Application of NMR and molecular docking in structure-based drug discovery

Topics in Current Chemistry

Volumn 326, Issue , 2012, Pages 1-34

  Stark, Jaime L ^a   Powers, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Drug discovery; FAST NMR; In silico screening; Ligand affinity screens; Molecular docking; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

BINDING SITE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; REVIEW;

BINDING SITES; DRUG DISCOVERY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; LIGANDS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS;

EID: 84859922833     PISSN: 03401022     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/128_2011_213     Document Type: Review

References (182)

1. Venter JC et al (2001) The sequence of the human genome. Science 291(5507): 1304-1351
2. Paul SM et al (2010) How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9(3): 203-214
3. Kola I, Landis J (2004) Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 3(8): 711-715 (Pubitemid 39173511)
4. Cuatrecasas P (2006) Drug discovery in jeopardy. J Clin Invest 116(11): 2837-2842 (Pubitemid 44684465)
5. Bernal A, Ear U, Kyrpides N (2001) Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD): a monitor of genome projects world-wide. Nucleic Acids Res 29(1): 126-127 (Pubitemid 32054425)
6. Frishman D et al (2003) The PEDANT genome database. Nucleic Acids Res 31(1): 207-211 (Pubitemid 36150366)
7. White RH (2006) The difficult road from sequence to function. J Bacteriol 188(10): 3431-3432 (Pubitemid 43726205)
8. Gerlt JA, Babbitt PC (2000) Can sequence determine function? Genome Biol 1(5): REVIEWS0005
9. Rishton GM (1997) Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Discov Today 2(9): 382-384 (Pubitemid 27368216)
10. Seidler J et al (2003) Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. J Med Chem 46(21): 4477-4486 (Pubitemid 37238749)
11. McGovern SL et al (2003) A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. J Med Chem 46(20): 4265-4272 (Pubitemid 37153008)
12. McGovern SL et al (2002) A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J Med Chem 45(8): 1712-1722 (Pubitemid 34293537)
13. Kenny BA et al (1998) The application of high-throughput screening to novel lead discovery. Prog Drug Res 51: 245-269 (Pubitemid 28511546)
14. Macarron R (2006) Critical review of the role of HTS in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 11(7-8): 277-279
15. Powers R (2009) Advances in nuclear magnetic resonance for drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discov 4(10): 1077-1098
16. Pellecchia M et al (2008) Perspectives on NMR in drug discovery: a technique comes of age. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7(9): 738-745
17. Roberts GCK (2000) Applications of NMR in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 5(6): 230-240
18. Huth JR et al (2004) ALARM NMR: a rapid and robust experimental method to detect reactive false positives in biochemical screens. J Am Chem Soc 127(1): 217-224 (Pubitemid 40094385)
19. Dalvit C et al (2006) NMR-based quality control approach for the identification of false positives and false negatives in high throughput screening. Curr Drug Discov Technol 3(2): 115-124 (Pubitemid 44285197)
20. Schade M (2007) Fragment-based lead discovery by NMR. Front Drug Des Discov 3: 105-119
21. Zartler ER, Mo H (2007) Practical aspects of NMR-based fragment discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 7(16): 1592-1599 (Pubitemid 350131016)
22. Dalvit C (2009) NMR methods in fragment screening: theory and a comparison with other biophysical techniques. Drug Discov Today 14(21/22): 1051-1057
23. Fesik SW (1993) NMR structure-based drug design. J Biomol NMR 3(3): 261-269
24. Kubinyi H (1998) Structure-based design of enzyme inhibitors and receptor ligands. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 1(1): 4-15 (Pubitemid 128731837)
25. Ishihara K et al (2009) Identification of urinary biomarkers useful for distinguishing a difference in mechanism of toxicity in rat model of cholestasis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 105(3): 156-166
