The enumeration of chemical space

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science

Volumn 2, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 717-733

  Reymond, Jean Louis ^a   Ruddigkeit, Lars ^a   Blum, Lorenz ^a   van Deursen, Ruud ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865298452     PISSN: 17590876     EISSN: 17590884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1104     Document Type: Review

References (167)

1. 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 Delivery Rev 1997, 23:3-25.
2. Cayley E. Ueber die analytischen Figuren, welche in der Mathematik Bäume genannt werden und ihre Anwendung auf die Theorie chemischer Verbindungen. Chem Ber 1875, 8:1056-1059.
3. Schiff H. Zur statistik chemischer verbindungen. Chem Ber 1875, 8:1542-1547.
4. Henze HR, Blair CM. The number of isomeric hydrocarbons of the methane series. J Am Chem Soc 1931, 53:3077-3085.
5. Brinkmann G, Caporossi G, Hansen P. A survey and new results on computer enumeration of polyhex and fusene hydrocarbons. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003, 43:842-851.
6. Dias JR. The polyhex/polypent topological paradigm: regularities in the isomer numbers and topological properties of select subclasses of benzenoid hydrocarbons and related systems. Chem Soc Rev 2010, 39:1913-1924.
7. 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.
8. Kirkpatrick P, Ellis C. Chemical space. Nature 2004, 432:823-823.
9. Ertl P. Cheminformatics analysis of organic substituents: identification of the most common substituents, calculation of substituent properties, and automatic identification of drug-like bioisosteric groups. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003, 43:374-380.
10. Williams AJ. Public chemical compound databases. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2008, 11:393-404.
11. Bolton EE, Wang Y, Thiessen PA, Bryant SH. Chapter 12 PubChem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities. In: Ralph AW, David CS, eds. Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry. Vol. 4. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008, 217-241.
12. Wang Y, Xiao J, Suzek TO, Zhang J, Wang J, Bryant SH. PubChem: a public information system for analyzing bioactivities of small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:W623-W633.
13. Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. ZINC - A free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 45, 177-182.
14. Voigt JH, Bienfait B, Wang S, Nicklaus MC. Comparison of the NCI open database with seven large chemical structural databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001, 41:702-712.
15. Chen J, Swamidass SJ, Dou Y, Bruand J, Baldi P. ChemDB: a public database of small molecules and related chemoinformatics resources. Bioinformatics 2005, 21:4133-4139.
16. Chen X, Liu M, Gilson MK. BindingDB: a Web-accessible molecular recognition database. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2001, 4:719-725.
17. Liu T, Lin Y, Wen X, Jorissen RN, Gilson MK. BindingDB: a Web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35:D198-D201.
18. Seiler KP, George GA, Happ MP, Bodycombe NE, Carrinski HA, Norton S, Brudz S, Sullivan JP, Muhlich J, Serrano M, Ferraiolo P, Tolliday NJ, Schreiber SL, Clemons PA. ChemBank: a small-molecule screening and cheminformatics resource database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008, 36:D351-D359.
19. Warr WA. ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). J Comput Aided Mol Des 2009, 23:195-198.
20. Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, Light Y, McGlinchey S, Michalovich D, Al-Lazikani B, Overington JP. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011.
21. Davis AP, King BL, Mockus S, Murphy CG, Saraceni-Richards C, Rosenstein M, Wiegers T, Mattingly CJ. The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database: update 2011. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39:D1067-D1072.
22. Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC, Eisner R, Young N, Gautam B, Hau DD, Psychogios N, Dong E, Bouatra S, Mandal R, Sinelnikov I, Xia J, Jia L, Cruz JA, Lim E, Sobsey CA, Shrivastava S, Huang P, Liu P, Fang L, Peng J, Fradette R, Cheng D, Tzur D, Clements M, Lewis A, De Souza A, Zuniga A, Dawe M, Xiong Y, Clive D, Greiner R, Nazyrova A, Shaykhutdinov R, Li L, Vogel HJ, Forsythe I. HMDB: a knowledgebase for the human metabolome. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009, 37:D603-D610.
