In silico applications of bioisosterism in contemporary medicinal chemistry practice

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 339-354

  Papadatos, George ^a   Brown, Nathan ^b  

^a WELLCOME TRUST SANGER INSTITUTE   (United Kingdom)

^b INSTITUTE OF CANCER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOACTIVE COMPOUNDS; BIOLOGICAL TARGETS; COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH; MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY; MOLECULAR TOPOLOGIES; STRUCTURAL FRAGMENTS; STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION; TOXICITY PROPERTIES;

KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; LIGANDS;

BIOACTIVITY;

EID: 84879090710     PISSN: 17590876     EISSN: 17590884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1148     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Meanwell NA. Synopsis of some recent tactical application of bioisosteres in drug design. J Med Chem 2011, 54:2529-2591.
2. Langmuir I. Isomorphism, isosterism and covalence. J Am Chem Soc 1919, 41:1543-1559.
3. Abegg RWH, Auerbach F. Handbuch der Anorganischen Chemie. Leipzig: Hirzel; 1909.
4. Grimm HG. On construction and sizes of non-metallic hydrides. Zeitschrift fuer Elektrochemie und Angewandte Physikalische Chemie 1925, 31:474-480.
5. Erlenmeyer H, Berger E. Studies on the significance of structure of antigens for the production and the specificity of antibodies. Biochem Zool 1932, 252:22-36.
6. Erlenmeyer H, Berger E, Leo M. Relationship between the structure of antigens and the specificity of antibodies. Helv Chim Acta 1933, 16:733-738.
7. Lemke TL, Williams DA. Foye's Principles of Medicinal Chemistry. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
8. Friedman HL. Influence of isosteric replacements upon biological activity. In: Symposium on Chemical-Biological correlation. National Academy of Science-National Research Council, Publication; 1951.
9. Thornber CW. Isosterism and molecular modification in drug design. Chem Soc Rev 1979, 8:563-580.
10. Burger A. Isosterism and bioisosterism in drug design. Prog Drug Res 1991, 37:287.
11. Patani GA, LaVoie EJ. Bioisosterism: a rational approach in drug design. Chem Rev 1996, 96:3147-3176.
12. Olesen PH. The use of bioisosteric groups in lead optimization. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 2001, 4:471-478.
13. Langdon SR, Ertl P, Brown N. Bioisosteric replacement and scaffold hopping in lead generation and optimization. Mol Inform 2010, 29:366-385.
14. Clark DE, Newton CG. Outsourcing lead optimisation-the quiet revolution. Drug Discov Today 2004, 9:492-500.
15. Baringhaus KH, Matter H. Efficient strategies for lead optimization by simultaneously addressing affinity, selectivity and pharmacokinetic parameters. In: Oprea TI, ed. Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2004, 333-379.
16. Wood DJ, Vlieg Jd, Wagener M, Ritschel T. Pharmacophore fingerprint-based approach to binding site subpocket similarity and Its application to bioisostere replacement. J Chem Inf Model 2012, 52:2031-2043.
17. Schneider G, Schneider P, Renner S. Scaffold hopping: how far can you jump? QSAR Comb Sci 2006, 25:1162-1171.
18. Brown N, Jacoby E. On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. Mini Rev Med Chem 2006, 6:1217-1230.
19. Schuffenhauer A. Computational methods for scaffold hopping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev: Comp Mol Sci 2012, 2:842-867.
20. Ertl P. In silico identification of bioisosteric functional groups. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 2007, 10:281-288.
21. Devereux M, Popelier PLA. In silico techniques for the identification of bioisosteric replacements for drug design. Curr Top Med Chem 2010, 10:657-668.
22. Willett P. Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems. Letchworth: Research Studies Press; 1987.
23. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM. Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1998, 38:983-996.
24. Johnson MA, Maggiora GM, eds. Concepts and Application of Molecular Similarity. New York: Wiley; 1990.
25. Todeschini R, Consonni V. Handbook of Molecular Descriptors. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2002.
26. Ujváry I. BIOSTER-a database of structurally analogous compounds. Pest Sci 1997, 51:92-95.
27. Ertl P. World Wide Web-based system for the calculation of substituent parameters and substituent similarity searches. J Mol Graph Model 1998, 16:11-13.
28. 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 Comp Sci 2002, 43:374-380.
29. Lewell XQ, Jones AC, Bruce CL, Harper G, Jones MM, McLay IM, Bradshaw J. Drug Rings Database with web interface. A tool for identifying alternative chemical rings in lead discovery programs. J Med Chem 2003, 46:3257-3274.
30. Podolyan Y, Walters MA, Karypis G. Assessing synthetic accessibility of chemical compounds using machine learning methods. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:979-991.
31. Ertl P. Database of bioactive ring systems with calculated properties and its use in bioisosteric design and scaffold hopping. Bioorg Med Chem 2012, 20:5436-5442.
32. Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, Light Y, McGlinchey S, Michalovich D, Al-Lazikani B, et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res 2011, 40:D1100-D1107.
