Recent trends and observations in the design of high-quality screening collections

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 3, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 751-766

  Renner, Steffen ^a   Popov, Maxim ^a   Schuffenhauer, Ansgar ^a   Roth, Hans Joerg ^a   Breitenstein, Werner ^a   Marzinzik, Andreas ^a   Lewis, Ian ^a   Krastel, Philipp ^a   Nigsch, Florian ^b   Jenkins, Jeremy ^b   Jacoby, Edgar ^a  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^b NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PASIREOTIDE; POLYPEPTIDE ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; THIOMURACIN A; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

COMPUTER MODEL; DRUG ACTIVITY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN DOMAIN; REVIEW;

COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DNA; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; PROTEINS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES;

EID: 79955965972     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: 17568927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.11.15     Document Type: Review

References (167)

1. Bartlett PA, Entzeroth M. Exploiting Chemical Diversity for Drug Discovery. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, UK (2006).
2. Macarron R. Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 11(7-8), 277-279 (2006).
3. Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A, Popov M, et al. Key aspects of the Novartis compound collection enhancement project for the compilation of a comprehensive chemogenomics drug discovery screening collection. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5(4), 397-411 (2005). (Pubitemid 40753876)
4. Drewry DH, Macarron R. Enhancements of screening collections to address areas of unmet medical need: an industry perspective. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14(3), 289-298 (2010).
5. Spencer RW. High-throughput screening of historic collections: observations on file size, biological targets, and file diversity. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 61(1), 61-67 (1998). (Pubitemid 28561945)
6. Jacoby E, Mozzarelli A. Chemogenomic strategies to expand the bioactive chemical space. Curr. Med. Chem. 16(33), 4374-4381 (2009).
7. Triggle DJ. The chemist as astronaut: searching for biologically useful space in the chemical universe. Biochem. Pharmacol. 78(3), 217-223 (2009).
8. Bohacek RS, McMartin C, Guida WC. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 16(1), 3-50 (1996). (Pubitemid 26037075)
9. Walters WP, Stahl MT, Murcko MA. Virtual screening - an overview. Drug Discov. Today. 3(4), 160-178 (1998). (Pubitemid 128715971)
10. Fink T, Bruggesser H, Reymond JL. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 44(10), 1504-1508 (2005). (Pubitemid 40460043)
11. Blum LC, Reymond J-L. 970 million drug-like small molecules for virtual screening in the chemical universe database GDB-13. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131(25), 8732-8733 (2009).
12. Reymond J-L, van Deursen R, Blum LC, Ruddigkeit L. Chemical space as a source for new drugs. MedChemComm. 1(1), 30 (2010).
13. Ertl P, Jelfs S, Mhlbacher J, Schuffenhauer A, Selzer P. Quest for the rings. In silico exploration of ring universe to identify novel bioactive heteroaromatic scaffolds. J. Med. Chem. 49(15), 4568-4573 (2006). (Pubitemid 44162682)
14. Pitt WR, Parry DM, Perry BG, Groom CR. Heteroaromatic rings of the future. J. Med. Chem. 52(9), 2952-2963 (2009).
15. Lipinski C. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 46(1-3), 3-26 (2001). (Pubitemid 33653411)
16. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 41(5), 1308-1315 (2001).
17. Egan WJ, Merz KM, Baldwin JJ. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J. Med. Chem. 43(21), 3867-3877 (2000).
18. Martin YC. A bioavailability score. J. Med. Chem. 48(9), 3164-3170 (2005). (Pubitemid 40628036)
19. Leeson PD, Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 6(11), 881-890 (2007). (Pubitemid 350042396)
20. Waring MJ. Lipophilicity in drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5(3), 235-248 (2010).
21. Hert J, Irwin JJ, Laggner C, Keiser MJ, Shoichet BK. Quantifying biogenic bias in screening libraries. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5(7), 479-483 (2009).
22. Koch MA, Wittenberg LO, Basu S et al. Compound library development guided by protein structure similarity clustering and natural product structure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101(48), 16721-16726 (2005).
