Methods for ligand-based virtual screening

Frontiers in Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 1-22

  Bajorath, Jürgen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Activity based selection; Compound classification; Compound filtering; Database filtering; Hit identification; Ligand based design; Molecular similarity; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

EID: 84880143944     PISSN: 15672042     EISSN: 18755763     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (120)

1. Bajorath, J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nature Rev. Drug. Discov., 2002; 1, 882-894.
2. Engels, M.F.M.; Venkatarangan, P. Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Develop., 2001, 4, 275-283.
3. Barnard, J.M. Substructure searching methods. Old and new. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1993, 33, 532-538.
4. Willett, P. Recent trends in hierarchic document clustering: a critical review. Inf. Process Manag., 1988, 24, 577-597.
5. Hopfinger, A.J. A QSAR investigation of dihydrofolate reductase inhibition by Baker triazines based upon molecular shape analysis. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1980, 102, 7196-7206.
6. Gund, P. Three-dimensional pharmacophore pattern searching. In Progress in Molecular and Subcellular Biology; Hahn, F.E., Ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1977; Vol. 5; pp. 117-142.
7. Kuntz, I.D.; Blaney, J.M.; Oatley, S.J.; Langridge, R.; Ferrin, T.E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol., 1982, 161, 269-288.
8. Kuntz, I.D. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science., 1992, 257, 1078-1082.
9. Brooijmans, N.; Kuntz, I.D. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 2003, 32, 335-373.
10. Johnson, M.A.; Lajiness, M.; Maggiora, G.M. Molecular similarity: a basis for designing drug screening programs. In QSAR: Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships in Drug Design; Fauchere, J.L., Ed. Alan R. Liss, New York, 1989; pp. 161-171.
11. Johnson, M.A.; Maggiora, G.M., Eds. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. Wiley: New York, 1990.
12. Lajiness, M.S. Dissimilarity-based compound selection techniques. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des., 1997, 7/8, 65-84.
13. Martin, Y.C. Diverse viewpoints on computational aspects of molecular diversity. J. Comb. Chem., 2001, 3, 231-250.
14. Martin, E.J.; Blaney, J.M.; Siani, M.A.; Spellmeyer, D.C.; Wong, A.K.; Moos, W.H. Measuring diversity: experimental design of combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J. Med. Chem., 1995, 38, 1431-1436.
15. Bajorath, J. Selected concepts and investigations in compound classification, molecular descriptor analysis, and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 233-245.
16. Livingstone, D.J. The characterization of chemical structures using molecular properties. A survey. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 40, 195-209.
17. Xue, L.; Bajorath, J. Molecular descriptors in chemoinformatics, computational combinatorial chemistry, and virtual screening. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen., 2000, 3, 363-372.
18. Brown, R.D.; Martin, Y.C. Use of structure-activity data to compare structure-based clustering methods and descriptors for use in compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1996, 36, 572-584.
19. Matter, H.; Pötter, T. Comparing 3D pharmacophore triplets and 2D fingerprints for selecting diverse compound subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 1211-1225.
20. Patterson, D.E.; Cramer, R.D. III; Ferguson, A.M.; Clark, R.D.; Weinberger, L.E. Neighborhood behavior: A useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. J. Med. Chem., 1996, 49, 3049-3059.
21. Bradley, E.K.; Beroza, P.; Penzotti, J.E.; Grootenhuis, P.D.J.; Spellmeyer, D.C.; Miller, J.L. A rapid computational method for lead evolution: description and application to oo1-adrenergic antagonists. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43, 2770-2774.
22. Xue, L.; Stahura, F.L.; Godden, J.W.; Bajorath, J. Mini-fingerprints detect similar activity of receptor ligands previously recognized only by three-dimensional pharmacophore-based methods. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 394-401.
23. Merlot, C.; Domine, D.; Cleva, C.; Church, D.J. Chemical substructures in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2003, 8, 594-602.
24. Dixon, S.L.; Merz, K.M. Jr. One-dimensional representations and similarity calculations: methodology and validation. J. Med. Chem., 2001, 44, 3795-3809.
25. Gillet, V.J.; Willett, P.; Bradshaw, J. Identification of biological activity profiles using substructural analysis and genetic algorithms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1998, 38, 165-179.
26. Sadowski, J. Optimization of chemical libraries by neural network methods. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol., 2000, 4, 280-282.
27. Godden, J.W.; Bajorath, J. An information-theoretic approach to descriptor selection for database profiling and QSAR modeling. QSAR Comb. Sci., 2003, 22, 487-497.