26. Ott K-H, Aranibar N (2007) Nuclear magnetic resonance metabonomics: methods for drug discovery and development. Methods Mol Biol 358: 247-271
27. Powers R (2009) NMR metabolomics and drug discovery. Magn Reson Chem 47(S1): S2-S11
28. Powers R, Mercier KA, Copeland JC (2008) The application of FAST-NMR for the identification of novel drug discovery targets. Drug Discov Today 13(3-4): 172-179
29. Mercier KA et al (2006) FAST-NMR: functional annotation screening technology using NMR spectroscopy. J Am Chem Soc 128(47): 15292-15299 (Pubitemid 44853540)
30. Kitchen DB et al (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3(11): 935-949 (Pubitemid 39529931)
31. Halperin I et al (2002) Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 47(4): 409-443 (Pubitemid 34614722)
32. Warren GL et al (2006) A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem 49(20): 5912-5931 (Pubitemid 44484938)
33. Hartshorn MJ et al (2007) Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. J Med Chem 50(4): 726-741 (Pubitemid 46332985)
34. Jacobsson M et al (2003) Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J Med Chem 46(26): 5781-5789 (Pubitemid 37543328)
35. Loving K, Salam NK, Sherman W (2009) Energetic analysis of fragment docking and application to structure-based pharmacophore hypothesis generation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23(8): 541-554
36. Salaniwal S et al (2007) Critical evaluation of methods to incorporate entropy loss upon binding in high-throughput docking. Proteins 66(2): 422-435 (Pubitemid 46053471)
37. Vasilyev V, Bliznyuk A (2004) Application of semiempirical quantum chemical methods as a scoring function in docking. Theor Chem Acc 112(4): 313-317 (Pubitemid 39329354)
38. Wei D et al (2010) Binding energy landscape analysis helps to discriminate true hits from high-scoring decoys in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 50(10): 1855-1864
39. Zavodszky MI et al (2009) Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening. J Mol Recognit 22(4): 280-292
40. Morris GM et al (2009) AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 30(16): 2785-2791
41. Ewing TJ et al (2001) DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J Comput Aided Mol Des 15(5): 411-428 (Pubitemid 32452109)
42. Rarey M et al (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261(3): 470-489 (Pubitemid 26335901)
43. Friesner RA et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47(7): 1739-1749 (Pubitemid 38380917)
44. Dominguez C, Boelens R, Bonvin AM (2003) HADDOCK: a protein-protein dockingapproach based on biochemical or biophysical information. J Am Chem Soc 125(7): 1731-1737 (Pubitemid 36232568)
45. Bohm HJ (1992) LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J Comput Aided Mol Des 6(6): 593-606
46. Bohm HJ (1992) The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 6(1): 61-78
47. Cerqueira NMFSA et al. (2010) Virtual screening of compound libraries. Methods Mol Biol 572: 57-70 (Ligand-Macromolecular Interactions in Drug Discovery)
48. Ripphausen P et al (2010) Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. J Med Chem 53(24): 8461-8467
49. Sousa SF et al (2010) Virtual screening in drug design and development. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 13(5): 442-453
50. Eckert H, Bajorath J (2007) Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. Drug Discov Today 12(5-6): 225-233
51. Merz KM Jr (2010) Limits of free energy computation for protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Theory Comput 6(5): 1769-1776
52. Proschak E et al (2007) Shapelets: possibilities and limitations of shape-based virtual screening. J Comput Chem 29(1): 108-114
53. Wyss DF, McCoy MA, Senior MM (2002) NMR-based approaches for lead discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 5(4): 630-647 (Pubitemid 36748993)
54. Lepre CA, Moore JM, Peng JW (2004) Theory and applications of NMR-based screening in pharmaceutical research. Chem Rev 104(8): 3641-3676