23. Koch MA, Schuffenhauer A, Scheck M et al. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP).Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102 (48), 17272-17277 (2005). (Pubitemid 41740856)
24. Wilk W, Zimmermann TJ, Kaiser M, Waldmann H. Principles, implementation, and application of biology-oriented synthesis (BIOS).Biol. Chem. 391(5), 491-497 (2010).
25. Dekker FJ, Rocks O, Vartak N et al. Small-molecule inhibition of APT1 affects Ras localization and signaling. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6(6), 449-456 (2010).
26. Antonchick AP, Gerding-Reimers C, Catarinella M et al. Highly enantioselective synthesis and cellular evaluation of spirooxindoles inspired by natural products. Nat. Chem. 2(9), 735-740 (2010).
27. Ertl P, Roggo S, Schuffenhauer A. Natural product-likeness score and its application for prioritization of compound libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(1), 68-74 (2008). (Pubitemid 351271051)
28. Cherkasov A. Can 'bacterial-metabolite-likeness' model improve odds of 'in silico' antibiotic discovery? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(3), 1214-1222 (2006). (Pubitemid 43999165)
29. Gupta S, Aires-De-Sousa J. Comparing the chemical spaces of metabolites and available chemicals: models of metabolite-likeness. Mol. Diversity. 11(1), 23-36 (2007). (Pubitemid 46639419)
30. Dobson PD, Patel Y, Kell DB. 'Metabolite-likeness' as a criterion in the design and selection of pharmaceutical drug libraries. Drug Discov. Today. 14(1-2), 31-40 (2009).
31. Ritchie TJ, Macdonald SJF. The impact of aromatic ring count on compound developability - are too many aromatic rings a liability in drug design? Drug Discov. Today. 14(21-22), 1011-1020 (2009).
32. Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52(21), 6752-6756 (2009).
33. Yang Y, Chen H, Nilsson I, Muresan S, Engkvist O. Investigation of the relationship between topology and selectivity for drug-like molecules. J. Med. Chem. 53(21), 7709-7714 (2010).
34. Roche O, Schneider P, Zuegge J et al. Development of a virtual screening method for identification of 'frequent hitters' in compound libraries. J. Med. Chem. 45(1), 137-142 (2002). (Pubitemid 34038548)
35. Thorne N, Auld DS, Inglese J. Apparent activity in high-throughput screening: origins of compound-dependent assay interference. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14(3), 315-324 (2010).
36. McGovern SL, Helfand BT, Feng B, Shoichet BK. A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. J. Med. Chem. 46(20), 4265-4272 (2003). (Pubitemid 37153008)
37. Seidler J, McGovern SL, Doman TN, Shoichet BK. Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. J. Med. Chem. 46(21), 4477-4486 (2003). (Pubitemid 37238749)
38. Baell JB, Holloway GA. New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J. Med. Chem. 53(7), 2719-2740 (2010).
39. Baell JB. Observations on screening-based research and some concerning trends in the literature. Future Med. Chem. 2(19), 1529-1546 (2010).
40. Gribbon P, Sewing A. High-throughput drug discovery: what can we expect from HTS? Drug Discov. Today 10(1), 17-22 (2005). (Pubitemid 40164815)
41. Lipkin MJ, Stevens AP, Livingstone DJ, Harris CJ. How large does a compound screening collection need to be? Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 11(6), 482-493 (2008). (Pubitemid 351969365)
42. Schuffenhauer A, Brown N, Selzer P, Ertl P, Jacoby E. Relationships between molecular complexity, biological activity, and structural diversity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(2), 525-535, 2006.
43. Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 10(4), 261-273 (1991).
44. Oprea TI, Allu TK, Fara DC, Rad RF, Ostopovici L, Bologa CG. Lead-like, drug-like or 'pub-like': how different are they? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 21(1-3), 113-119 (2007). (Pubitemid 46416670)
45. Abad-Zapatero C, Perišić O, Wass J et al. Ligand efficiency indices for an effective mapping of chemico-biological space: the concept of an atlas-like representation. Drug Discov. Today 15(19-20), 804-811 (2010).
