4D flexible atom-pairs: An efficient probabilistic conformational space comparison for ligandbased virtual screening

Journal of Cheminformatics

Volumn 3, Issue 7, 2011, Pages

  Jahn, Andreas ^a   Rosenbaum, Lars ^a   Hinselmann, Georg ^a   Zell, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859143413     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17582946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-3-23     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. von Korff M, Freyss J, Sander T: Flexophore, a New Versatile 3D Pharmacophore Descriptor That Considers Molecular Flexibility. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48(4):797-810. (Pubitemid 351757745)
2. Bajorath J: Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002, 1(11):882-894. (Pubitemid 37361583)
3. Varnek A, Tropsha A, (Eds): Chemoinformatics Approaches to Virtual Screening Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry; 2008.
4. 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(2):205-216.
5. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Scheiber J, Sukuru SC, Glick M, Davies JW: How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:108-119.
6. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC, Reiling S: Similarity Searching of Chemical Databases Using Atom Environment Descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): Evaluation of Performance. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004, 44(5):1708-1718.
7. Barnard JM, Downs GM: Chemical Fragment Generation and Clustering Software. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997, 37:141-142.
8. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc. [http://www.daylight.com].
9. Symyx Software: MACCS structural keys. San Ramon, CA 2005.
10. Good AC, Hermsmeier MA, Hindle S: Measuring CAMD Technique Performance: A Virtual Screening Case Study in the Design of Validation Experiments. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 2004, 18(7):529-536.
11. Venkatraman V, Chakravarthy P, Kihara D: Application of 3D Zernike descriptors to shape-based ligand similarity searching. J Cheminf 2009, 1:19.
12. Grant JA, Gallardo MA, Pickup BT: A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape. J Comput Chem 1996, 17(14):1653-1666. (Pubitemid 126535414)
13. Mavridis L, Hudson BD, Ritchie DW: Toward High Throughput 3D Virtual Screening Using Spherical Harmonic Surface Representations. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47(5):1787-1796. (Pubitemid 47561126)
14. Vainio MJ, Puranen SJ, Johnson MS: ShaEP: Molecular Overlay Based on Shape and Electrostatic Potential. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49(2):492-502.
15. Clark DE, Jones G, Willett P, Kenny PW, Glen RC: Pharmacophoric pattern matching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: Comparison of conformational-searching algorithms for flexible searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1994, 34:197-206.
16. Baumann K: Distance Profiles (DiP): A translationally and rotationally invariant 3D structure descriptor capturing steric properties of molecules. Quant Struct-Act Relat 2002, 21:507-519. (Pubitemid 35402091)
17. Ballester PJ, Finn PW, Richards WG: Ultrafast shape recognition: Evaluating a new ligand-based virtual screening technology. J Mol Graphics Modell 2009, 27(7):836-845.
18. Iyer M, Hopfinger AJ: Treating Chemical Diversity in QSAR Analysis: Modeling Diverse HIV-1 Integrase Inhibitors Using 4D Fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47(5):1945-1960. (Pubitemid 47561142)
19. Senese CL, Duca J, Pan D, Hopfinger AJ, Tseng YJ: 4D-Fingerprints, Universal QSAR and QSPR Descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004, 44(5):1526-1539.
20. Ebalunode JO, Zheng W: Unconventional 2D Shape Similarity Method Affords Comparable Enrichment as a 3D Shape Method in Virtual Screening Experiments. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49(6):1313-1320.
21. Venkatraman V, Pérez-Nueno VI, Mavridis L, Ritchie DW: Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50(12):2079-2093.
22. Dixon SL, Merz KM: One-Dimensional Molecular Representations and Similarity Calculations: Methodology and Validation. J Med Chem 2001, 44(23):3795-3809. (Pubitemid 33051472)
23. Jahn A, Hinselmann G, Fechner N, Henneges C, Zell A: Probabilistic Modeling of Conformational Space for 3D Machine Learning Approaches. Mol Inf 2010, 29(5):441-455.
24. Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB: Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 1977, 39:1-38.
25. Schwarz GE: Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978, 6(2):461-464.
26. Akaike H: A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Control 1974, 19(6):716-723.
27. Jahn A, Hinselmann G, Rosenbaum L, Fechner N, Zell A: Boltzmann-Enhanced Flexible Atom-Pair Kernel with Dynamic Dimension Reduction. Mol Inf 2011, 30(4):307-315.
28. Jahn A, Hinselmann G, Fechner N, Zell A: Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening. J Cheminf 2009, 1:14.
29. Hinselmann G, Fechner N, Jahn A, Eckert M, Zell A: Graph kernels for chemical compounds using topological and three-dimensional local atom pair environments. Neurocomputing 2010, 74(1-3):219-229.
30. Fröhlich H, Wegner JK, Sieker F, Zell A: Optimal assignment kernels for attributed molecular graphs. ICML'05. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2005, 225-232. (Pubitemid 43183337)
31. Fröhlich H, Wegner JK, Sieker F, Zell A: Kernel Functions for Attributed Molecular Graphs - A New Similarity-Based Approach to ADME Prediction in Classification and Regression. QSAR Comb Sci 2006, 25(4):317-326.
32. DUD - A Directory of Useful Decoys. [http://dud.docking.org].
33. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ: Benchmarking Sets for Molecular Docking. J Med Chem 2006, 49(23):6789-6801. (Pubitemid 44749746)
34. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD: Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001, 41(5):1308-1315.
35. 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 2008, 22(3-4):169-178.
36. DUD Filtered - Lead-like filtered DUD. [http://dud.docking.org/jahn/].
37. van Drie JH: Pharmacophore Discovery - Lessons Learned. Curr Pharm Des 2003, 9(20):1649-1664.
38. Schrödinger, LLC: ConfGen. version 2.2, New York, NY 2010.
39. Watts KS, Dalal P, Murphy RB, Sherman W, Friesner RA, Shelley JC: ConfGen: A Conformational Search Method for Efficient Generation of Bioactive Conformers. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50(4):534-546.
40. Chen IJ, Foloppe N: Drug-like Bioactive Structures and Conformational Coverage with the LigPrep/ConfGen Suite: Comparison to Programs MOE and Catalyst. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50(5):822-839.
41. 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, 49:209-231.
42. Mackey MD, Melville JL: Better than Random? The Chemotype Enrichment Problem. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49(5):1154-1162.
43. Truchon JF, Bayly CI: Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47(2):488-508. (Pubitemid 46615951)
44. Fechner N, Jahn A, Hinselmann G, Zell A: Atomic Local Neighborhood Flexibility Incorporation into a Structured Similarity Measure for QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49(3):549-560.
45. Cheeseright TJ, Mackey MD, Melville JL, Vinter JG: FieldScreen: Virtual Screening Using Molecular Fields. Application to the DUD Data Set. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48(11):2108-2117.
46. The Open Babel Package. [http://openbabel.org], [Version 2.2.3].
47. Muchmore SW, Souers AJ, Akritopoulou-Zanze I: The Use of Three-Dimensional Shape and Electrostatic Similarity Searching in the Identification of a Melanin-Concentrating Hormone Receptor 1 Antagonist. Chem Biol Drug Des 2006, 67(2):174-176. (Pubitemid 43881377)