PLS-DA - Docking optimized combined energetic terms (PLSDA-DOCET) protocol: A brief evaluation

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 51, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 3169-3179

  Avram, Sorin ^a   Pacureanu, Liliana M ^a   Seclaman, Edward ^b   Bora, Alina ^a   Kurunczi, Ludovic ^b  

^a ACADEMY OF ROMANIAN SCIENTISTS   (Romania)

^b VICTOR BABES UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND PHARMACY   (Romania)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINDING ENERGY;

BIOLOGICAL TARGETS; CONSENSUS SCORING; DOCKING STUDIES; OPTIMIZATION STRATEGY; PERFORMANCE VARIATIONS; SCAFFOLD HOPPING; SCORING FUNCTIONS; SIMILARITY SEARCH;

LIGANDS;

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; ENZYME ACTIVE SITE; EVALUATION; METABOLISM; PROTEIN BINDING;

ALGORITHMS; CATALYTIC DOMAIN; DRUG DESIGN; LIGANDS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS;

EID: 84555194741     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci2002268     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Johnson, M. A.; Maggiora, G. M. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity; John Wiley & Sons. Inc.: New York, 1990; p 393.
2. Kitchen, D. B.; Decornez, H.; Furr, J. R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications Nat. Rev. Drug Discovovery 2004, 3, 935-949
3. Bernstein, F. C.; Koetzle, T. F.; Williams, G. J.; Meyer, E. F.; Brice, M. D.; Rodgers, J. R.; Kennard, O.; Shimanouchi, T.; Tasumi, M. The Protein Data Bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structures J. Mol. Biol. 1977, 112, 535-542
4. Halperin, I.; Ma, B.; Wolfson, H.; Nussinov, R. Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2002, 47, 409-443
5. Claussen, H.; Buning, C.; Rarey, M.; Lengauer, T. FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structure variations J. Mol. Biol. 2001, 308, 377-395
6. Böhm, H. J. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 243-256
7. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042
8. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A; Walters, W. P. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5100-5109
9. Jacobsson, M.; Lidén, P.; Stjernschantz, E.; Boström, H.; Norinder, U. Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 5781-5789
10. Teramoto, R.; Fukunishi, H. Consensus scoring with feature selection for structure-based virtual screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 288-295
11. Teramoto, R.; Fukunishi, H. Supervised Consensus Scoring for Docking and Virtual Screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 526-534
12. Fukunishi, H.; Teramoto, R.; Takada, T.; Shimada, J. Bootstrap-based consensus scoring method for protein-ligand docking J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 988-996
13. Betzi, S.; Suhre, K.; Chétrit, B.; Guerlesquin, F.; Morelli, X. GFscore: a general nonlinear consensus scoring function for high-throughput docking J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1704-1712
14. Ståhle, L.; Wold, S. Partial least squares analysis with cross-validation for the two-class problem: A Monte Carlo study J. Chemom. 1987, 1, 185-196
15. Wold, S.; Sjöström, M.; Eriksson, L. PLS in chemistry. In The Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry; Schleyer, P. v. R.; Allinger, N. L.; Clark, T.; Gasteiger, J.; Kollman, P. A.; Schaefer, H. F., III; Schreiner, P. R., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 1999; pp 2006-2020.
16. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801
17. Good, A. C.; Oprea, T. I. Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 169-178
18. Oprea, T. I.; Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J.; Leeson, P. D. Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs ? A Historical Perspective J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1308-1315
19. Gillet, V. J.; Willett, P.; Bradshaw, J. Similarity searching using reduced graphs J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 338-345
20. Tammali, R.; Saxena, A.; Srivastava, S. K.; Ramana, K. V. Aldose reductase inhibition prevents hypoxia-induced increase in hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha (HIF-1alpha) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) by regulating 26 S proteasome-mediated protein degradation in human colon cancer cells J. Biol. Chem. 2011, 286, 24089-24100
21. Akli, S.; Van Pelt, C. S.; Bui, T.; Meijer, L.; Keyomarsi, K. Cdk2 is required for breast cancer mediated by the low-molecular-weight isoform of cyclin E Cancer Res. 2011, 71, 3377-3386
22. Jiménez, P.; García, A.; Santander, S.; Piazuelo, E. Prevention of cancer in the upper gastrointestinal tract with COX-inhibition. Still an option? Curr. Pharm. Des. 2007, 13, 2261-2273