46. Schuffenhauer A, Ruedisser S, Marzinzik AL et al. Library design for fragment based screening. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 5(8), 751-762 (2005). (Pubitemid 41179715)
47. Siegal G, Ab E, Schultz J. Integration of fragment screening and library design. Drug Discov. Today 12(23-24), 1032-1039 (2007). (Pubitemid 350180558)
48. Chen IJ, Hubbard RE. Lessons for fragment library design: analysis of output from multiple screening campaigns. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 23, 603-629 (2009).
49. Hubbard RE, Chen I, Davis B. Informatics and modeling challenges in fragment-based drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Drug. Discov. Devel. 10(3), 289-297 (2007). (Pubitemid 46800223)
50. Murray CW, Blundell TL. Structural biology in fragment-based drug design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 20(4), 497-507 (2010).
51. Hajduk PJ, Greer J. A decade of fragment-based drug design: strategic advances and lessons learned. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6(3), 211-219 (2007). (Pubitemid 46344625)
52. Chessari G, Woodhead AJ. From fragment to clinical candidate - a historical perspective. Drug Discov. Today 14(13-14), 668-675 (2009).
53. Schulz MN, Hubbard RE. Recent progress in fragment-based lead discovery. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 9(5), 615-621 (2009).
54. Alex AA, Flocco MM. Fragment-based drug discovery: what has it achieved so far? Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 7(16), 1544-1567 (2007). (Pubitemid 350131014)
55. Eccles SA, Massey A, Raynaud FI et al. NVP-AUY922: a novel heat shock protein 90 inhibitor active against xenograft tumor growth, angiogenesis, and metastasis. Cancer Res. 68(8), 2850-2860 (2008). (Pubitemid 351556284)
56. Jahnke W, Rondeau JM, Cotesta S et al. Allosteric non-bisphosphonate FPPS inhibitors identified by fragment-based discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6(9), 660-666 (2010).
57. Brenner S, Lerner RA. Encoded combinatorial chemistry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 89(12), 5381-5383 (1992).
58. Clark MA. Selecting chemicals: the emerging utility of DNA-encoded libraries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14(3), 396-403 (2010).
59. Buller F, Mannocci L, Scheuermann J, Neri D. Drug discovery with DNA-encoded chemical libraries. Bioconjug. Chem. 21(9), 1571-1580 (2010).
60. Schreiber SL. Target-oriented and diversity-oriented organic synthesis in drug discovery. Science 287(5460), 1964-1969 (2000). (Pubitemid 30158663)
61. Thomas GL, Spandl RJ, Glansdorp FG, et al. Anti-MRSA agent discovery using diversity-oriented synthesis. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 47(15), 2808-2812, (2008).
62. Galloway WR, Bender A, Welch M, Spring DR. The discovery of antibacterial agents using diversity-oriented synthesis. Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 18, 2446-2462 (2009).
63. Galloway WR, Isidro-Llobet A, Spring DR. Diversity-oriented synthesis as a tool for the discovery of novel biologically active small molecules. Nat. Commun. 1(6), (2010).
64. Di Micco S, Vitale R, Pellecchia M, et al. Identification of lead compounds as antagonists of protein Bcl-xL with a diversity-oriented multidisciplinary approach. J. Med. Chem.52(23), 7856-7867 (2009).
65. van Delft MF, Wei AH, Mason KD et al. The BH3 mimetic ABT-737- targets selective Bcl-2 proteins and efficiently induces apoptosis via Bak/Bax if Mcl-1 is neutralized. Cancer Cell 10(5), 389-399 (2006). (Pubitemid 44711953)
66. Driggers EM, Hale SP, Lee J, Terrett NK. The exploration of macrocycles for drug discovery - an underexploited structural class. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7(7), 608-624 (2008). (Pubitemid 351927725)
67. Oyelere AK. Macrocycles in medicinal chemistry and drug discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10(14), 1359-1360 (2010).
68. Obrecht D, Robinson JA, Bernardini F et al. Recent progress in the discovery of macrocyclic compounds as potential anti-infective therapeutics. Curr. Med. Chem. 16(1), 42-65 (2009).
69. Morris RP, Leeds JA, Naegeli HU et al. Ribosomally synthesized thiopeptide antibiotics targeting elongation factor Tu. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131(16), 5946-5955 (2009).