55. Mercier KA, Powers R (2005) Determining the optimal size of small molecule mixtures for high throughput NMR screening. J Biomol NMR 31(3): 243-258 (Pubitemid 41348928)
56. Hajduk PJ, Olejniczak ET, Fesik SW (1997) One-dimensional relaxation- and diffusionedited NMR methods for screening compounds that bind to macromolecules. J Am Chem Soc 119: 12257-12261 (Pubitemid 28078713)
57. Mayer M, Meyer B (1999) Characterization of ligand binding by saturation transfer difference NMR spectroscopy. Angew Chem Int Ed 38(12): 1784-1788 (Pubitemid 29290947)
58. Dalvit C et al (2000) Identification of compounds with binding affinity to proteins via magnetization transfer from bulk water. J Biomol NMR 18(1): 65-68
59. Jahnke W, Rudisser S, ZuriniM(2001) Spin label enhanced NMR screening. J Am Chem Soc 123(13): 3149-3150 (Pubitemid 32879588)
60. Vanwetswinkel S et al (2005) TINS, target immobilized NMR screening: an efficient and sensitive method for ligand discovery. Chem Biol 12(2): 207-216 (Pubitemid 40281328)
61. Fejzo J et al (1999) The SHAPES strategy: an NMR-based approach for lead generation in drug discovery. Chem Biol 6(10): 755-769 (Pubitemid 29485537)
62. Dalvit C et al (2003) Fluorine-NMR experiments for high-throughput screening: theoretical aspects, practical considerations, and range of applicability. J Am Chem Soc 125(25): 7696-7703 (Pubitemid 36750291)
63. Dalvit C et al (2002) Fluorine-NMR competition binding experiments for high-throughput screening of large compound mixtures. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 5(8): 605-611 (Pubitemid 35387857)
64. Dalvit C et al (2003) A general NMR method for rapid, efficient, and reliable biochemical screening. J Am Chem Soc 125(47): 14620-14625 (Pubitemid 37452398)
65. Dalvit C et al (2004) Reliable high-throughput functional screening with 3-FABS. Drug Discov Today 9(14): 595-602 (Pubitemid 38900509)
66. Price SW (1997) Pulsed-field gradient nuclear magnetic resonance as a tool for studying translational diffusion: part 1. Basic theory. Concepts Magn Reson 9: 299-336
67. Price SW (1998) Pulsed-field gradient nuclear magnetic resonance as a tool for studying translational diffusion: part II. Experimental aspects. Concepts Magn Reson 10: 197-237
68. Shortridge MD et al (2008) Estimating protein-ligand binding affinity using high-throughput screening by NMR. J Comb Chem 10(6): 948-958
69. Ji Z, Yao Z, LiuM(2009) Saturation transfer difference nuclear magnetic resonance study on the specific binding of ligand to protein. Anal Biochem 385(2): 380-382
70. Muhandiram DR et al (1993) A gradient 13C NOESY-HSQC experiment for recording NOESY spectra of 13C-labeled proteins dissolved in H2O. J Magn Reson B 102(3): 317-321
71. Sklenar V et al (1993) Gradient-tailored water suppression for proton-nitrogen-15 HSQC experiments optimized to retain full sensitivity. J Magn Reson A 102(2): 241-245
72. Per VK et al (1997) Attenuated T2 relaxation by mutual cancellation of dipole-dipole coupling and chemical shift anisotropy indicates an avenue to NMR structures of very large biological macromolecules in solution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94(23): 12366-12371
73. Shuker SB et al (1996) Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science 274(5292): 1531-1534 (Pubitemid 26403929)
74. Fielding L (2007) NMR methods for the determination of protein-ligand dissociation constants. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc 51: 219-242 (Pubitemid 350064300)
75. Morton CJ et al (1996) Solution structure and peptide binding of the SH3 domain from human Fyn. Structure 4(6): 705-714 (Pubitemid 126661293)
76. Stoll F (2003) Library design. Chimia 57(5): 224-228 (Pubitemid 36707182)
77. Erlanson DA, McDowell RS, O'Brien T (2004) Fragment-based drug discovery. J Med Chem 47(14): 3463-3482 (Pubitemid 38822007)
78. Siegal G, Ab E, Schultz J (2007) Integration of fragment screening and library design. Drug Discov Today 12(23-24): 1032-1039 (Pubitemid 350180558)
79. Lipinski CA (2004) Lead- and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov Today Technol 1(4): 337-341 (Pubitemid 40186335)
