Multi-objective optimization methods in de novo drug design

Mini-Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2012, Pages 979-987

  Nicolaou, C A ^a,b   Kannas, C ^b,c   Loizidou, E ^b,d  

^a CYPRUS INSTITUTE   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^c Noesis Chemoinformatics   (Cyprus)

^d CySilicoTech Research Limited   (Cyprus)

Author keywords

De novo design; Drug discovery; Multi objective optimization

Indexed keywords

GONADORELIN RECEPTOR; PIPERAZINE DERIVATIVE; QUINOLONE DERIVATIVE; SEROTONIN NORADRENALIN REUPTAKE INHIBITOR;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; DRUG BINDING; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG STABILITY; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG SYNTHESIS; DRUG TARGETING; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM; FLEXIBLE LIGAND ALIGNMENT PROTOCOL; FRAGMENT OPTIMIZED GROWTH; GENETIC ALGORITHM BASED DE NOVO DESIGN OF INHIBITORS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; LIBRARY OPTIMIZER USING FEATURE TREES; LIGAND BY EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM; METHODOLOGY; MULTI OBJECTIVE EVOLUTIONARY GRAPH ALGORITHM; MULTI OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION BASED ON DESIRABILITY ESTIMATION; PARETO LIGAND DESIGNER; PHARMACOPHORE BASED DE NOVO DESIGN METHOD; PROCEDURES; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOPOLOGY SSSIGNING SYSTEM;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DRUG DESIGN; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR;