70. Weckbecker G, Lewis I, Albert R, Schmid HA, Hoyer D, Bruns C. Opportunities in somatostatin research: biological, chemical and therapeutic aspects. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2(12), 999-1017 (2003). (Pubitemid 37540581)
71. Petersenn S, Schopohl J, Barkan A et al. Pasireotide Acromegaly Study Group. Pasireotide (SOM230) demonstrates efficacy and safety in patients with acromegaly: a randomized, multicenter, Phase II trial. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 95(6), 2781-2789 (2010).
72. Boscaro M, Ludlam WH, Atkinson B et al. Treatment of pituitary dependent Cushing's disease with the multi-receptor ligand somatostatin analog pasireotide (SOM230): A multicenter, Phase II trial. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 94(1), 115-122 (2009).
73. Ankola DD, Durbin EW, Buxton GA, Schäfer J, Bakowsky U, Kumar MN. Preparation, characterization and in silico modeling of biodegradable nanoparticles containing cyclosporine A and coenzyme Q10. Nanotechnology 21(6), 065104 (2010).
74. Bi R, Shao W, Wang Q, Zhang N. Solid lipid nanoparticles as insulin inhalation carriers for enhanced pulmonary delivery. J. Biomed. Nanotechnol. 5(1), 84-92 (2009).
75. Paolini GV, Shapland RH, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS, Hopkins AL. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(7), 805-815 (2006). (Pubitemid 44086621)
76. Overington JP, Al-Lazikani B, Hopkins AL. How many drug targets are there? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5(12), 993-996 (2006). (Pubitemid 44835126)
77. Lackey KE. Gene family targeted molecular design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA (2008).
78. Oefner C, Binggeli A, Breu V et al. Renin inhibition by substituted piperidines: a novel paradigm for the inhibition of monomeric aspartic proteinases? Chem. Biol. 6(3), 127-131 (1999). (Pubitemid 29363148)
79. Rahuel J, Priestle JP, Grtter MG. The crystal structures of recombinant glycosylated human renin alone and in complex with a transition state analog inhibitor. J. Struct. Biol. 107(3), 227-236 (1991).
80. Specker E, Bottcher J, Lilie H et al. An old target revisited: two new privileged skeletons and an unexpected binding mode for HIV-protease inhibitors. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 44 (20), 3140-3144 (2005). (Pubitemid 40689862)
81. Specker E, Bottcher J, Brass S, et al. Unexpected novel binding mode of pyrrolidine-based aspartyl protease inhibitors: design, synthesis and crystal structure in complex with HIV protease. ChemMedChem. 1(1), 106-117 (2006). (Pubitemid 44104983)
82. Edwards AM, Bountra C, Kerr DJ, Willson TM. Open access chemical and clinical probes to support drug discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5(7), 436-440 (2009).
83. Best JD, Carey N. Epigenetic opportunities and challenges in cancer. Drug Discov. Today 15(1-2), 65-67 (2010).
84. Sippl W, Jung M. Epigenetic Targets in Drug Discovery. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA Weinheim, Germany (2009).
85. Schuffenhauer A, Floersheim P, Acklin P, Jacoby E. Similarity metrics for ligands reflecting the similarity of the target proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43(2), 391-405 (2003).
86. Schmitt S, Kuhn D, Klebe G. A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J. Mol. Biol. 323(2), 387-406 (2002). (Pubitemid 35283699)
87. Kuhn D, Weskamp N, Schmitt S, Hllermeier E, Klebe G. From the similarity analysis of protein cavities to the functional classification of protein families using cavbase. J. Mol. Biol. 359(4), 1023-1044 (2006). (Pubitemid 43842050)
88. Gold ND, Jackson RM. SitesBase: a database for structure-based protein-ligand binding site comparisons. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D231-D234 (2006).
89. Kinnings SL, Jackson RM. Binding site similarity analysis for the functional classification of the protein kinase family. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(2), 318-329 (2009).
90. Milletti F, Vulpetti A. Predicting polypharmacology by binding site similarity: from kinases to the protein universe. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(8), 1418-1431 (2010).
