589-601 (1994) (Pubitemid 24276786)
21. G. Klebe, U. Abraham and T. Mietzner: Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J Med Chem, 37(24), 4130-46 (1994) (Pubitemid 24379702)
22. D. D. Robinson, P. J. Winn, P. D. Lyne and W. G. Richards: Self-organizing molecular field analysis: a tool for structure-activity studies. J Med Chem, 42(4), 573-83 (1999) (Pubitemid 29110773)
23. M. Catto, O. Nicolotti, F. Leonetti, A. Carotti, A. D. Favia, R. Soto-Otero, E. Mendez-Alvarez and A. Carotti: Structural insights into monoamine oxidase inhibitory potency and selectivity of 7-substituted coumarins from ligand- and targetbased approaches. J Med Chem, 49(16), 4912-25 (2006) (Pubitemid 44201049)
24. C. Hansch, T. Klein, J. McClarin, R. Langridge and N. W. Cornell: A quantitative structure-activity relationship and molecular graphics analysis of hydrophobic effects in the interactions of inhibitors with alcohol dehydrogenase. J Med Chem, 29(5), 615-20 (1986) (Pubitemid 16034664)
25. A. Cavalli, G. Greco, E. Novellino and M. Recanatini: Linking CoMFA and protein homology models of enzymeinhibitor interactions: an application to non-steroidal aromatase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem, 8(12), 2771-80 (2000)
26. A. M. Gamper, R. H. Winger, K. R. Liedl, C. A. Sotriffer, J. M. Varga, R. T. Kroemer and B. M. Rode: Comparative molecular field analysis of haptens docked to the multispecific antibody IgE(Lb4). J Med Chem, 39(20), 3882-8 (1996) (Pubitemid 26327425)
27. W. Sippl: Receptor-based 3D QSAR analysis of estrogen receptor ligands-merging the accuracy of receptor-based alignments with the computational efficiency of ligand-based methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 14(6), 559-72 (2000) (Pubitemid 30445059)
28. A. Carotti, R. N. Smith, S. Wong, C. Hansch, J. M. Blaney and R. Langridge: Papain hydrolysis of X-phenyl-Nmethanesulfonyl glycinates: a quantitative structure-activity relationship and molecular graphics analysis. Arch Biochem Biophys, 229(1), 112-25 (1984)
29. A. Carotti, G. Casini and C. Hansch: Structure-activity relationship of the ficin hydrolysis of phenyl hippurates. Comparison with papain, actinidin, and bromelain. J Med Chem, 27(11), 1427-31 (1984) (Pubitemid 15200563)
30. A. Vedani, H. Briem, M. Dobler, H. Dollinger and D. R. McMasters: Multiple-conformation and protonation-state representation in 4D-QSAR: the neurokinin-1 receptor system. J Med Chem, 43(23), 4416-27 (2000) (Pubitemid 32046866)
31. A. Vedani and M. Dobler: 5D-QSAR: the key for simulating induced fit? J Med Chem, 45(11), 2139-49 (2002) (Pubitemid 34525794)
32. A. Vedani, M. Dobler and M. A. Lill: Combining protein modeling and 6D-QSAR. Simulating the binding of structurally diverse ligands to the estrogen receptor. J Med Chem, 48(11), 3700-3 (2005) (Pubitemid 40776845)
33. M. Totrov: Atomic property fields: generalized 3D pharmacophoric potential for automated ligand superposition, pharmacophore elucidation and 3D QSAR. Chem Biol Drug Des, 71(1), 15-27 (2008)
34. L. B. Kier: Molecular orbital calculation of preferred conformations of acetylcholine, muscarine, and muscarone. Mol Pharmacol, 3(5), 487-94 (1967)
35. C. G. Wermuth, C. R. Ganellin, P. Lindberg and L. A. Mitscher: Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998). Pure Appl Chem, 70(5), 1129-1143 (1998)
36. G. A. Patani and E. J. LaVoie: Bioisosterism: A Rational Approach in Drug Design. Chem Rev, 96(8), 3147-3176 (1996) (Pubitemid 126641132)
37. S. Cross and G. Cruciani: Molecular fields in drug discovery: getting old or reaching maturity? Drug Discov Today, 15(1-2), 23-32 (2010)
38. R. Guha and J. H. van Drie: Structure-activity landscape index: identifying and quantifying activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model, 48(3), 646-58 (2008) (Pubitemid 351535432)