EID: 84866460237     PISSN: 13895575     EISSN: 18755607     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/138955712802762284     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Nicolaou, C. A.; Apostolakis, J.; Pattichis, C. S. De Novo Drug Design Using Multiobjective Evolutionary Graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 49, 295-307.
2. Baringhaus, K.-H.; Matter, H. In Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, 2005; pp. 333-379.
3. Ekins, S.; Boulanger, B.; Swaan, P. W.; Hupcey, M. A. Z. Towards a New Age of Virtual ADME/TOX and Multidimensional Drug Discovery. J. Comput.- Aided Mol. Des., 2002, 16, 381-401.
4. Schneider, G.; Fechner, U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov, 2005, 4, 649-663.
5. Willett, P.; Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M. Chemical Similarity Searching. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 1998, 38, 983-996.
6. Krovat, E. M.; Steindl, T.; Langer, T. Recent Advances in Docking and Scoring. Current Computer - Aided Drug Design, 2005, 1, 93-102.
7. Lipinski C. A.; Lombardo F.; Dominy B. W.; Feeney P. J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 1997, 23, 3-25.
8. Nicolaou, C. A.; Brown, N.; Pattichis, C. S. Molecular optimization using computational multi-objective methods. Curr. Opin Drug Discov. Devel., 2007, 10, 316-324.
9. Fechner, U.; Schneider, G. Flux (1): a virtual synthesis scheme for fragment-based de novo design. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2006, 46,699-707.
10. Globus, A.; Lawton, J.; Wipke, W. T. Automatic Molecular designusing evolutionary algorithms. Nanotechnology, 1999, 10, 290-299.
11. Todorov, N. P.; Dean, P. M. Evaluation of a method for controlling molecular scaffold diversity in de novo ligand design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1997, 11, 175-192.
12. Stahl, M.; Todorov, N. P.; James, T.; Mauser, H.; Boehm, H.-J.; Dean, P. M. A validation study on the practical use of automated de novo design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2002, 16, 459-478.
13. Gillet, V. J.; Newell, W.; Mata, P.; Myatt, G.; Sike, S.; Zsoldos, Z.; Johnson, A. P. SPROUT: recent developments in the de novo design of molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1994, 34, 207-217.
14. Schneider, G.; Lee, M. L.; Stahl, M.; Schneider, P. De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drugderived building blocks. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2000, 14, 487-494.
15. Bohacek, R. S.; McMartin, C.; Guida, W. C. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: A molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev., 1996, 16, 3-50.
16. Reymond, J.-L.; van Deursen, R.; Blum, L. C.; Ruddigkeit, L. Chemical space as a source for new drugs. Med. Chem. Commun., 2010, 1, 30.
17. Vinkers, H. M.; de Jonge, M. R.; Daeyaert, F. F. D.; Heeres, J.; Koymans, L. M. H.; van Lenthe, J. H.; Lewi, P. J.; Timmerman, H.; Van Aken, K.; Janssen, P. A. J. SYNOPSIS: SYNthesize and OPtimize System in Silico. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46, 2765-2773.
18. 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.
19. Nachbar, Robert B. Molecular Evolution: Automated Manipulation of Hierarchical Chemical Topology and Its Application to Average Molecular Structures. Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines, 2000, 1, 57-94.
20. Kutchukian, P. S.; Lou, D.; Shakhnovich, E. I. FOG: Fragment Optimized Growth algorithm for the de novo generation of molecules occupying druglike chemical space. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2009, 49, 1630-1642.
21. Kamphausen, S.; Höltge, N.; Wirsching, F.; Morys-Wortmann, C.; Riester, D.; Goetz, R.; Thürk, M.; Schwienhorst, A. Genetic algorithm for the design of molecules with desired properties. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2002, 16, 551-567.
22. Cruz-Monteagudo, M.; Borges, F.; Cordeiro, M. N. D. S.; Cagide Fajin, J. L.; Morell, C.; Ruiz, R. M.; Cañizares-Carmenate, Y.; Dominguez, E. R. Desirability-based methods of multiobjective optimization and ranking for global QSAR studies. Filtering safe and potent drug candidates from combinatorial libraries. J. Comb. Chem., 2008, 10, 897-913.
23. Lameijer, E.-W.; Kok, J. N.; Bäck, T.; Ijzerman, A. P. The molecule evoluator. An interactive evolutionary algorithm for the design of drug-like molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2006, 46, 545-552.
24. Kruisselbrink, J.; Aleman, A.; Emmerich, M.; IJzerman, A.; Bender, A.; Baeck, Th.; Horst, E.v.d. Enhancing search space diversity in multiobjective evolutionary drug molecule design using niching. Int. ACM Conf. GECCO, 2009, 217-224
25. Kutchukian, P. S.; Shakhnovich, E. I. De novo design: balancing novelty and confined chemical space. Expert Opin. Drug Discov., 2010, 5, 789-812.
26. Loving, K.; Alberts, I.; Sherman, W. Computational approaches for fragment-based and de novo design. Curr. Top Med. Chem., 2010, 10, 14-32.
27. Hartenfeller, M.; Schneider, G. De novo drug design. Methods Mol. Biol., 2011, 672, 299-323.