80. Schanda P, Kupce E, Brutscher B (2005) SOFAST-HMQC experiments for recording twodimensional heteronuclear correlation spectra of proteins within a few seconds. J Biomol NMR 33(4): 199-211 (Pubitemid 43118574)
81. Schanda P, Brutscher B (2006) Hadamard frequency-encoded SOFAST-HMQC for ultrafast two-dimensional protein NMR. J Magn Reson 178(2): 334-339 (Pubitemid 43107941)
82. Mori S et al (1995) Improved sensitivity of HSQC spectra of exchanging protons at short interscan delays using a new fast HSQC (FHSQC) detection scheme that avoids water saturation. J Magn Reson B 108(1): 94-98
83. Taufer M et al (2005) Study of an accurate and fast protein-ligand docking algorithm based on molecular dynamics. Concurr Comput 17(14): 1627-1641 (Pubitemid 41596127)
84. Garcia-Sosa AT, Sild S, Maran U (2009) Docking and virtual screening using distributed grid technology. QSAR Comb Sci 28: 815-821
85. Kuntz ID, Meng EC, Shoichet BK (1994) Structure-based molecular design. Acc Chem Res 27(5): 117-123 (Pubitemid 24972237)
86. Krovat EM, Steindl T, Langer T (2005) Recent advances in docking and scoring. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 1(1): 93-102
87. Cole JC et al (2005) Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult. Proteins 60 (3): 325-332 (Pubitemid 41061629)
88. Wandzik I (2006) Current molecular docking tools and comparisons thereof. MATCH 55 (2): 271-278 (Pubitemid 44891298)
89. Dias R, de Azevedo WF Jr (2008) Molecular docking algorithms. Curr Drug Targets 9 (12): 1040-1047
90. Viji SN, Prasad PA, Gautham N (2009) Protein-ligand docking using mutually orthogonal Latin squares (MOLSDOCK). J Chem Inf Model 49(12): 2687-2694
91. Pearce BC et al (2009) E-novo: an automated workflow for efficient structure-based lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model 49(7): 1797-1809
92. Mizutani MY, Tomioka N, Itai A (1994) Rational automatic search method for stable docking models of protein and ligand. J Mol Biol 243(2): 310-326 (Pubitemid 24331984)
93. Schlosser J, Rarey M (2009) Beyond the virtual screening paradigm: structure-based searching for new lead compounds. J Chem Inf Model 49(4): 800-809
94. Bostrom J, Greenwood JR, Gottfries J (2003) Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. J Mol Graph Model 21(5): 449-462 (Pubitemid 36120775)
95. Miller MD et al (1994) FLOG: a system to select quasi-flexible ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure. J Comput Aided Mol Des 8(2): 153-174
96. Griewel A et al (2009) Conformational sampling for large-scale virtual screening: accuracy versus ensemble size. J Chem Inf Model 49(10): 2303-2311
97. Hart TN, Read RJ (1994) Multiple-start Monte Carlo docking of flexible ligands. Birkhaeuser, Boston
98. Fuhrmann J et al (2010) A new Lamarckian genetic algorithm for flexible ligand-receptor docking. J Comput Chem 31(9): 1911-1918
99. Cao T, Li T (2004) A combination of numeric genetic algorithm and tabu search can be applied to molecular docking. Comput Biol Chem 28(4): 303-312
100. Huang S-Y, Zou X (2010) Advances and challenges in protein-ligand docking. Int J Mol Sci 11: 3016-3034
101. Huang S-Y, Grinter SZ, Zou X (2010) Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Phys Chem Chem Phys 12(40): 12899-12908
102. Huang S-Y, Zou X (2010) Mean-force scoring functions for protein-ligand binding. Annu Rep Comput Chem 6: 281-296
103. Bohme A et al (1998) Piperacillin/tazobactam versus cefepime as initial empirical antimicrobial therapy in febrile neutropenic patients: a prospective randomized pilot study. Eur J Med Res 3(7): 324-330
104. Eldridge MD et al (1997) 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 11(5): 425-445 (Pubitemid 127505895)
105. Tao P, Lai L (2001) Protein ligand docking based on empirical method for binding affinity estimation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 15(5): 429-446 (Pubitemid 32454469)
106. Wang R, Lai L, Wang S (2002) Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16(1): 11-26 (Pubitemid 34855041)
107. Muegge I, Martin YC (1999) A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J Med Chem 42(5): 791-804 (Pubitemid 29136170)
108. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G (2000) Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 295(2): 337-356 (Pubitemid 30045364)
109. Velec HF, Gohlke H, Klebe G (2005) DrugScore(CSD)-knowledge-based scoring function derived from small molecule crystal data with superior recognition rate of near-native ligand poses and better affinity prediction. J Med Chem 48(20): 6296-6303 (Pubitemid 41428984)
110. Kortagere S, Krasowski MD, Ekins S (2009) The importance of discerning shape in molecular pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 30(3): 138-147
111. McGann MR et al (2003) Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 68(1): 76-90 (Pubitemid 36098309)
112. Stark JL et al (2010) Solution structure and function of YndB, an AHSA1 protein from Bacillus subtilis. Proteins 78(16): 3328-3340
113. Merlitz H, Herges T, Wenzel W (2004) Fluctuation analysis and accuracy of a large-scale in silico screen. J Comput Chem 25(13): 1568-1575
114. Tirado-Rives J, Jorgensen WL (2006) Contribution of conformer focusing to the uncertainty in predicting free energies for protein-ligand binding. J Med Chem 49(20): 5880-5884 (Pubitemid 44484934)
115. Charifson PS et al (1999) Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J Med Chem 42(25): 5100-5109 (Pubitemid 30020261)
116. Peng JW (2009) Communication breakdown: protein dynamics and drug design. Structure 17(3): 319-320
117. Hayward S, de Groot BL (2008) Normal modes and essential dynamics. Methods Mol Biol 443: 89-106 (Molecular Modeling of Proteins)
118. Huang SY, Zou X (2007) Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. Proteins 66(2): 399-421 (Pubitemid 46053470)
119. Erickson JA et al (2004) Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47(1): 45-55 (Pubitemid 38040489)
120. Sherman W et al (2006) Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J Med Chem 49(2): 534-553 (Pubitemid 43157487)
121. Stark J, Powers R (2008) Rapid protein-ligand costructures using chemical shift perturbations. J Am Chem Soc 130(2): 535-545 (Pubitemid 351455567)
122. B-Rao C, Subramanian J, Sharma SD (2009) Managing protein flexibility in docking and its applications. Drug Discov Today 14(7-8): 394-400
123. Jiang F, Kim SH (1991) "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. J Mol Biol 219 (1): 79-102 (Pubitemid 121003975)
124. Claussen H et al (2001) FlexE: efficient molecular docking considering protein structurevariations. J Mol Biol 308(2): 377-395 (Pubitemid 33043576)
125. Alberts IL, Todorov NP, Dean PM (2005) Receptor flexibility in de novo ligand design and docking. J Med Chem 48(21): 6585-6596 (Pubitemid 41504716)
126. Barril X, Morley SD (2005) Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J Med Chem 48(13): 4432-4443 (Pubitemid 40884945)
127. Klebe G (2006) Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discov Today 11(13-14): 580-594
128. Schneider G, Bohm HJ (2002) Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. Drug Discov Today 7(1): 64-70
129. Chen H et al (2006) On evaluating molecular-docking methods for pose prediction and enrichment factors. J Chem Inf Model 46(1): 401-415 (Pubitemid 43282131)
130. Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS (2004) Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. J Med Chem 47(3): 558-565 (Pubitemid 38129714)
131. Kirchmair J et al (2008) 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 22(3-4): 213-228 (Pubitemid 351447959)
132. Bender A, Glen RC (2005) A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication. J Chem Inf Model 45(5): 1369-1375 (Pubitemid 41478810)
133. Truchon J-F, Bayly CI (2007) Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem. J Chem Inf Model 47(2): 488-508 (Pubitemid 46615951)
134. Scsibrany H et al (2003) Clustering and similarity of chemical structures represented by binary substructure descriptors. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 67(2): 95-108 (Pubitemid 36960205)
135. Davis AM et al (2005) Components of successful lead generation. Curr Top Med Chem 5(4): 421-439 (Pubitemid 40753878)