28. Sheridan R.P.; Kearsley, S.K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 2002, 7, 903-911.
29. Martin, Y.C.; Kofron, J.L.; Traphagen, L.M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 4350-4358.
30. Bajorath, J. Virtual screening: methods, expectations, and reality. Curr. Drug Discov., 2002, 2/3, 24-28.
31. Green, D.V. Virtual screening of virtual libraries. Prog. Med. Chem., 2003, 41, 61-97.
32. Walters, W.P.; Stahl, M.T.; Murcko, M.A. Virtual screening-an overview. Drug Discov. Today 1998, 3, 160-178.
33. Hann, M.; Hudson, B.; Lewell, X.; Lifely, R.; Miller, L.; Ramsden, N. Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 897-902.
34. Muegge, I. Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. J. Med. Chem., 2001, 44, 1841-1846.
35. Patchett, A.A.; Nargund, R.P. Privileged structures. An update. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem., 2000, 35, 289-298.
36. Muller, G. Medicinal chemistry of target family-directed masterkeys. Drug Discov. Today 2003, 8, 681-691.
37. Sheridan, R.P. Finding multiactivity substructures by mining databases of drug-like compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1037-1050.
38. 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.
39. Liu, R.; So, S. Development of quantitative structure-property relationship models for early ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 1. Aqueous solubility. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 1633-1639.
40. Yoshida, F.; Topliss, J.G. QSAR model for drug human oral bioavailability. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43, 2575-2585.
41. Liu, R.; Sun, H.; So, S. Development of quantitative structure-property relationship models for early ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 2. Blood-brain barrier penetration. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 1623-1632.
42. Clark, D.E.; Pickett, S.D. Computational methods for the prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Drug Discov. Today 2000, 5, 49-58.
43. Ajay; Walters, W.P.; Murcko, M.A. Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? J. Med. Chem., 1998, 41, 3314-3324.
44. Sadowski, J.; Kubinyi, H. A scoring scheme to distinguish between drugs and non-drugs. J. Med. Chem., 1998, 41, 3325-3329.
45. Murcia-Soler, M.; Perez-Gimenez, F.; Garcia-March, F.J.; Salabert-Salvador, M.T.; Diaz-Villanueva, W.; Castro-Bleda, M.J. Drugs and nondrugs: an effective discrimination with topological methods and artificial neural networks. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1688-1702.
46. Muegge, I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med. Res. Rev., 2003, 23, 302-321.
47. Sheridan, R.P. The most common chemical replacements in drug-like compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2002, 42, 103-108.
48. Ghose, A.K.; Viswanadhan, V.N.; Wendoloski, J.J. A knowledge-based approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative characterization of known drug databases. J. Comb. Chem., 1999, 1, 55-68.
49. Godden, J.W.; Bajorath, J. Chemical descriptors with distinct levels of information content and varying sensitivity to differences between selected compound databases identified by SE-DSE analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2002, 42, 87-93.
50. Carhart, R.E.; Smith, D.H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definitions and applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1985, 25, 64-73
51. Sheridan, R.P.; Miller, M.D.; Underwood, D.J.; Kearsley, S.K. Chemical similarity using geometric atom pair descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1996, 36, 128-136.
52. Cramer, R.D. III; Poss, M.A.; Hermsmeier, M.A.; Caulfield, T.J.; Kowala, M.C.; Valentine, MT. Prospective identification of biologically active structures by topomer similarity searching. J. Med. Chem., 1999, 42, 3919-3933.
53. Labute, P. A widely applicable set of descriptors. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 2000, 18, 464-477.
54. Martin, Y.C. 3D database searching in drug design. J. Med. Chem., 1992, 35, 2145-2154.
55. Langer, T.; Krovat, E.M. Chemical feature-based pharmacophores and virtual library screening for discovering new leads. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Develop., 2003, 6, 370-376.
56. James, C.A.; Weininger, D.; Delaney, J. Daylight theory manual. Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc., Irvine, CA, 2002.
57. MACCS structural keys. Symyx Software, Inc., San Ramon, CA, 2005.
58. Barnard, J.M.; Downs, G.M. Chemical fragment generation and clustering software. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1997, 37, 141-142.
59. Xue, L.; Godden, J.W.; Bajorath, J. Mini-fingerprints for virtual screening: design principles and generation of novel prototypes based on information theory. SAR QSAR Env. Res., 2003, 14, 27-40.
60. Xue, L.; Godden, J.W.; Stahura, F.L.; Bajorath, J. Design and evaluation of a molecular fingerprint involving the transformation of property descriptor values into a binary classification scheme. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1151-1157.
61. Mason, J.S.; Cheney, D.L. Library design and virtual screening using multiple point pharmacophore fingerprints. Pac. Symp. Biocomput., 2000, 5, 576-587.
62. Willett, P.; Barnard, J.M.; Downs, G.M. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1998, 38, 983-996.
63. Willett, P. Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems. Research Studies Press: Letchworth, 1987.
64. Wild, D.J.; Blankley, C.J. Comparison of 2D fingerprint types and hierarchy level selection methods for structural grouping using Ward's clustering. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 40, 155-162.