28. Clark, D. E.; Westhead, D. R. Evolutionary algorithms in computer-aided molecular design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1996, 10, 337-358.
29. Lewell, X. Q.; Judd, D. B.; Watson, S. P.; Hann, M. M. RECAP Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure: A Powerful New Technique for Identifying Privileged Molecular Fragments with Useful Applications in Combinatorial Chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 1998, 38, 511-522.
30. Krueger, B. A.; Dietrich, A.; Baringhaus, K.-H.; Schneider, G. Scaffold-hopping potential of fragment-based de novo design: the chances and limits of variation. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen, 2009, 12, 383-396.
31. Glen, R. C.; Payne, A. W. A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of molecules within constraints. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1995, 9, 181-202.
32. Pegg, S. C.-H.; Haresco, J. J.; Kuntz, I. D. A genetic algorithm for structure-based de novo design. J. of Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2001, 15, 911-933.
33. Dey, F.; Caflisch, A. Fragment-based de novo ligand design by multiobjective evolutionary optimization. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2008, 48, 679-690.
34. Clark, D. E.; Frenkel, D.; Levy, S. A.; Li, J.; Murray, C. W.; Robson, B.; Waszkowycz, B.; Westhead, D. R. 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.
35. Westhead, D. R.; Clark, D. E.; Frenkel, D.; Li, J.; Murray, C. W.; 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.
36. Pfeffer, P.; Fober, T.; Hüllermeier, E.; Klebe, G. GARLig: a fully automated tool for subset selection of large fragment spaces via a self-adaptive genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2010, 50, 1644-1659.
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. Wang, R.; Gao, Y.; Lai, L. LigBuilder: A Multi-Purpose Program for Structure-Based Drug Design. J. Mol. Modeling, 2000, 6, 498-516.
41. Feher, M.; Gao, Y.; Baber, J. C.; Shirley, W. A.; 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.
42. EA-Inventor software application, Tripos Inc, http://www.tripos.com. (Accessed March 14, 2011).
43. Damewood, J. R., Jr; Lerman, C. L.; Masek, B. B. NovoFLAP: A ligand-based de novo design approach for the generation of medicinally relevant ideas. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2010, 50, 1296-1303.
44. Huang, Q.; Li, L.-L.; Yang, S.-Y. PhDD: a new pharmacophorebased de novo design method of drug-like molecules combined with assessment of synthetic accessibility. J. Mol. Graph. Model, 2010, 28, 775-787.
45. Fischer, J. R.; Lessel, U.; Rarey, M. LoFT: similarity-driven multiobjective focused library design. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2010, 50, 1-21.
46. Nicolotti, O.; Gillet, V. J.; Fleming, P. J.; Green, D. V. S. Multi objective optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationships: deriving accurate and interpretable QSARs. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 5069-5080.
47. Cruz-Monteagudo, M.; Borges, F.; Cordeiro, M. N. D. S. Desirability-based multiobjective optimization for global QSAR studies: application to the design of novel NSAIDs with improved analgesic, antiinflammatory, and ulcerogenic profiles. J. Comput. Chem., 2008, 29, 2445-2459.
48. Saiz-Urra, L.; Bustillo Pérez, A. J.; Cruz-Monteagudo, M.; Pinedo- Rivilla, C.; Aleu, J.; Hernández-Galán, R.; Collado, I. G. Global antifungal profile optimization of chlorophenyl derivatives against Botrytis cinerea and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. J. Agric.Food Chem., 2009, 57, 4838-4843.
49. Machado, A.; Tejera, E.; Cruz-Monteagudo, M.; Rebelo, I. Application of desirability-based multi(bi)-objective optimization in the design of selective arylpiperazine derivates for the 5-HT1A serotonin receptor. Eur. J. Med. Chem., 2009, 44, 5045-5054.
50. 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. Model., 2004, 44, 1079-1087.
51. Brown, N.; McKay, B.; Gasteiger, J. The de novo design of median molecules within a property range of interest. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2004, 18, 761-771.
52. Brown, N.; McKay, B.; Gasteiger, J. A novel workflow for the inverse QSPR problem using multiobjective optimization. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2006, 20, 333-341.
53. Nicolaou, C. A.; Kannas, C. C. Molecular library design using multi-objective optimization methods. Methods Mol. Biol., 2011, 685, 53-69.
54. Shin, S.-Y.; Lee, I.-H.; Cho, Y.-M.; Yang, K.-A.; Zhang, B.-T. EvoOligo: oligonucleotide probe design with multiobjective evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern B Cybern, 2009, 39, 1606-1616.
55. Ekins, S.; Honeycutt, J. D.; Metz, J. T. Evolving molecules using multi-objective optimization: applying to ADME/Tox. Drug Discov. Today, 2010, 15, 451-460.
56. Ecemis, M. I.; Wikel, J.; Bingham, C.; Bonabeau, E. A Drug Candidate Design Environment Using Evolutionary Computation. IEEE Trans. Evol. Computat., 2008, 12, 591-603.
57. Kruisselbrink, J. In Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2009; Vol. 5467, pp. 453-467.