33. Schuffenhauer A, Gillet VJ, Willett P. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: analysis of the BIOSTER database using two-dimensional fingerprints and molecular field descriptors. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2000, 40:295-307.
34. Holliday JD, Jelfs SP, Willett P, Gedeck P. Calculation of intersubstituent similarity using R-group descriptors. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2003, 43:406-411.
35. Wagener M, Lommerse JPM. The quest for bioisosteric replacements. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:677-685.
36. Martin EJ, Blaney JM, Siani MA, Spellmeyer DC, Wong AK, Moos WH. Measuring diversity: experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J Med Chem 1995, 38:1431-1436.
37. Carhart RE, Smith DH, Venkataraghavan R. Atom pairs as molecular-features in structure activity studies-definition and applications. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1985, 25:64-73.
38. Thomson Scientific. World Drug Index database. Available at: http://www.thomson.com/solutions/scientific. (Accessed November 25, 2006).
39. Devereux M, Popelier PLA, McLay IM. Quantum isostere database: a web-based tool using quantum chemical topology to predict bioisosteric replacements for drug design. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1497-1513.
40. Popelier P. Atoms in Molecules. An Introduction. London: Pearson Education; 2000.
41. Sheridan RP. The most common chemical replacements in drug-like compounds. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2002, 42:103-108.
42. Fujita T. Quantitative structure-activity analysis and database-aided bioisosteric structural transformation procedure as methodologies of agrochemical design. In: Classical and Three-Dimensional QSAR in Agrochemistry. Vol. 606. American Chemical Society; 1995, 13-34.
43. Leach AG, Jones HD, Cosgrove DA, Kenny PW, Ruston L, MacFaul P, Wood JM, Colclough N, Law B. Matched molecular pairs as a guide in the optimization of pharmaceutical properties; a study of aqueous solubility, plasma protein binding and oral exposure. J Med Chem 2006, 49:6672-6682.
44. Lewis RA. A general method for exploiting QSAR models in lead optimization. J Med Chem 2005, 48:1638-1648.
45. Kerns EH, Di L. Drug-Like Properties: Concepts, Structure Design and Methods: From ADME to Toxicity Optimization. San Diego: Academic Press; 2008.
46. Griffen E, Leach AG, Robb GR, Warner DJ. Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. J Med Chem 2011, 54:7739-7750.
47. Müller K. The power of MMPA and a teaching lesson in medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 2012, 55:1815-1816.
48. Raymond JW, Watson IA, Mahoui A. Rationalizing lead optimization by associating quantitative relevance with molecular structure modification. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1952-1962.
49. Hussain J, Rea C. Computationally efficient algorithm to identify matched molecular pairs (MMPs) in large data sets. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:339-348.
50. Warner DJ, Griffen EJ, St-Gallay SA. WizePairZ: a novel algorithm to identify, encode, and exploit matched molecular pairs with unspecified cores in medicinal chemistry. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:1350-1357.
51. Sheridan RP, Hunt P, Culbersons JC. Molecular transformations as a way of finding and exploiting consistent local QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:180-192.
52. Hajduk PJ, Sauer DR. Statistical analysis of the effects of common chemical substituents on ligand potency. J Med Chem 2008, 51:553-564.
53. Haubertin DY, Bruneau P. A database of historically-observed chemical replacements. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:1294-1302.
54. 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 Comp Sci 1998, 38:511-522.
55. Gleeson P, Bravi G, Modi S, Lowe D. ADMET rules of thumb II: a comparison of the effects of common substituents on a range of ADMET parameters. Bioorg Med Chem 2009, 17:5906-5919.
56. Lewis ML, Cucurull-Sanchez L. Structural pairwise comparisons of HLM stability of phenyl derivatives: introduction of the Pfizer metabolism index (PMI) and metabolism-lipophilicity efficiency (MLE). J Comput Aided Mol Des 2009, 23:97-103.
57. Papadatos G, Alkarouri M, Gillet VJ, Willett P, Kadirkamanathan V, Luscombe CN, Bravi G, Richmond NJ, Pickett SD, Hussain J, et al. Lead optimization using matched molecular pairs: inclusion of contextual information for enhanced prediction of hERG inhibition, solubility, and lipophilicity. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:1872-1886.
58. Schultes S, de Graaf C, Berger H, Mayer M, Steffen A, Haaksma EEJ, de Esch IJP, Leurs R, Kramer O. A medicinal chemistry perspective on melting point: matched molecular pair analysis of the effects of simple descriptors on the melting point of drug-like compounds. MedChemComm 2012, 3:584-591.
59. Keefer CE, Chang G, Kauffman GW. Extraction of tacit knowledge from large ADME data sets via pairwise analysis. Bioorg Med Chem 2011, 19:3739-3749.
60. Maggiora GM. On outliers and activity cliffs: why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1535-1535.
61. Guha R, Van Drie JH. Structure-Activity Landscape Index: identifying and quantifying activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:646-658.