23. Frolkis A, Knox C, Lim E, Jewison T, Law V, Hau DD, Liu P, Gautam B, Ly S, Guo AC, Xia J, Liang Y, Shrivastava S, Wishart DS. SMPDB: the small molecule pathway database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38:D480-D487.
24. Knox C, Law V, Jewison T, Liu P, Ly S, Frolkis A, Pon A, Banco K, Mak C, Neveu V, Djoumbou Y, Eisner R, Guo AC, Wishart DS. DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for 'Omics' research on drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39:D1035-D1041.
25. Mayr LM, Bojanic D. Novel trends in high-throughput screening. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2009, 9:580-588.
26. Renner S, Popov M, Schuffenhauer A, Roth HJ, Breitenstein W, Marzinzik A, Lewis I, Krastel P, Nigsch F, Jenkins J, Jacoby E. Recent trends and observations in the design of high-quality screening collections. Future Med. Chem. 2011, 3:751-766.
27. Nicholls A, McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Good AC, Warren G, Mathieu M, Muchmore SW, Brown SP, Grant JA, Haigh JA, Nevins N, Jain AN, Kelley B. Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective. J Med Chem 2010, 53:3862-3886.
28. Bissantz C, Kuhn B, Stahl M. A medicinal chemist's guide to molecular interactions. J Med Chem 2010, 53:5061-5084.
29. Klebe G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discov Today 2006, 11:580-594.
30. Kolb P, Ferreira RS, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Docking and chemoinformatic screens for new ligands and targets. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2009, 20:429-436.
31. Schneider G, Fechner U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2005, 4:649-663.
32. Reymond JL, Van Deursen R, Blum LC, Ruddigkeit L. Chemical space as a source for new drugs. Med Chem Commun 2010, 1:30-38.
33. Lederberg J, Sutherland GL, Buchanan BG, Feigenbaum EA, Robertson AV, Duffield AM, Djerassi C. Applications of artificial intelligence for chemical inference. I. Number of possible organic compounds. Acyclic structures containing carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen. J Am Chem Soc 1969, 91:2973-2976.
34. Duffield AM, Robertson AV, Djerassi C, Buchanan BG, Sutherland GL, Feigenbaum EA, Lederberg J. Applications of artificial intelligence for chemical inference. II. Interpretation of low-resolution mass spectra of ketones. J Am Chem Soc 1969, 91:2977-2981.
35. Buchanan BG, Smith DH, White WC, Gritter RJ, Feigenbaum EA, Lederberg J, Djerassi C. Applications of artificial intelligence for chemical inference. 22. Automatic rule formation in mass spectrometry by means of the meta-DENDRAL program. J Am Chem Soc 1976, 98:6168-6178.
36. Bohanec S, Zupan J. Structure generation of constitutional isomers from structural fragments. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991, 31:531-540.
37. Molchanova MS, Zefirov NS. Irredundant generation of isomeric molecular structures with some known fragments. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998, 38:8-22.
38. Shortliffe EH, Buchanan BG. A model of inexact reasoning in medicine. Math Biosci 1975, 23:351-379.
39. Mark S. Planning with constraints (MOLGEN: part 1). Artif Intell 1981, 16:111-139.
40. Bruccoleri RE, Karplus M. Prediction of the folding of short polypeptide segments by uniform conformational sampling. Biopolymers 1987, 26:137-168.
41. Warr WA. Computer-assisted structure elucidation. Part II: indirect database approaches and established systems. Anal Chem 1993, 65:1087A-1095A.
42. Will M, Fachinger W, Richert JR. Fully automated structure elucidation: a spectroscopist's dream comes true. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996, 36:221-227.
43. Steinbeck C. SENECA: a platform-independent, distributed, and parallel system for computer-assisted structure elucidation in organic chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001, 41:1500-1507.
44. Steinbeck C. Recent developments in automated structure elucidation of natural products. Nat Prod Rep 2004, 21:512-518.
