Diversity selection algorithms

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science

Volumn 1, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 580-589

  Gillet, Valerie J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMOINFORMATICS; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; DIVERSITY SELECTION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG DISCOVERY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING; MOLECULAR DIVERSITY; RECENT TRENDS;

BIOASSAY; BIOCHIPS; DRUG PRODUCTS; SCAFFOLDS;

ALGORITHMS;

EID: 84860467766     PISSN: 17590876     EISSN: 17590884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcms.33     Document Type: Review

References (71)

1. Bohacek RS, McMartin C, Guida WC. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med Res Rev 1996, 16:3-50.
2. Blum LC, Reymond JL. 970 Million druglike small molecules for virtual screening in the chemical universe database GDB-13. J Am Chem Soc 2009, 131:8732-+.
3. Fink T, Reymond JL. 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 2007, 47:342-353.
4. Johnson MA, Maggiora GM. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1990.
5. Lajiness M, Watson I. Dissimilarity-based approaches to compound acquisition. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2008, 12:366-371.
6. Gorse AD. Diversity in medicinal chemistry space. Curr Top Med Chem 2006, 6:3-18.
7. Maldonado AG, Doucet JP, Petitjean M, Fan BT. Molecular similarity and diversity in chemoinformatics: from theory to applications. Mol Divers 2006, 10:39-79.
8. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM. Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998, 38:983-996.
9. Willett P. Similarity methods in chemoinformatics. Annu Rev Inf Sci Technol 2009, 43:3-71.
10. MACCS keys Symyx Technologies Inc. Santa Clara, CA.
11. Daylight fingerprints. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., Aliso Viejo, CA. www.daylight.com at http://www.daylight.com. Accessed 27 March 2011
12. eduSoft lc. Molconn -Z. Ashland, VA. http://www.eslc.vabiotech.com. Accessed 27 March 2011
13. Patterson DE, Cramer RD, Ferguson AM, Clark RD, Weinberger LE. Neighbourhood behaviour: a useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. J Med Chem 1996, 39:3049-3059.
14. Dixon SL, Merz KM. One-dimensional molecular representations and similarity calculations: methodology and validation. J Med Chem 2001, 44:3795-3809.
15. Perekhodtsev GD. Neighborhood behavior: validation of two-dimensional molecular similarity as a predictor of similar biological activities and docking scores. QSAR Comb Sci 2007, 26:346-351.
16. Papadatos G, Cooper AWJ, Kadirkamanathan V, Macdonald SJF, McLay IM, Pickett SD, Pritchard JM, Willett P, Gillet VJ. Analysis of neighborhood behavior in lead optimization and array design. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:195-208.
17. Lewis RA, Mason JS, McLay IM. Similarity measures for rational set selection and analysis of combinatorial libraries: the diverse property-derived (DPD) approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997, 37:599-614.
18. Cummins DJ, Andrews CW, Bentley JA, Cory M. Molecular diversity in chemical databases: comparison of medicinal chemistry knowledge bases and databases of commercially available compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996, 36:750-763.
19. Pickett SD, Mason JS, McLay IM. Diversity profiling and design using 3D pharmacophores: pharmacophore-derived queries (PDQ). J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996, 36:1214-1223.
20. Mason JS, Morize I, Menard PR, Cheney DL, Hulme C, Labaudiniere RF. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J Med Chem 1999, 42:3251-3264.
21. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. I. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996, 39:2887-2893.
22. Xu YJ, Johnson M. Algorithm for naming molecular equivalence classes represented by labeled pseudographs. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001, 41:181-185.
23. Wilkens SJ, Janes J, Su AI. HierS: hierarchical scaffold clustering using topological chemical graphs. J Med Chem 2005, 48:3182-3193.
24. 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 2007, 47:47-58.
25. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, Acklin P, Azzaoui K, Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A. New methods for ligand-based virtual screening: use of data fusion and machine learning to enhance the effectiveness of similarity searching. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:462-470.
26. Verheij HJ. Leadlikeness and structural diversity of synthetic screening libraries. Mol Divers 2006, 10:377-388.
27. Krier M, Bret G, Rognan D. Assessing the scaffold diversity of screening libraries. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:512-524.
28. Koch MA, Schuffenhauer A, Scheck M, Wetzel S, Casaulta M, Odermatt A, Ertl P, Waldmann H. Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2005, 102:17272-17277.
29. Singh N, Guha R, Giulianotti MA, Pinilla C, Houghten RA, Medina-Franco JL. Chemoinformatic analysis of combinatorial libraries, drugs, natural products, and molecular libraries small molecule repository. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1010-1024.
30. Davies JW, Glick M, Jenkins JL. Streamlining lead discovery by aligning in silico and high-throughput screening. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2006, 10:343-351.
31. Lajiness MS. Molecular similarity-based methods for selecting compounds for screening. In: Rouvray DH, ed. Computational Chemical Graph Theory. New York: Nova Science Publishers; 1990, 299-316.
32. Holliday JD, Ranade SS, Willett P. A fast algorithm for selecting sets of dissimilar molecules from large chemical databases. Quant Struct-Activ Relat 1995, 14:501-506.
33. Snarey M, Terrett NK, Willett P, Wilton DJ. Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. J Mol Graph Model 1997, 15:372-385.