39. G. M. Maggiora: On outliers and activity cliffs-why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model, 46(4), 1535 (2006) (Pubitemid 44185680)
40. J. Bostrom, A. Hogner and S. Schmitt: Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion? J Med Chem, 49(23), 6716-25 (2006) (Pubitemid 44749739)
41. J. Gasteiger: Of molecules and humans. J Med Chem, 49(22), 6429-34 (2006) (Pubitemid 44657437)
42. G. Klebe, T. Mietzner and F. Weber: Methodological developments and strategies for a fast flexible superposition of drug-size molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 13(1), 35-49 (1999) (Pubitemid 29098941)
43. P. Labute, C. Williams, M. Feher, E. Sourial and J. M. Schmidt: Flexible alignment of small molecules. J Med Chem, 44(10), 1483-90 (2001) (Pubitemid 32852192)
44. C. Lemmen and T. Lengauer: Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 14(3), 215-32 (2000) (Pubitemid 30175941)
45. F. Melani, P. Gratteri, M. Adamo and C. Bonaccini: Field interaction and geometrical overlap: a new simplex and experimental design based computational procedure for superposing small ligand molecules. J Med Chem, 46(8), 1359-71 (2003) (Pubitemid 36512700)
46. M. Arakawa, K. Hasegawa and K. Funatsu: Application of the novel molecular alignment method using the Hopfield Neural Network to 3D-QSAR. J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 43(5), 1396-402 (2003)
47. M. Arakawa, K. Hasegawa and K. Funatsu: Novel alignment method of small molecules using the Hopfield Neural Network. J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 43(5), 1390-5 (2003)
48. R. B. Hermann and D. K. Herron: OVID and SUPER: two overlap programs for drug design. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 5(6), 511-24 (1991)
49. F. Manaut, F. Sanz, J. Jose and M. Milesi: Automatic search for maximum similarity between molecular electrostatic potential distributions. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 5(4), 371-80 (1991)
50. B. D. Hudson, D. C. Whitley, M. G. Ford, M. Swain and J. W. Essex: Pattern recognition based on colorcoded quantum mechanical surfaces for molecular alignment. J Mol Model, 14(1), 49-57 (2008) (Pubitemid 50005298)
51. J. Marialke, R. Korner, S. Tietze and J. Apostolakis: Graph-based molecular alignment (GMA). J Chem Inf Model, 47(2), 591-601 (2007) (Pubitemid 46615960)
52. J. F. Rico, R. López, I. Ema and G. Ramírez: Chemical forces in terms of the electron density. Theor Chem Account, 118(3), 709-721 (2007)
53. J. Manchester and R. Czerminski: SAMFA: simplifying molecular description for 3D-QSAR. J Chem Inf Model, 48(6), 1167-73 (2008)
54. M. Baroni, G. Costantino, G. Cruciani, D. Riganelli, R. Valigi and S. Clementi: Generating optimal linear PLS estimations (GOLPE): an advanced chemometric tool for handling 3D-QSAR problems. Quant Struct-Act Relat, 12(1), 9-20 (1993) (Pubitemid 23128716)
55. K. Hasegawa and K. Funatsu: Partial least squares modeling and genetic algorithm optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationships. SAR QSAR Environ Res, 11(3-4), 189-209 (2000)
56. T. A. Andrea and H. Kalayeh: Applications of neural networks in quantitative structure-activity relationships of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. J Med Chem, 34(9), 2824-36 (1991)
57. R. D. King, S. H. Muggleton, A. Srinivasan and M. J. Sternberg: Structure-activity relationships derived by machine learning: the use of atoms and their bond connectivities to predict mutagenicity by inductive logic programming. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 93(1), 438-42 (1996) (Pubitemid 26038172)
58. R. D. King, S. Muggleton, R. A. Lewis and M. J. Sternberg: Drug design by machine learning: the use of inductive logic programming to model the structure-activity relationships of trimethoprim analogues binding to dihydrofolate reductase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 89(23), 11322-6 (1992)