45. Elyashberg M, Blinov K, Molodtsov S, Smurnyy Y, Williams AJ, Churanova T. Computer-assisted methods for molecular structure elucidation: realizing a spectroscopist's dream. J. Cheminform. 2009, 1:3.
46. Danziger DJ, Dean PM. Automated site-directed drug design: a general algorithm for knowledge acquisition about hydrogen-bonding regions at protein surfaces. Proc R Soc London B 1989, 236:101-113.
47. Lewell XQ, Judd DB, Watson SP, Hann MM. RECAP-retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998, 38:511-522.
48. Leach AR, Hann MM. The in silico world of virtual libraries. Drug Discov Today 2000, 5:326-336.
49. Patel H, Bodkin MJ, Chen B, Gillet VJ. Knowledge-based approach to de novo design using reaction vectors. J ChemInf Model 2009, 49:1163-1184.
50. Pierce AC, Rao G, Bemis GW. BREED: generating novel inhibitors through hybridization of known ligands. Application to CDK2, p38, and HIV protease. J Med Chem 2004, 47:2768-2775.
51. Boehm M, Wu T-Y, Claussen H, Lemmen C. Similarity searching and scaffold hopping in synthetically accessible combinatorial chemistry spaces. J Med Chem 2008, 51:2468-2480.
52. Lewis RA, Dean PM. Automated site-directed drug design: the concept of spacer skeletons for primary structure generation. Proc. R Soc. London B 1989, 236:125-140.
53. Lewis RA, Dean PM. Automated site-directed drug design: the formation of molecular templates in primary structure generation. Proc. R Soc. London B 1989, 236:141-162.
54. Gillet VJ, Johnson AP, Mata P, Sike S. Automated structure design in 3D. Tetrahedron Comput Methodol 1990, 3:681-696.
55. Nishibata Y, Itai A. Automatic creation of drug candidate structures based on receptor structure. Starting point for artificial lead generation. Tetrahedron 1991, 47:8985-8990.
56. Lewis RA, Roe DC, Huang C, Ferrin TE, Langridge R, Kuntz ID. Automated site-directed drug design using molecular lattices. J Mol Graph 1992, 10:66-78.
57. Böhm H-J The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1992, 6:61-78.
58. Böhm H-J LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1992, 6:593-606.
59. Böhm H-J. A novel computational tool for automated structure-based drug design. J. Mol. Recogn. 1993, 6:131-137.
60. Tschinke V, Cohen NC. The NEWLEAD program: a new method for the design of candidate structures from pharmacophoric hypotheses. J Med Chem 1993, 36:3863-3870.
61. Ho CMW, Marshall GR. SPLICE: A program to assemble partial query solutions from three-dimensional database searches into novel ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1993, 7:623-647.
62. Rotstein SH, Murcko MA. GroupBuild: a fragment-based method for de novo drug design. J Med Chem 1993, 36:1700-1710.
63. Pearlman DA, Murcko MA. CONCEPTS: new dynamic algorithm for de novo drug suggestion. J. Comput. Chem. 1993, 14:1184-1193.
64. Gillet V, Johnson AP, Mata P, Sike S, Williams P. SPROUT: a program for structure generation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1993, 7:127-153.
65. Gillet VJ, Newell W, Mata P, Myatt G, Sike S, Zsoldos Z, Johnson AP. SPROUT: recent developments in the de novo design of molecules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1994, 34:207-217.
66. Mata P, Gillet VJ, Johnson AP, Lampreia J, Myatt GJ, Sike S, Stebbings AL. SPROUT: 3D structure generation using templates. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1995, 35, 479-493.
67. Boda K, Johnson AP. Molecular complexity analysis of de novo designed ligands. J Med Chem 2006, 49:5869-5879.
68. Rotstein SH, Murcko MA. GenStar: a method for de novo drug design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1993, 7:23-43.
69. Miranker A, Karplus M. Functionality maps of binding sites: a multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins 1991, 11:29-34.
70. Caflisch A, Miranker A, Karplus M. Multiple copy simultaneous search and construction of ligands in binding sites: application to inhibitors of HIV-1 aspartic proteinase. J Med Chem 1993, 36:2142-2167.