34. Agrafiotis D, Lobanov VS. An efficient implementation of distance-based diversity measures based on K-D Trees. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39:51-58.
35. Taylor R. Simulation analysis of experimental-design strategies for screening random compounds as potential new drugs and agrochemicals. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1995, 35:59-67.
36. Hudson BD, Hyde RM, Rahr E, Wood J. Parameter based methods for compound selection from chemical databases. Quant Struct-Activ Relat 1996, 15:285-289.
37. Clark RD, Langton WJ. Balancing representativeness against diversity using optimizable K-dissimilarity and hierarchical clustering. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998, 38:1079-1086.
38. Downs GM, Barnard JM. Clustering methods and their uses in computational chemistry. In: Lipkowitz KB, Boyd DB, eds. Reviews in Computational Chemistry Volume 18. New York: VCH Publishers;, 2002, 1-40.
39. Ward JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 1963, 58:236-244.
40. Jarvis RA, Patrick EA. Clustering using a similarity measure based on shared nearest neighbours. IEEE Trans Comput 1973, C-22:1025-1034.
41. Forgy EW. Cluster analysis of multivariate data-efficiency vs interpetability of classifications. Biometrics 1965, 21:768-780.
42. Murtagh F. Multidimensional Clustering Algorithms. Vienna: Physica Verlag; 1985.
43. Pearlman RS, Smith KM. Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1998, 9-11:339-353.
44. Schnur D. Design and diversity analysis of large combinatorial libraries using cell-based methods. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39:36-45.
45. Hassan M, Bielawski JP, Hempel JC, Waldman M. Optimization and visualization of molecular diversity of combinatorial libraries. Mol Divers 1996, 2:64-74.
46. Waldman M, Li H, Hassan M. Novel algorithms for the optimization of molecular diversity of combinatorial libraries. J Mol Graph Model 2000, 18:412-+.
47. Mount J, Ruppert J, Welch W, Jain AN. Icepick: a flexible surface-based system for molecular diversity. J Med Chem 1999, 42:60-66.
48. Agrafiotis DK. Multiobjective optimization of combinatorial libraries. J Comput Aid Mol Des 2002, 16:335-356.
49. Le Bailly de Tilleghem C, Beck B, Boulanger B, Govaerts B. A fast exchange algorithm for designing focused libraries in lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 45:758-767.
50. Gillet VJ, Khatib W, Willett P, Fleming PJ, Green, DVS Combinatorial library design using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2002, 42:375-385.
51. Wright T, Gillet VJ, Green DVS, Pickett SD. Optimizing the size and configuration of combinatorial libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003, 43:381-390.
52. Lajiness M. Evaluation of the performance of dissimilarity selection methodology. In: Silipo C, Vittoria A, eds. QSAR: Rational Approaches to the Design of Bioactive Molecules. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers; 1991, 201-204.
53. Pötter T, Matter H. Random or rational design? Evaluation of diverse compound subsets from chemical structure databases. J Med Chem 1998, 41:478-488.
54. Yeap SK, Walley RJ, Snarey M, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS. Designing compound subsets: comparison of random and rational approaches using statistical simulation. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:2149-2158.
55. Schuffenhauer A, Brown N, Selzer P, Ertl P, Jacoby E. Relationships between molecular complexity, biological activity, and structural diversity. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:525-535.
56. Holliday JD, Salim N, Whittle M, Willett P. Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2003, 43:819-828.
57. Schuffenhauer A, Brown N. Chemical diversity and biological activity. Drug Discov Today: Technol 2006, 3:387-395.
58. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1997, 23:3-25.
59. Oprea TI. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? J Comp-Aided Mol Des 2002, 16:325-334.
60. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2001, 41:1308-1315.
61. Davis AM, Riley RJ. Predictice ADMET studies, the challenges and the opportunities. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004, 8:378-386.
62. Gola J, Obrezanova O, Champness E, Segall M. ADMET property prediction: the state of the art and current challenges. QSAR Comb Sci 2006, 25:1172-1180.
63. Lajiness MS. Dissimilarity-based compound selection techniques. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1997, 7-8:65-84.
64. Doman TN, Cibulskis JM, Cibulskis MJ, McCray PD, Spangler DP. Algorithm5: a technique for fuzzy similarity clustering of chemical inventories. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996, 36:1195-1204.
65. Engels MFM, Gibbs AC, Jaeger EP, Verbinnen D, Lobanov VS, Agrafiotis DK. A cluster-based strategy for assessing the overlap between large chemical libraries and its application to a recent acquisition. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2651-2660.
66. Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V, Lajiness MS, Doman TN, Schultz MW. A practical strategy for directed compound acquisition. In: Oprea TI, ed. Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2004, 317-332.
67. Brown RD, Martin YC. Use of structure-activity data to compare structure-based clustering methods and descriptors for use in compound selection. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1996, 36:572-584.
68. Martin YC. What works and what does not: Lessons from experience in a pharmaceutical company. QSAR Comb Sci 2006, 25:1192-1200.
69. Martin YC, Kofron JL, Traphagen LM. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activities? J Med Chem 2002, 45:4350-4358.
70. Maggiora GM. On outliers and activity cliffs-why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1535-1535.
71. Muchmore SW, Debe DA, Metz JT, Brown SP, Martin YC, Hajduk PJ. Application of belief theory to similarity data fusion for use in analog searching and lead hopping. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:941-948.