91. Weill N, Rognan D. Alignment-free ultra-high-throughput comparison of druggable protein-ligand binding sites. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(1), 123-135 (2010).
92. Weisel M, Kriegl JM, Schneider G. Architectural repertoire of ligand-binding pockets on protein surfaces. ChemBioChem 11(4), 556-563 (2010).
93. Nidhi, Glick M, Davies JW, Jenkins JL. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(3), 1124-1133 (2006). (Pubitemid 43999157)
94. 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). (Pubitemid 44749747)
95. Kellenberger E, Foata N, Rognan D. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: methods and problems. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(5), 1014-1025 (2008).
96. Nagamine N, Shirakawa T, Minato Y et al. Integrating statistical predictions and experimental verifications for enhancing protein-chemical interaction predictions in virtual screening. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5(6), e1000397 (2009).
97. Mestres J, Martín-Couce L, Gregori-Puigjané E, Cases M, Boyer S. Ligand-based approach to in silico pharmacology: nuclear receptor profiling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(6), 2725-2736 (2006). (Pubitemid 46008141)
98. Gregori-Puigjané E, Mestres J. A ligand-based approach to mining the chemogenomic space of drugs. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 11(8), 669-676 (2008).
99. Steindl TM, Schuster D, Laggner C, Langer T. Parallel screening: a novel concept in pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(5), 2146-2157 (2006). (Pubitemid 44625985)
100. 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). (Pubitemid 44622246)
101. 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). (Pubitemid 40873749)
102. Bender A, Scheiber J, Glick M et al. Analysis of pharmacology data and the prediction of adverse drug reactions and off-target effects from chemical structure. ChemMedChem. 2(6), 861-873 (2007).
103. Scheiber J, Chen B, Milik M et al. Gaining insight into off-target mediated effects of drug candidates with a comprehensive systems chemical biology analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(2), 308-317 (2009).
104. Scheiber J, Jenkins JL, Sukuru SCK et al. Mapping adverse drug reactions in chemical space. J. Med. Chem. 52(9), 3103-3107 (2009).
105. Morphy R, Rankovic Z. Designing multiple ligands - medicinal chemistry strategies and challenges. Curr. Pharm. Des 15(6), 587-600 (2009).
106. Evans BE, Rittle KE, Bock MG et al. Methods for drug discovery: development of potent, selective, orally effective cholecystokinin antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 31(12), 2235-2246 (1988). (Pubitemid 19001640)
107. DeSimone RW, Currie KS, Mitchell SA, Darrow JW, Pippin DA. Privileged structures: applications in drug discovery. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 7(5), 473-494 (2004).
108. Duarte CD, Barreiro EJ, Fraga CAM. Privileged structures: a useful concept for the rational design of new lead drug candidates. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 7(11), 1108-1119 (2007). (Pubitemid 350200217)
109. Welsch ME, Snyder SA, Stockwell BR. Privileged scaffolds for library design and drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 14(3), 347-361 (2010).
110. Schnur DM, Hermsmeier MA, Tebben AJ. Are target-family-privileged substructures truly privileged? J. Med. Chem. 49(6), 2000-2009 (2006).
111. Van Der Horst E, Okuno Y, Bender A, IJzerman AP. Substructure mining of GPCR ligands reveals activity-class specific functional groups in an unbiased manner. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(2), 348-360 (2009).
112. Aronov, AM, McClain B, Moody CS, Murcko MA. Kinase-likeness and kinase-privileged fragments: toward virtual polypharmacology. J. Med. Chem. 51(5), 1214-1222 (2008). (Pubitemid 351480383)
113. Klekota J, Roth FP. Chemical substructures that enrich for biological activity. Bioinformatics. 24(21), 2518-2525 (2008).
114. Schuffenhauer A, Ertl P, Roggo S, Wetzel S, Koch MA, Waldmann H. The scaffold tree - visualization of the scaffold universe by hierarchical scaffold classification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47(1), 47-58 (2007). (Pubitemid 46225559)
115. Renner S, van Otterlo WA, Dominguez Seoane M et al. Bioactivity-guided mapping and navigation of chemical space. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5(8), 585-592 (2009).