71. Eisen MB, Wiley DC, Karplus M, Hubbard RE. HOOK: a program for finding novel molecular architectures that satisfy the chemical and steric requirements of a macromolecule binding site. Proteins 1994, 19, 199-221.
72. Bohacek RS, McMartin C. Multiple highly diverse structures complementary to enzyme binding sites: results of extensive application of a de novo design method incorporating combinatorial growth. J Am Chem Soc 1994, 116:5560-5571.
73. Clark DE, Frenkel D, Levy SA, Li J, Murray CW, Robson B, Waszkowycz B, Westhead DR. PRO_LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 1. Application to the design of organic molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995, 9:13-32.
74. Waszkowycz B, Clark DE, Frenkel D, Li J, Murray CW, Robson B, Westhead DR. PRO_LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 2. Design of novel molecules from molecular field analysis (MFA) models and pharmacophores. J Med Chem 1994, 37:3994-4002.
75. Westhead DR, Clark DE, Frenkel D, Li J, Murray CW, Robson B, Waszkowycz B. PRO_LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 3. A genetic algorithm for structure refinement. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995, 9:139-148.
76. Frenkel D, Clark DE, Li J, Murray CW, Robson B, Waszkowycz B, Westhead DR. PRO_LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 4. Application to the design of peptides. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995, 9:213-225.
77. Clark DE, Murray CW. PRO_LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 5. Tools for the analysis of generated structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1995, 35:914-923.
78. Murray CW, Clark DE, Byrne DG. PRO_LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 6. Flexible fitting in the design of peptides. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995, 9:381-395.
79. Glen RC, Payne AWR. A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of molecules within constraints. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995, 9:181-202.
80. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich EI. SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple, Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence. J Am Chem Soc 1996, 118:11733-11744.
81. Ishchenko AV, Shakhnovich EI. SMall Molecule Growth 2001 (SMoG2001): an improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem 2002, 45:2770-2780.
82. Pearlman DA, Murcko MA. CONCERTS: dynamic connection of fragments as an approach to de novo ligand design. J Med Chem 1996, 39:1651-1663.
83. Luo Z, Wang R, Lai L. RASSE: a new method for structure-based drug design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996, 36:1187-1194.
84. Murray CW, Clark DE, Auton TR, Firth MA, Li J, Sykes RA, Waszkowycz B, Westhead DR, Young SC. PRO_SELECT: combining structure-based drug design and combinatorial chemistry for rapid lead discovery. 1. Technology. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997, 11:193-207.
85. Grzybowski BA, Ishchenko AV, Kim C-Y, Topalov G, Chapman R, Christianson DW, Whitesides GM, Shakhnovich EI. Combinatorial computational method gives new picomolar ligands for a known enzyme. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002, 99:1270-1273.
86. Todorov NP, Dean PM. Evaluation of a method for controlling molecular scaffold diversity in de novo ligand design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997, 11:175-192.
87. Todorov NP, Dean PM. A branch-and-bound method for optimal atom-type assignment in de novo ligand design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1998, 12:335-335.
88. Dean PM, Firth-Clark S, Harris W, Kirton SB, Todorov NP. SkelGen: a general tool for structure-based de novo ligand design. Expert Opin. Drug Discov 2006, 1:179-189.
89. Makino S, Ewing TJA, Kuntz ID. DREAM++: flexible docking program for virtual combinatorial libraries. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1999, 13:513-532.
90. Globus A, Lawton J, Wipke T. Automatic molecular design using evolutionary techniques. Nanotechnology 1999, 10:290.
91. Wang R, Gao Y, Lai L. LigBuilder: a multipurpose program for structure-based drug design. J Mol Model 2000, 6:498-516.
92. Douguet D, Thoreau E, Grassy G. A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of small organic molecules: drug design using an evolutionary algorithm. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2000, 14:449-466.
93. Nachbar RB. Molecular evolution: automated manipulation of hierarchical chemical topology and its application to average molecular structures. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 2000, 1, 57-94.