136. Sams-Dodd F (2006) Drug discovery: selecting the optimal approach. Drug Discov Today 11(9-10): 465-472
137. Fink T, Reymond JL (2007) Virtual exploration of the chemical universe up to 11 atoms of C, N, O, F: assembly of 26.4 million structures (110.9 million stereoisomers) and analysis for new ring systems, stereochemistry, physicochemical properties, compound classes, and drug discovery. J Chem Inf Model 47(2): 342-353 (Pubitemid 46615939)
138. Lahana R (1999) How many leads from HTS? Drug Discov Today 4(10): 447-448
139. Goode DR et al (2008) Identification of promiscuous small molecule activators in highthroughput enzyme activation screens. J Med Chem 51(8): 2346-2349 (Pubitemid 351628495)
140. Foloppe N et al (2006) Identification of chemically diverse Chk1 inhibitors by receptor-based virtual screening. Bioorg Med Chem 14(14): 4792-4802
141. Richardson CM et al (2007) Discovery of a potent CDK2 inhibitor with a novel binding mode, using virtual screening and initial, structure-guided lead scoping. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 17(14): 3880-3885 (Pubitemid 46920948)
142. Pellecchia M et al (2004) NMR-based techniques in the hit identification and optimization processes. Expert Opin Ther Targets 8(6): 597-611 (Pubitemid 40028369)
143. Galperin MY, Koonin EV (2010) From complete genome sequence to 'complete' understanding? Trends Biotechnol 28(8): 398-406
144. Tucker CL (2002) High-throughput cell-based assays in yeast. Drug Discov Today 7(18 Suppl): S125-S130 (Pubitemid 35286906)
145. Lee YH et al (2005) Gene knockdown by large circular antisense for high-throughput functional genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23(5): 591-599
146. Joshi T et al (2004) Genome-scale gene function prediction using multiple sources of high-throughput data in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. OMICS 8(4): 322-333 (Pubitemid 40250749)
147. del Val C et al (2004) High-throughput protein analysis integrating bioinformatics and experimental assays. Nucleic Acids Res 32(2): 742-748
148. Laurie AT, Jackson RM (2006) Methods for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites for structure-based drug design and virtual ligand screening. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7(5): 395-406 (Pubitemid 44524489)
149. Blundell TL et al (2006) Structural biology and bioinformatics in drug design: opportunities and challenges for target identification and lead discovery. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 361(1467): 413-423 (Pubitemid 44870098)
150. Vajda S, Guarnieri F (2006) Characterization of protein-ligand interaction sites using experimental and computational methods. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 9(3): 354-362 (Pubitemid 43774164)
151. Mercier KA, Germer K, Powers R (2006) Design and characterization of a functional library for NMR screening against novel protein targets. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 9(7): 515-534 (Pubitemid 44156709)
152. Mercier KA, Shortridge MD, Powers R (2009) A multi-step NMR screen for the identification and evaluation of chemical leads for drug discovery. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 12(3): 285-295
153. Powers R et al (2006) Comparison of protein active site structures for functional annotation of proteins and drug design. Proteins 65(1): 124-135 (Pubitemid 44320622)
154. Park K, Kim D (2008) Binding similarity network of ligand. Proteins 71(2): 960-971 (Pubitemid 351436337)
155. Mercier KA et al (2009) Structure and function of Pseudomonas aeruginosa protein PA1324 (21-170). Protein Sci 18(3): 606-618
156. Shortridge MD, Powers R (2009) Structural and functional similarity between the bacterial type III secretion system needle protein PrgI and the eukaryotic apoptosis Bcl-2 proteins. PLoS One 4(10): e7442
157. McCoy MA, Wyss DF (2000) Alignment of weakly interacting molecules to protein surfaces using simulations of chemical shift perturbations. J Biomol NMR 18(3): 189-198
158. Schieborr U et al (2005) How much NMR data is required to determine a protein-ligand complex structure? Chembiochem 6(10): 1891-1898 (Pubitemid 41475282)
