Open-source platform to benchmark fingerprints for ligand-based virtual screening

Journal of Cheminformatics

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 2013, Pages

  Riniker, Sereina ^a   Landrum, Gregory A ^a  

^a NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Benchmark; Fingerprints; Similarity; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879897900     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17582946     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1758-2946-5-26     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Bender A Glen RC: Molecular similarity: A key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004 2:3204-3218.
2. Varin T Bureau R Mueller C Willett P: Clustering files of chemical structures using the Szekely-Rizzo generalization of Ward's method. JMol Graph Modell 2009 28:187-195.
3. Mackey MD Melville JL: Better than random? The chemotype enrichment problem. J Chem Inf Model 2009 49:1154-1162.
4. Wassermann AM Wawer M Bajorath J: Activity landscape representations for structure-activity relationship analysis. JMed Chem 2010 53:8209-8223.
5. Sheridan RP Kearsley SK: Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov Today 2002 7:903-911.
6. Roth HJ: There is no such thing as 'diversity'? Curr Opin Chem Biol 2005 9:293-295.
7. Bender A: How similar are thosemolecules after all? Use two descriptors and you will have three different answers. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2010 5:1141-1151.
8. Todeschini R Consonni V: Handbook of Molecular Descriptors. Wiley-VCH: Weinheim; 2000.
9. Truchon JF Bayly CI: Evaluating virtual screeningmethods: good and badmetrics for the early recognitionproblem. J Chem Inf Model 2007 47:488-508. (Pubitemid 46615951)
10. Jain AN Nicholls A: Recommendations for evaluation of computationalmethods. J Comput AidedMol Des 2008 22:133-139.
11. Nicholls A: What do we know and when do we know it?. J Comput AidedMol Des 2008 22:239-255.
12. Rohrer SG Baumann K: Impact of benchmark data set topology on the validation of virtual screeningmethods: exploration and quantification by spatial statistics. J Chem Inf Model 2008 48:704-718. (Pubitemid 351757738)
13. Sheridan RP: Alternative global goodness metrics and sensitivity analysis: heuristics to check the robustness of conclusions from studies comparing virtual screeningmethods. J Chem Inf Model 2008 48:426-433. (Pubitemid 351473044)
14. Scior T Bender A Tresadern G Medina-Franco JL Martinez-Mayorga K Langer T Cuanalo-Contreras K Agrafiotis DK: Recognizing pitfalls in virtual screening: A critical review. J Chem Inf Model 2012 52:867-881.
15. Bender A Jenkins JL Scheiber J Sukuru SCK Glick M Davies JW: How similar are similarity searchingmethods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space. J Chem Inf Model 2009 49:108-119.
16. Sheridan RP Singh SB Fluder EM Kearsley SK: Protocols for bridging the peptide to nonpeptide gap in topological similarity searches. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001 41:1395-1406.
17. MDL drug data report. Santa Clara CA. [MDLInformationSystems/Symyx]
18. Hert J Willett P Wilton DJ Acklin P Azzoui K Jacoby E Schuffenhauer A: Comparison of fingerprint-basedmethods for virtual screening usingmultiple bioactive reference structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004 44:1177-1185.
19. Hert J Willett P Wilton DJ Acklin P Azzoui 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.
20. McGaughey GB Sheridan RP Bayly CI Culberson JC Kreatsoulas C Lindsley S Maiorov V Truchon JF Cornell WD: Comparison of topological shape and docking methods in virtual screening. J Chem InfModel 2007 47:1504-1519. (Pubitemid 47210053)
21. Sastry M Lowrie JF Dixon SL Sherman W: Large-scale systematic analysis of 2D fingerprintmethods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. J Chem Inf Model 2010 50:771-784.
22. Irwin JJ: Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008 22:193-199.
23. DUD LIB VS 1.0 [http://dud.docking.org]
24. Rohrer SG Baumann K: Maximum unbiased validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on PubChem bioactivity data. J Chem InfModel 2009 49:169-184.