94. Schneider G, Lee M-L, Stahl M, Schneider P. De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drug-derived building blocks. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2000, 14:487-494.
95. Schneider G, Clément-Chomienne O, Hilfiger L, Schneider P, Kirsch S, Böhm H-J, Neidhart W. Virtual screening for bioactive molecules by evolutionary de novo design. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2000, 39:4130-4133.
96. Zhu J, Yu H, Fan H, Liu H, Shi Y. Design of new selective inhibitors of cyclooxygenase-2 by dynamic assembly of molecular building blocks. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001, 15:447-463.
97. Zhu J, Fan H, Liu H, Shi Y. Structure-based ligand design for flexible proteins: application of new F-DycoBlock. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001, 15:979-996.
98. Vinkers HM, de Jonge MR, Daeyaert FFD, Heeres J, Koymans LMH, van Lenthe JH, Lewi PJ, Timmerman H, Van Aken K, Janssen PAJ. SYNOPSIS: SYNthesize and OPtimize System in Silico. J Med Chem 2003, 46:2765-2773.
99. Pellegrini E, Field M. Development and testing of a de novo drug-design algorithm. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2003, 17:621-641.
100. Brown N, McKay B, Gilardoni F, Gasteiger J. A graph-based genetic algorithm and its application to the multiobjective evolution of median molecules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004, 44:1079-1087.
101. Nikitin S, Zaitseva N, Demina O, Solovieva V, Mazin E, Mikhalev S, Smolov M, Rubinov A, Vlasov P, Lepikhin D, Khachko D, Fokin V, Queen C, Zosimov V. A very large diversity space of synthetically accessible compounds for use with drug design programs. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2005, 19:47-63.
102. Douguet D, Munier-Lehmann H, Labesse G, Pochet S. LEA3D: a computer-aided ligand design for structure-based drug design. J Med Chem 2005, 48:2457-2468.
103. Moore WJ. Maximizing discovery efficiency with a computationally driven fragment approach. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 2005, 8:355-364.
104. Degen J, Rarey M. FlexNovo: structure-based searching in large fragment spaces. Chem Med Chem 2006, 1:854-868.
105. Zotchev SB, Stepanchikova AV, Sergeyko AP, Sobolev BN, Filimonov DA, Poroikov VV. Rational design of macrolides by virtual screening of combinatorial libraries generated through in silico manipulation of polyketide synthases. J Med Chem 2006, 49:2077-2087.
106. Lameijer EW, Kok JN, Back T, Ijzerman AP. The molecule evoluator. An interactive evolutionary algorithm for the design of drug-like molecules. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:545-552.
107. Mauser H, Stahl M. Chemical fragment spaces for de novo design. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:318-324.
108. Fechner U, Schneider G. Flux (1): a virtual synthesis scheme for fragment-based de novo design. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 46:699-707.
109. Fechner U, Schneider G. Flux (2): comparison of molecular mutation and crossover operators for ligand-based de novo design. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:656-667.
110. van Deursen R, Reymond JL. Chemical space travel. Chem Med Chem 2007, 2:636-640.
111. Dey F, Caflisch A. Fragment-based de novo ligand design by multiobjective evolutionary optimization. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:679-690.
112. Feher M, Gao Y, Baber JC, Shirley WA, Saunders J. The use of ligand-based de novo design for scaffold hopping and sidechain optimization: two case studies. Bioorg Med Chem 2008, 16:422-427.
113. Hartenfeller M, Proschak E, Schüller A, Schneider G. Concept of combinatorial de novo design of drug-like molecules by particle swarm optimization. Chem Biol Drug Des 2008, 72:16-26.
114. Moriaud F, Doppelt-Azeroual O, Martin L, Oguievetskaia K, Koch K, Vorotyntsev A, Adcock SA, Delfaud Fo. Computational fragment-based approach at PDB scale by protein local similarity. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:280-294.
115. Durrant JD, Amaro RE, McCammon JA. AutoGrow: a novel algorithm for protein inhibitor design. Chem Biol Drug Des 2009, 73:168-178.