159. Wang B, Westerhoff LM, Merz KM Jr (2007) A critical assessment of the performance of protein-ligand scoring functions based on NMR chemical shift perturbations. J Med Chem 50(21): 5128-5134 (Pubitemid 47585710)
160. Gonzalez-Ruiz D, Gohlke H (2009) Steering protein-ligand docking with quantitative NMR chemical shift perturbations. J Chem Inf Model 49(10): 2260-2271
161. Xu X-P, Case DA (2001) Automated prediction of 15N, 13CÎ, 13CÎ and 13C0 chemical shifts in proteins using a density functional database. J Biomol NMR 21(4): 321-333
162. Nilges M (1995) Calculation of protein structures with ambiguous distance restraints. Automated assignment of ambiguous NOE crosspeaks and disulphide connectivities. J Mol Biol 245(5): 645-660
163. Guntert P, Wuthrich K (2001) Sampling of conformation space in torsion angle dynamics calculations. Comput Phys Commun 138(2): 155-169 (Pubitemid 32691052)
164. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G (2000) Predicting binding modes, binding affinities and "hot spots" for protein-ligand complexes using a knowledge-based scoring function. Perspect Drug Discov Des 20: 115-144
165. Osapay K, Case DA (1991) A new analysis of proton chemical shifts in proteins. J Am Chem Soc 113(25): 9436-9444
166. Branson KM et al (2009) Discovery of inhibitors of lupin diadenosine 50,5000-P(1), P(4)- tetraphosphate hydrolase by virtual screening. Biochemistry 48(32): 7614-7620
167. JacobssonMet al (2008) Identification of Plasmodium falciparum spermidine synthase active site binders through structure-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 51(9): 2777-2786 (Pubitemid 351620799)
168. Lee Y et al (2009) Identification of compounds exhibiting inhibitory activity toward the Pseudomonas tolaasii toxin tolaasin I using in silico docking calculations, NMR binding assays, and in vitro hemolytic activity assays. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 19(15): 4321-4324
169. Veldkamp CT et al (2010) Targeting SDF-1/CXCL12 with a ligand that prevents activation of CXCR4 through structure-based drug design. J Am Chem Soc 132(21): 7242-7243
170. Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2005) ZINC-a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 45(1): 177-182 (Pubitemid 40736970)
171. Lorber DM, Shoichet BK (2005) Hierarchical docking of databases of multiple ligand conformations. Curr Top Med Chem 5(8): 739-749 (Pubitemid 41179714)
172. Bembenek SD, Tounge BA, Reynolds CH (2009) Ligand efficiency and fragmentbased drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 14(5-6): 278-283
173. Reynolds CH, Tounge BA, Bembenek SD (2008) Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J Med Chem 51(8): 2432-2438 (Pubitemid 351628504)
174. Barelier S et al (2010) Discovery of fragment molecules that bind the human peroxiredoxin 5 active site. PLoS One 5(3): e9744
175. Declercq JP et al (2001) Crystal structure of human peroxiredoxin 5, a novel type of mammalian peroxiredoxin at 1.5 A resolution. J Mol Biol 311(4): 751-759
176. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Fesik SW (2005) Druggability indices for protein targets derived from NMR-based screening data. J Med Chem 48(7): 2518-2525 (Pubitemid 40516441)
177. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Tse C (2005) Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov Today 10(23-24): 1675-1682 (Pubitemid 41817616)
178. Peng JW et al (2001) Nuclear magnetic resonance-based approaches for lead generation in drug discovery. Methods Enzymol 338: 202-230
179. Morris GM et al (1998) Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J Comput Chem 19(14): 1639-1662 (Pubitemid 128590223)
180. Wang JF et al (1992) Solution studies of staphylococcal nuclease H124L. 2. 1H, 13C, and 15N chemical shift assignments for the unligated enzyme and analysis of chemical shift changes that accompany formation of the nuclease-thymidine 30,50-bisphosphatecalcium ternary complex. Biochemistry 31(3): 921-936
181. 2+ ternary complex. Biochemistry 29(1): 102-113
182. 2+ ternary complex. Biochemistry 29(1): 88-101 (Pubitemid 20033710)