23. Jackman, D. M.; Miller, V. A.; Cioffredi, L. A.; Yeap, B. Y.; Jänne, P. A.; Riely, G. J.; Ruiz, M. G.; Giaccone, G.; Sequist, L. V.; Johnson, B. E. Impact of epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutations on clinical outcomes in previously untreated non-small cell lung cancer patients: results of an online tumor registry of clinical trials Clin. Cancer Res. 2009, 15, 5267-5273
24. Prins, G. S.; Korach, K. S. The role of estrogens and estrogen receptors in normal prostate growth and disease Steroids 2008, 73, 233-244
25. OMEGA, version 2.0; OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, 2009.
26. FRED, version 2.2.5; OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, 2009.
27. McGann, M. R.; Almond, H. R.; Nicholls, A.; Grant, J. A.; Brown, F. K. Gaussian docking functions Biopolymers 2003, 68, 76-90
28. Gehlhaar, D. K.; Verkhivker, G. M.; Rejto, P. A.; Sherman, C. J.; Fogel, D. B.; Fogel, L. J.; Freer, S. T. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AC-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming Chem. Biol. (Cambridge, MA, U. S.) 1995, 2, 317-324
29. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 425-445
30. SIMCA P, version 9.0; Umetrics AB: Umea, Sweden, 2001.
31. Eriksson, L.; Johansson, E.; Kettaneh-Wold, N.; Woold, S. Multi- and Megavariate Data Analysis. Principles and Applications; Umetrics AB: Umeå, 2001; pp 92-97; 489-491.
32. Fawcett, T. An introduction to ROC analysis Pattern Recognit. Lett. 2006, 27, 861-874
33. Jain, A. N. Bias, reporting, and sharing: computational evaluations of docking methods J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 201-212
34. Jain, A. N.; Nicholls, A. Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 133-139
35. Hanley, J. A.; McNeil, B. J. The Meaning and Use of the Area under a Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) Curve Radiology 1982, 143, 29-36
36. Clark, R. D.; Webster-Clark, D. J. Managing bias in ROC curves J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 141-146
37. Mackey, M. D.; Melville, J. L. Better than random? The chemotype enrichment problem J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1154-1162
38. Jahn, A.; Hinselmann, G.; Fechner, N.; Zell, A. Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening J. Cheminf. 2009, 1, 14
39. Pipeline Pilot Student Edition, version 6.1.5; SciTegic, Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2007.
40. ROCS, version 3.1; OpenEye Scientific Software, Inc.: Santa Fe, NM, 2010.
41. Grant, J. A; Gallardo, M. A; Pickup, B. J. A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 1653-1666
42. Overington, J. ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A. Warr J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2009, 23, 195-198
43. The UniProt Consortium. Ongoing and future developments at the Universal Protein Resource. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39, D214-D219.
44. Jain, E.; Bairoch, A.; Duvaud, S.; Phan, I.; Redaschi, N.; Suzek, B. E.; Martin, M. J.; McGarvey, P.; Gasteiger, E. Infrastructure for the life sciences: design and implementation of the UniProt website BMC Bioinf. 2009, 10, 136
45. Irwin, J. J.; Shoichet, B. K. ZINC - A Free Database of Commercially Available Compounds for Virtual Screenin J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 177-182
46. Durant, J. L; Leland, B. A.; Henry, D. R.; Nourse, J. G. Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1273-1280
47. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C. I.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C.; Lindsley, S.; Maiorov, V.; Truchon, J.-F.; Cornell, W. D. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1504-1519
48. Krüger, D. M.; Evers, A. Comparison of structure- and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors ChemMedChem 2010, 5, 148-158
49. Kirchmair, J; Distinto, S; Markt, P; Schuster, D; Spitzer, G. M.; Liedl, K. R.; Wolber, G. How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: choosing the right query and including chemical information J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 678-692
50. Kirchmair, J.; Markt, P.; Distinto, S.; Wolber, G.; Langer, T. Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection-what can we learn from earlier mistakes? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 213-228
51. Truchon, J. F.; Bayly, C. I. Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508
52. Kendall, M. G. Rank Correlation Methods, 4 th ed.; Griffin: London, 1976; p 55.
53. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 2.11.1; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2010. http://www.R-project.org (accessed Apr 07, 2011).
54. Steuber, H.; Zentgraf, M.; La Motta, C.; Sartini, S.; Heine, A.; Klebe, G. Evidence for a novel binding site conformer of aldose reductase in ligand-bound state J. Mol. Biol. 2007, 369, 186-197
55. Craig, I. R.; Essex, J. W.; Spiegel, K. Ensemble Docking into Multiple Crystallographically Derived Protein Structures: An Evaluation Based on the Statistical Analysis of Enrichments J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 511-524