59. R. D. Cramer and B. Wendt: Pushing the boundaries of 3D-QSAR. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 21(1-3), 23-32 (2007) (Pubitemid 46416664)
60. R. Guha and J. H. van Drie: Assessing how well a modeling protocol captures a structure-activity landscape. J Chem Inf Model, 48(8), 1716-28 (2008)
61. A. R. Leach, V. J. Gillet, R. A. Lewis and R. Taylor: Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. J Med Chem, 53(2), 539-58 (2010)
62. D. Barnum, J. Greene, A. Smellie and P. Sprague: Identification of common functional configurations among molecules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 36(3), 563-71 (1996) (Pubitemid 126539357)
63. S. L. Dixon, A. M. Smondyrev, E. H. Knoll, S. N. Rao, D. E. Shaw and R. A. Friesner: PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology andpreliminary results. J Comput Aided Mol Des, 20(10-11), 647-71 (2006) (Pubitemid 46023928)
64. H. A. Carlson: Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target. Curr Opin Chem Biol, 6(4), 447-52 (2002) (Pubitemid 34804766)
65. G. Bottegoni, I. Kufareva, M. Totrov and R. Abagyan: Four-dimensional docking: a fast and accurate account of discrete receptor flexibility in ligand docking. J Med Chem, 52(2), 397-406 (2009)
66. G. Bottegoni, I. Kufareva, M. Totrov and R. Abagyan: A new method for ligand docking to flexible receptors by dual alanine scanning and refinement (SCARE). J Comput Aided Mol Des, 22(5), 311-25 (2008)
67. M. Rella, C. A. Rushworth, J. L. Guy, A. J. Turner, T. Langer and R. M. Jackson: Structure-based pharmacophore design and virtual screening for novel angiotensin converting enzyme 2 inhibitors. J Chem Inf Model, 46(2), 708-16 (2006)
68. I. Nobeli, A. D. Favia and J. M. Thornton: Protein promiscuity and its implications for biotechnology. Nat Biotechnol, 27(2), 157-67 (2009)
69. D. Bernard, A. Coop and A. D. MacKerell Jr: Conformationally sampled pharmacophore for peptidic delta opioid ligands. J Med Chem, 48(24), 7773-80 (2005) (Pubitemid 41698816)
70. J. Hritz and C. Oostenbrink: Efficient free energycalculations for compounds with multiple stable conformations separated by high energy barriers. J Phys Chem B, 113(38), 12711-20 (2009)
71. J. Hritz and C. Oostenbrink: Hamiltonian replica exchange molecular dynamics using soft-core interactions. J Chem Phys, 128(14), 144121 (2008)
72. A. J. Chalk, B. Beck and T. Clark: A quantum mechanical/neural net model for boiling points with error estimation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 41(2), 457-62 (2001) (Pubitemid 32408665)
73. B. Beck, A. Breindl and T. Clark: QM/NN QSPR models with error estimation: vapor pressure and logP. J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 40(4), 1046-51 (2000)
74. D. Meyer, F. Leisch and K. Hornik: The support vector machine under test. Neurocomputing, 55(1-2), 169-186 (2003) (Pubitemid 37336675)
75. D. L. Selwood, D. J. Livingstone, J. C. Comley, A. B. O'Dowd, A. T. Hudson, P. Jackson, K. S. Jandu, V. S. Rose and J. N. Stables: Structure-activity relationships of antifilarial antimycin analogues: a multivariate patter recognition study. J Med Chem, 33(1), 136-42 (1990) (Pubitemid 20038183)
76. J. J. Sutherland, L. A. O'Brien and D. F. Weaver: A comparison of methods for modeling quantitative structureactivity relationships. J Med Chem, 47(22), 5541-54 (2004) (Pubitemid 39382801)
77. J. Manchester and R. Czerminski: CAUTION: popular "benchmark" data sets do not distinguish the merits of 3D QSAR methods. J Chem Inf Model, 49(6), 1449-54 (2009)
78. J. C. Dearden, M. T. Cronin and K. L. Kaiser: How not to develop a quantitative structure-activity or structureproperty relationship (QSAR/QSPR). SAR QSAR Environ Res, 20(3-4), 241-66 (2009)
79. S. R. Johnson: The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J Chem Inf Model, 48(1), 25-6 (2008) (Pubitemid 351271047)
80. Phase, version 3.1, Schrödinger, LLC, New York, NY, 2009