116. Wetzel S, Klein K, Renner S et al. Interactive exploration of chemical space with Scaffold Hunter. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5(8), 581-583 (2009).
117. Wetzel S, Wilk W, Chammaa S et al. A scaffold-tree-merging strategy for prospective bioactivity annotation of g-pyrones. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 49(21), 3666-3670 (2010).
118. Hu Y, Bajorath J. Scaffold distributions in bioactive molecules, clinical trials compounds, and drugs. ChemMedChem. 5(2), 187-190 (2010).
119. Hu Y, Bajorath J. Structural and potency relationships between scaffolds of compounds active against human targets. ChemMedChem. 5(10), 1681-1685 (2010).
120. Varin T, Gubler H, Parker CN, Zhang J-H, Ertl P, Schuffenhauer A. Compound set enrichment: a novel approach to analysis of primary HTS data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(12), 2067-2078 (2010).
121. Konrat R. The protein meta-structure: a novel concept for chemical and molecular biology. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 66(22), 3625-3639 (2009).
122. Holm L, Sander C. Mapping the protein universe. Science. 273(5275), 595-603 (1996).
123. Ye Y, Godzik A. Flexible structure alignment by chaining aligned fragment pairs allowing twists. Bioinformatics. 19(Suppl. 2), 90002, II246-II255 (2003). (Pubitemid 41296662)
124. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DT, Swindells MB, Thornton JM, CATH - a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures. Structure 5(8), 1093-1108 (1993). (Pubitemid 27393093)
125. Andreeva A, Howorth D, Chandonia JM et al. Data growth and its impact on the SCOP database: new developments. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D419-25 (2008). (Pubitemid 351149760)
126. 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). (Pubitemid 46227119)
127. Keiser MJ, Setola V, Irwin JJ et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462(7270), 175-181 (2009).
128. Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin A-C, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 321(5886), 263-266 (2008). (Pubitemid 351989100)
129. Schneider G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 9(4), 273-276 (2010).
130. Köppen H. Virtual screening - what does it give us? Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 12(3), 397-407 (2009).
131. Abel R, Young T, Farid R, Berne BJ, Friesner RA. Role of the active-site solvent in the thermodynamics of factor Xa ligand binding. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 130(9), 2817-2828 (2010).
132. Claussen H, Buning C, Rarey M, Lengauer T. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations. J. Mol. Biol. 308(2), 377-395 (2001). (Pubitemid 33043576)
133. Bottegoni G, Kufareva I, Totrov M, Abagyan R. Four-dimensional docking: a fast and accurate account of discrete receptor flexibility in ligand docking. J. Med. Chem. 52(2), 397-406 (2009).
134. Rueda M, Bottegoni G, Abagyan R. Consistent improvement of cross-docking results using binding site ensembles generated with elastic network normal modes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(3), 716-725 (2009).
135. Brooijmans N, Humblet C. Chemical space sampling by different scoring functions and crystal structures. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 24(5), 433-447 (2010).
136. Brooijmans N, Humblet C. Chemical space sampling in virtual screening by different crystal structures. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 76(6), 472-479 (2010).
137. Deng Y, Roux B. Computations of standard binding free energies with molecular dynamics simulations. J. Phys. Chem. B 113(8), 2234-2246 (2009).
138. Deng Z, Chuaqui C, Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47(2), 337-344 (2004). (Pubitemid 38057878)
139. Marcou G, Rognan D. Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47(1), 195-207 (2007). (Pubitemid 46237537)
140. Pérez-Nueno VI, Rabal O, Borrell JI, Teixidó J. APIF: a new interaction fingerprint based on atom pairs and its application to virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(5), 1245-1260 (2009).
141. Tan L, Bajorath J. Utilizing target-ligand interaction information in fingerprint searching for ligands of related targets. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 74(1), 25-32 (2009).
142. Hindle SA, Rarey M, Buning C, Lengauer T. Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 16(2), 129-149 (2002). (Pubitemid 34855039)
143. Peach ML, Nicklaus MC. Combining docking with pharmacophore filtering for improved virtual screening. J. Cheminform. 1(1), 6 (2009).