25. MUV. [http://www.pharmchem.tu-bs.de/lehre/baumann/MUV.html]
26. 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 2012 40:D1100 - D1107.
27. ChEMBL: European Bioinformatics Institute (EBI) version 14. 2012. [http://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/]
28. Heikamp K Bajorath J: Large-scale similarity search profiling of ChEMBL compound data sets. J Chem Inf Model 2011 51:1831-1839.
29. Tiikkainen P Markt P Wolber G Kirchmair J Distinto S Poso A Kallioiemi O: Critical comparison of virtual screeningmethods against the MUV data set. J Chem Inf Model 2009 49:2168-2178.
30. Jahn A Hinselmann G Fechner N Zell A: Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening. J Cheminf 2009 1:14-37.
31. von Korff M Freyss J Sander T: Comparison of ligand- and structure-based virtual screening on the DUD data set. J Chem Inf Model 2009 49:209-231.
32. Venkatraman V Perez-Nueno VI Mavridis L Ritchie DW: Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods. J Chem Inf Model 2010 50:2079-2093.
33. Hu G Kuang G Xiao W Li W Liu G Tang Y: Performance evaluation of 2D fingerprint and 3D shape similaritymethods in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2012 52:1103-1113.
34. Ginn CMR Willett P Bradshaw J: Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion. Perspect Drug Discov Design 2000 20:1-16.
35. Williams C: Reverse fingerprinting similarity searching by group fusion and fingerprint bit importance. Mol Divers 2006 10:311-332. (Pubitemid 44546685)
36. Kenny PW Montanari CA: Inflation of correlation in the pursuit of drug-likeness. J Comput AidedMol Des 2013 27:1-13.
37. Nilakantan R Baumann N Dixon JS Venkataraghavan R: Topological torsion: A new molecular descriptor for SAR applications. Comparison with other descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1987 27:82-85.
38. Brown N Jacoby E: On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. Mini-Rev Med Chem 2006 6:1217-1229. (Pubitemid 44697101)
39. Vogt M Stumpfe D Geppert H Bajorath J: Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fingerprints: True potential black magic or a hopeless endeavor? JMed Chem 2010 53:5707-5715.
40. Gardiner EJ Holliday JD O'Dowd C Willett P: Effectiveness of 2D fingerprints for scaffold hopping. Future Med Chem 2011 3:405-411.
41. Bemis GW Murcko MA: The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. JMed Chem 1996 39:2887-2893. (Pubitemid 26251026)
42. RDKit: Cheminformatics and Machine Learning Software. 2013. [http://www.rdkit.org]
43. MACCS structural keys. 2011 Accelrys San Diego CA.
44. Carhart RE Smith DH Venkataraghavan R: Atom pairs asmolecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1985 25:64-73.
45. Daylight Theory Manual [http://www.daylight.com/dayhtml/doc/ theory/index.pdf]
46. Gedeck P Rohde B Bartels C: QSAR - How good is it in practice? Comparison of descriptor sets on an unbiased cross section of corporate data sets. J Chem Inf Model 2006 46:1924-1936. (Pubitemid 44625964)
47. Rogers D Hahn M: Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 2010 50:742-754.
48. Irwin JJ Shoichet BK: ZINC - a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2005 45:177-182. (Pubitemid 40736970)
49. PubChem: National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) [http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]
50. Todeschini R Consonni V Xiang H Holliday J Buscema M Willett P: Similarity coefficients for binary chemoinformatics data: overview and extended comparison using simulated and real data sets. J Chem Inf Model 2012 52:2884-2901.
51. Friedman M: The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. J AmStat Assoc 1937 200:675-701.
52. Friedman post-hoc tests performed using R code of Tal Galili [http:// www.r-statistics.com/2010/02/post-hoc-analysis-for-friedmans-test-rcode]
53. Dudoit S Shaffer JP Boldrick JC: Multiple hypothesis testing in microarray experiments. Stat Sci 2003 18:71-103. (Pubitemid 41461823)
54. Team RDC: R: A language and environment for statistical computing. ViennaAustria 2010 [http://www.r-project.org]