62. Birch AM, Kenny PW, Simpson I, Whittamore PRO. Matched molecular pair analysis of activity and properties of glycogen phosphorylase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2009, 19:850-853.
63. Southall NT, Ajay Kinase patent space visualization using chemical replacements. J Med Chem 2006, 49:2103-2109.
64. Mills JEJ, Brown AD, Ryckmans T, Miller DC, Skerratt SE, Barker CM, Bunnage ME. SAR mining and its application to the design of TRPA1 antagonists. MedChemComm 2012, 3:174-178.
65. Warner DJ, Bridgland-Taylor MH, Sefton CE, Wood DJ. Prospective prediction of antitarget activity by matched molecular pairs analysis. Mol Inf 2012, 31:365-368.
66. Wassermann AM, Bajorath J. Large-scale exploration of bioisosteric replacements on the basis of matched molecular pairs. Future Med Chem 2011, 3:425-436.
67. Wassermann AM, Bajorath J. Identification of target family directed bioisosteric replacements. MedChemComm 2011, 2:601-606.
68. Wassermann AM, Bajorath Jr. Chemical substitutions that Introduce activity cliffs across different compound classes and biological targets. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:1248-1256.
69. Hu Y, Bajorath Jr. Chemical transformations that yield compounds with distinct activity profiles. ACS Med Chem Lett 2011, 2:523-527.
70. Stewart KD, Shiroda M, James CA. Drug Guru: a computer software program for drug design using medicinal chemistry rules. Bioorg Med Chem 2006, 14:7011-7022.
71. Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc. Daylight Toolkit. Available at: http://www.daylight.com/products/toolkit.html. (Accessed October, 2012)
72. Nicola G, Liu T, Gilson MK. Public domain databases for medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 2012, 55:6987-7002.
73. Bender A, Glen RC. Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004, 2:3204-3218.
74. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov Today 2002, 7:903-911.
75. Sheridan RP. Chemical similarity searches: when is complexity justified? Expert Opin Drug Discov 2007, 2:423-430.
76. Leo AJ. Calculating Log P(Oct) from structures. Chem Rev 1993, 93:1281-1306.
77. Ghose AK, Viswanadhan VN, Wendoloski JJ. Prediction of hydrophobic (lipophilic) properties of small organic molecules using fragmental methods: an analysis of ALOGP and CLOGP methods. J Phys Chem A 1998, 102:3762-3772.
78. Durant JL, Leland BA, Henry DR, Nourse JG. Reoptimisation of MDL keys for use in drug discovery. J Chem Inf Model 2002, 42:1273-1280.
79. Flower DR. On the properties of bit string based measures of chemical similarity. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1998, 38:379-386.
80. Morgan H. The generation of a unique machine description for chemical structures-a technique developed at chemical abstracts service. J Chem Document 1965, 5:107-113.
81. Willett P. Screen set generation algorithm. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1979, 19:159-162.
82. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, Acklin P, Azzaoui K, Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2004, 44:1177-1185.
83. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, Acklin P, Azzaoui K, Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org Biomol Chem 2004, 2:3256-3266.
84. Rogers D, Hahn M. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:742-754.
85. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC, Reiling S. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2004, 44:1708-1718.
86. Filimonov D, Poroikov V, Borodina Y, Gloriozova T. Chemical similarity assessment through multilevel neighborhoods of atoms: definition and comparison with the other descriptors. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1999, 39:666-670.
87. Estrada E, Uriarte E. Recent advances on the use of topological indices in drug discovery research. Curr Med Chem 2001, 8:1573-1588.
88. Wiener H. Structural determination of paraffin boiling points. J Am Chem Soc 1947, 69:17-20.
89. Kier LB, Hall HL. Molecular Connectivity in Structure-Activity Analysis. New York: Wiley; 1986.
90. Kier LB, Hall LH. An electrotopological-state index for atoms in molecules. Pharm Res 1990, 7:801-807.
91. Kearsley SK, Sallamack S, Fluder EM, Andose JD, Mosley RT, Sheridan RP. Chemical similarity using physicochemical property descriptors. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 1996, 36:118-127.
92. Ahmed HEA, Vogt M, Bajorath J. Design and evaluation of bonded atom pair descriptors. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:487-499.
93. Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, Schmid G. "Scaffold-hopping" by topological pharmacophore search: a contribution to virtual screening. Angew Chem Int Ed 1999, 38:2894-2896.
94. Birchall K, Gillet VJ, Willett P, Ducrot P, Luttmann C. Use of reduced graphs to encode bioisosterism for similarity-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1330-1346.
95. Harper G, Bravi GS, Pickett SD, Hussain J, Green DV. The reduced graph descriptor in virtual screening and data-driven clustering of high-throughput screening data. J Chem Inf Comp Sci 2004, 44:2145-2156.
96. Rarey M, Dixon JS. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1998, 12:471-490.
97. Stiefl N, Watson IA, Baumann K, Zaliani A. ErG: 2D pharmacophore descriptions for scaffold hopping. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 46:208-220.
98. Schneider G, Fechner U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005, 4:649-663.