144. Seifert MHJ. Robust optimization of scoring functions for a target class. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 23(9), 633-644 (2009).
145. Seifert MHJ. Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today. 14(11- 12), 562-569 (2009).
146. Xue M, Zheng M, Xiong B, Li Y, Jiang H, Shen J. Knowledge-based scoring functions in drug design. 1. Developing a target-specific method for kinase-ligand interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(8), 1378-1386 (2010).
147. Radestock S, Böhm M, Gohlke H. Improving binding mode predictions by docking into protein-specifically adapted potential fields. J. Med. Chem. 48(17), 5466-5479 (2005). (Pubitemid 41209244)
148. Martin EJ, Sullivan DC. Surrogate AutoShim: predocking into a universal ensemble kinase receptor for three dimensional activity prediction, very quickly, without a crystal structure. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(4), 873-881 (2008). (Pubitemid 351757752)
149. Martin EJ, Sullivan DC. AutoShim: empirically corrected scoring functions for quantitative docking with a crystal structure and IC50 training data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(4), 861-872 (2008). (Pubitemid 351757751)
150. Radestock S, Weil T, Renner S. Homology model-based virtual screening for GPCR ligands using docking and target-biased scoring. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(5), 1104-1117 (2008).
151. Boström J, Hogner A, Schmitt S. Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion? J. Med. Chem. 49(23), 6716-6725 (2006). (Pubitemid 44749739)
152. Renner S, Derksen S, Radestock S, Mörchen F. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(2), 319-332 (2008). (Pubitemid 351473035)
153. Wallach I, Lilien R. Predicting multiple ligand binding modes using self-consistent pharmacophore hypotheses. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(9), 2116-2128 (2009).
154. Priestle JP. 3-D clustering: a tool for high throughput docking. J. Mol. Model. 15(5), 551-560 (2009).
155. Schneider G, Schneider P, Renner S. Scaffold-hopping: how far can you jump? QSAR Comb. Sci. 25(12), 1162-1171 (2006). (Pubitemid 46052453)
156. Brown N, Jacoby E. On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. Mini Rev.Med. Chem. 6(11), 1217-1229 (2006). (Pubitemid 44697101)
157. Mauser H, Guba W. Recent developments in de novo design and scaffold hopping. Curr. Opin. Drug Discovery Dev. 11(3), 365-374 (2008). (Pubitemid 351572446)
158. Langdon SR, Ertl P, Brown, N. Bioisosteric replacement and scaffold hopping in lead generation and optimization Mol. Inf. 29(5), 366-385 (2010).
159. Renner S, Schneider G. Scaffold-hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. ChemMedChem 1(2), 181-185 (2006). (Pubitemid 43700297)
160. Zhang Q, Muegge I. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. J. Med. Chem. 49(5), 1536-1548 (2006). (Pubitemid 43376501)
161. Vogt M, Stumpfe D, Geppert H, Bajorath J. Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fingerprints: true potential, black magic, or a hopeless endeavor? Guidelines for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 53(15), 5707-5715 (2010).
162. 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). (Pubitemid 47067628)
163. Tsunoyama K, Amini A, Sternberg MJE, Muggleton SH. Scaffold hopping in drug discovery using inductive logic programming. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(5), 949-957 (2008).
164. Lauri G, Bartlett PA. CAVEAT: a program to facilitate the design of organic molecules. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 8(1), 51-66 (1994).
165. Maass P, Schulz-Gasch T, Stahl M, Rarey M. Recore: a fast and versatile method for scaffold hopping based on small molecule crystal structure conformations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47(2), 390-399 (2007). (Pubitemid 46615943)
166. Bergmann R, Linusson A, Zamora I. SHOP: scaffold HOPping by GRID-based similarity searches. J. Med. Chem. 50(11), 2708-2717 (2007). (Pubitemid 46896079)
167. Fontaine F, Cross S, Plasencia G, Pastor M, Zamora I. SHOP: a method for structure-based fragment and scaffold hopping. ChemMedChem 4(3), 427-439 (2009).