116. Hecht D, Fogel GB. A novel in silico approach to drug discovery via computational intelligence. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1105-1121.
117. Nicolaou CA, Apostolakis J, Pattichis CS. De novo drug design using multiobjective evolutionary graphs. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:295-307.
118. Nisius B, Rester U. Fragment shuffling: an automated workflow for three-dimensional fragment-based ligand design. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1211-1222.
119. Proschak E, Sander K, Zettl H, Tanrikulu Y, Rau O, Schneider P, Schubert-Zsilavecz M, Stark H, Schneider G. From molecular shape to potent bioactive agents II: fragment-based de novo design. Chem Med Chem 2009, 4:45-48.
120. Kutchukian PS, Lou D, Shakhnovich EI. FOG: Fragment optimized growth algorithm for the de novo generation of molecules occupying drug-like chemical space. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1630-1642.
121. Fischer JR, Lessel U, Rarey M. LoFT: similarity-driven multiobjective focused library design. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 50:1-21.
122. Douguet D. e-LEA3D: a computational-aided drug design Web server. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38:W615-W621.
123. Damewood JR, Lerman CL, Masek BB. NovoFLAP: a ligand-based de novo design approach for the generation of medicinally relevant ideas. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:1296-1303.
124. Huang Q, Li L-L, Yang S-Y. PhDD: a new pharmacophore-based de novo design method of drug-like molecules combined with assessment of synthetic accessibility. J Mol Graph Model 2010, 28:775-787.
125. Durrant JD, Friedman AJ, McCammon JA. CrystalDock: a novel approach to fragment-based drug design. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:2573-2580.
126. Yuan Y, Pei J, Lai L. LigBuilder 2: a practical de novo drug design approach. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:1083-1091.
127. Moriaud F, Adcock SA, Vorotyntsev A, Doppelt-Azeroual O, Richard SB, Delfaud F. A computational fragment approach by mining the Protein Data Bank: library design and bioisosterism. In: Library Design, Search Methods, and Applications of Fragment-Based Drug Design. Vol. 1076. American Chemical Society; 2011, 71-88.
128. Hartenfeller M, Schneider G. De novo drug design. Methods Mol Biol 2011, 672:299-323.
129. Besong GE, Bostock JM, Stubbings W, Chopra I, Roper DI, Lloyd AJ, Fishwick CW, Johnson AP. A de novo designed inhibitor of D-Ala-D-Ala ligase from E. coli. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2005, 44:6403-6406.
130. McKay BD. Practical graph isomorphism. Congressus Numerantium 1981, 30:45-87.
131. Weininger D. Smiles, a chemical language and information-system.1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1988, 28:31-36.
132. Sadowski J, Gasteiger J. From atoms and bonds to three-dimensional atomic coordinates-automatic model builders. Chem Rev 1993, 93:2567-2581.
133. Fink T, Bruggesser H, Reymond JL. Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 daltons. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2005, 44:1504-1508.
134. 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.
135. Blum LC, Reymond JL. 970 Million druglike small molecules for virtual screening in the chemical universe database GDB-13. J Am Chem Soc 2009, 131:8732-8733.
136. Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, Oprea T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 1999, 38:3743-3748.
137. Congreve M, Carr R, Murray C, Jhoti H. A rule of three for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov Today 2003, 8:876-877.
138. Nguyen KT, Syed S, Urwyler S, Bertrand S, Bertrand D, Reymond JL. Discovery of NMDA glycine site inhibitors from the chemical universe database GDB. Chem Med Chem 2008, 3:1520-1524.
139. Nguyen KT, Luethi E, Syed S, Urwyler S, Bertrand S, Bertrand D, Reymond JL. 3-(aminomethyl)-piperazine-2, 5-dione as a novel NMDA glycine site inhibitor from the chemical universe database GDB. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2009, 19:3832-3835.
140. Garcia-Delgado N, Bertrand S, Nguyen KT, van Deursen R, Bertrand D, Reymond J-L. Exploring a7-nicotinic receptor ligand diversity by scaffold enumeration from the chemical universe database GDB. ACS Med Chem Lett 2010, 1:422-426.
