Contact-based ligand-clustering approach for the identification of active compounds in virtual screening

Advances and Applications in Bioinformatics and Chemistry

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 61-79

  Mantsyzov, Alexey B ^a   Bouvier, Guillaume ^b   Evrard Todeschi, Nathalie ^a   Bertho, Gildas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^b INSTITUT PASTEUR   (France)

Author keywords

AuPosSOM; Car; Docking; Scoring; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872397842     PISSN: None     EISSN: 11786949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2147/AABC.S30881     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli A-M, et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J Med Chem. 2006;49: 5912-5931.
2. Moitessier N, Englebienne P, Lee D, Lawandi J, Corbeil CR. Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br J Pharmacol. 2008;153(1): S7-S26.
3. Hevener KE, Zhao W, Ball DM, et al. Validation of molecular docking programs for virtual screening against dihydropteroate synthase. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:444-460.
4. Kellenberger E, Rodrigo J, Muller P, Rognan D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins. 2004;57:225-242.
5. Pencheva T, Soumana OS, Pajeva I, Miteva MA. Post-docking virtual screening of diverse binding pockets: comparative study using DOCK, AMMOS, X-Score and FRED scoring functions. Eur J Med Chem. 2010;45:2622-2628.
6. Giganti D, Guillemain H, Spadoni J-L, Nilges M, Zagury J-F, Montes M. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50:992-1004.
7. Kinnings SL, Liu N, Tonge PJ, Jackson RM, Xie L, Bourne PE. A machine learning-based method to improve docking scoring functions and its application to drug repurposing. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51:408-419.
8. Deng W, Breneman C, Embrechts MJ. Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities using novel geometrical descriptors and machine-learning methods. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2004;44:699-703.
9. Ballester PJ, Mitchell JBO. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:1169-1175.
10. Charifson PS, Corkery JJ, Murcko MA, Walters WP. Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J Med Chem. 1999;42:5100-5109.
11. Wang R, Wang S. How does consensus scoring work for virtual library screening? An idealized computer experiment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001;41:1422-1426.
12. Yang JM, Chen YF, Shen TW, Kristal BS, Hsu DF. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2005;45:1134-1146.
13. Deng Z, Chuaqui C, Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem. 2004;47:337-344.
14. Renner S, Derksen S, Radestock S, Mörchen F. Maximum common binding modes (MCBM): consensus docking scoring using multiple ligand information and interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model. 2008;48:319-332.
15. Boström J, Hogner A, Schmitt S. Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion? J Med Chem. 2006;49(23):6716-6725.
16. Fujita S, Orita M. Method of searching for ligand. Pub. No.: WO/2008/035729 International Application No.: PCT/JP2007/068245 [cited 2012 Jul]; [p 1-19]. http://patentscope.wipo.int. Accessed Jul 7, 2012.
17. Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006;49(11):3315-3321.
18. Heberlé G, De Azevedo WF Jr. Bio-inspired algorithms applied to molecular docking simulations. Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(9): 1339-1352.
19. Bouvier G, Evrard-Todeschi N, Girault J-P, Bertho G. Automatic clustering of docking poses in virtual screening process using self-organizing map. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:53-60.
20. Kohonen T. Self-Organizing Maps. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer Series in Information Sciences; 2001.
21. Samsonova EV, Kok JN, Ijzerman AP. TreeSOM: Cluster analysis in the self-organizing map. Neural Netw. 2006;19(6-7):935-949.
22. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006;49:6789-6801.
23. Jain AN. Surflex-Dock 2.1: robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2007;21(5):281-306.
24. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, et al. UCSF Chimera - a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004;25:1605-1612.
25. Lindorff-Larsen K, Piana S, Palmo K, et al. Improved side-chain torsion potentials for the Amber ff99SB protein force field. Proteins. 2010;78:1950-1958.
26. Wang J, Wang W, Kollman PA, Case DA. Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations. J Mol Graph Model. 2006;25:247-260.
27. Evnin LB, Vásquez JR, Craik CS. Substrate specificity of trypsin investigated by using a genetic selection. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990;87:6659-6663.
28. Briand L, Chobert JM, Gantier R, et al. Impact of the lysine-188 and aspartic acid-189 inversion on activity of trypsin. FEBS Lett. 1999;442:43-47.
29. Presnell SR, Patil GS, Mura C, et al. Oxyanion-mediated inhibition of serine proteases. Biochemistry. 1998;37:17068-17081.
30. Segura-Cabrera A, Guo X, Rojo-Domínguez A, Rodríguez-Pérez MA. Integrative computational protocol for the discovery of inhibitors of the Helicobacter pylori nickel response regulator (NikR). J Mol Model. 2011;17(12):3075-3084.