141. Reymond JL, van Deursen R, Bertrand D. What we have learned from crystal structures of proteins to receptor function. Biochem. Pharmacol. 2011, 82:1521-1527.
142. Luethi E, Nguyen KT, Burzle M, Blum LC, Suzuki Y, Hediger M, Reymond JL. Identification of selective norbornane-type aspartate analogue inhibitors of the glutamate transporter 1 (GLT-1) from the chemical universe generated database (GDB). J Med Chem 2010, 53:7236-7250.
143. Pollock SN, Coutsias EA, Wester MJ, Oprea TI. Scaffold topologies. 1. Exhaustive enumeration up to eight rings. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48, 1304-1310.
144. Wester MJ, Pollock SN, Coutsias EA, Allu TK, Muresan S, Oprea TI. Scaffold topologies. 2. Analysis of chemical databases. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:1311-1324.
145. Pearlman RS, Smith KM. Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect Drug Discov Design 1998, 9-11:339-353.
146. 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, 50:205-216.
147. Akella LB, DeCaprio D. Cheminformatics approaches to analyze diversity in compound screening libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2010, 14:325-330.
148. Burden FR. Molecular-identification number for substructure searches. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1989, 29:225-227.
149. Pearlman RS, Smith KM. Metric validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999, 39:28-35.
150. Oprea TI, Gottfries J. Chemography: the art of navigating in chemical space. J. Comb. Chem. 2001, 3:157-166.
151. Rosen J, Gottfries J, Muresan S, Backlund A, Oprea TI. Novel chemical space exploration via natural products. J Med Chem 2009, 52:1953-1962.
152. Willett P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discov Today 2006, 11:1046-1053.
153. Khalifa AA, Haranczyk M, Holliday J. Comparison of nonbinary similarity coefficients for similarity searching, clustering and compound selection. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1193-1201.
154. Nguyen KT, Blum LC, van Deursen R, Reymond J-L. Classification of organic molecules by molecular quantum numbers. Chem Med Chem 2009, 4, 1803-1805.
155. Wang SG, Schwarz WH. Icon of chemistry: the periodic system of chemical elements in the new century. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 2009, 48:3404-3415.
156. van Deursen R, Blum LC, Reymond JL. A searchable map of PubChem. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:1924-1934.
157. van Deursen R, Blum LC, Reymond JL. Visualisation of the chemical space of fragments, lead-like and drug-like molecules in PubChem. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2011, 25:649-662.
158. Blum LC, van Deursen R, Reymond JL. Visualisation and subsets of the chemical universe database GDB-13 for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2011, 25:637-647.
159. Reymond JL, Blum LC, Van Deursen R. Exploring the chemical space of known and unknown organic small molecules at www.gdb.unibe.ch. Chimia 2011, 65:863-867.
160. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2006, 49:6789-6801.
161. Blum LC, van Deursen R, Bertrand S, Mayer M, Burgi JJ, Bertrand D, Reymond JL. Discovery of alpha7-nicotinic receptor ligands by virtual screening of the chemical universe database GDB-13. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:3105-3113.
162. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 1996, 39:2887-2893.
163. 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.
164. 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 2006, 47:47-58.
165. Renner S, van Otterlo WAL, Dominguez Seoane M, Mocklinghoff S, Hofmann B, Wetzel S, Schuffenhauer A, Ertl P, Oprea TI, Steinhilber D, Brunsveld L, Rauh D, Waldmann H. Bioactivity-guided mapping and navigation of chemical space. Nat Chem Biol 2009, 5:585-592.
166. Wetzel S, Klein K, Renner S, Rauh D, Oprea TI, Mutzel P, Waldmann H. Interactive exploration of chemical space with Scaffold Hunter. Nat Chem Biol 2009, 5:581-583.
167. Li R, Stumpfe D, Vogt M, Geppert H, Bajorath J. Development of a method to consistently quantify the structural distance between scaffolds and to assess scaffold hopping potential. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:2507-2514.