65. Jarvis, R.A.; Patrick, E.A. Clustering using a similarity measure based on shared near neighbors. IEEE Trans. Comput., 1973, C22, 1025-1034.
66. Ward, J.H. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 1963, 58, 236-244.
67. Willett, P.; Winterman, V.; Bawden, D. Implementation of non-hierarchic cluster analysis methods in chemical information systems: selection of compounds for biological testing and clustering of substructure search output. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1986, 26, 109-118.
68. Brown, R.D.; Martin, Y.C. Use of structure-activity data to compare structure-based clustering methods and descriptors for use in compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1996, 36, 572-584.
69. Stanton, D.; Morris, T.W.; Roychoudhury, S.; Parker, C.N. Application of nearest-neighbor and cluster analyses in pharmaceutical lead discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 21-27.
70. Stahura, F.L.; Bajorath, J. Partitioning methods for the identification of active molecules. Curr. Med. Chem., 2003, 8, 707-715.
71. Pearlman, R.S.; Smith, K.M. Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect. Drug Discov. Design 1998, 9, 339-353.
72. Pearlman, R.S.; Smith, K.M. Metric validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 28-35.
73. Pirard, B.; Pickett, S.D. Classification of kinase inhibitors using BCUT descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 40, 1431-1440.
74. Gao, H. Application of BCUT metrics and genetic algorithm in binary QSAR analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 402-407.
75. Xue, L.; Bajorath, J. Molecular descriptors for effective classification of biologically active compounds based on principal component analysis identified by a genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 40, 801-809.
76. Kohonen, T. Self-organization and Associative Memory. Springer-Verlag: Berlin, 1989.
77. Agrafiotis, D.K.; Lobanov, V.S. Nonlinear mapping networks. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 40, 1356-1362.
78. Agrafiotis, D.K.; Rassokhin, D.N.; Lobanov, V.S. Multi-dimensional scaling and visualization of large molecular similarity tables. J. Comput. Chem., 2001, 22, 488-500.
79. Agrafiotis, D.K.; Xu, H. A self-organizing principle for non-linear manifolds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 15869-15872.
80. Rusinko, A. III; Farmen, M.W.; Lambert, C.G.; Brown, P.L., Young, S.S. Analysis of a large structure/ biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 1017-1026.
81. Jones-Hertzog, D.K.; Mukhopadhyay, P.; Keefer, C.E.; Young, S.S. Use of recursive partitioning in the sequential screening of G protein-coupled receptors. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Meth., 1999, 42, 207-215.
82. van Rhee, A.M.; Stocker, J.; Printzenhoff, D.; Creech, C.; Wagoner, P.K.; Spear, K.L. Retrospective analysis of an experimental high-throughput screening data set by recursive partitioning. J. Comb. Chem., 2001, 3, 267-277.
83. nd Ed. Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 1999.
84. Livingstone, D.J.; Manallack, D.T. Neural networks in 3D QSAR. QSAR Comb. Sci., 2003, 22, 510-518.
85. Rabow, A.A.; Shoemaker, R.H.; Sausville, E.A.; Covell, D.G. Mining the National Cancer Institute's tumor-screening database: identification of compounds with similar cellular activities. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 818-840.
86. Keseru, G.M.; Molnar, L.; Greiner, I. A neural network based virtual high throughput screening test for the prediction of CNS activity. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen., 2000, 3, 535-540.
87. Molnar, L.; Keseru, G.M. A neural network based virtual screening of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 2002, 12, 419-421.
88. Oprea, T.I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? Mol. Divers., 2002, 5, 199-208.
89. Rishton, G.M. Non-lead-likeness and lead-likeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov. Today 2003, 14, 86-96.
90. Carhart, R.E.; Smith, D.H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1985, 25, 64-73.
91. Sheridan, R.P.; Nachbar, R.B.; Bush, B.L. Extending the trend vector: the trend matrix and sample-based partial least squares. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1994, 8, 323-340.
92. Hopfinger, A.J.; Wang, S.; Tokarski, J.S.; Jin, B.; Albuquerque, M.; Madhav, P.J.; Duraiswami, C. Construction of 3D-QSAR models using the 4D-QSAR analysis formalism. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1997, 119, 10509-10524.
93. Hopfinger, A.J.; Reaka, A.; Venkatarangan, P.; Duca, J.S.; Wang, S. Construction of a virtual high throughput screen by 4D-QSAR analysis: application to a combinatorial library of glucose inhibitors of glycogen phosphorylase b. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 1151-1160.
94. Singh, J.; van Vlijmen, H.; Liao, Y.; Lee, W.-C.; Cornebise, M.; Harris, M.; Shu, I.; Gill, A.; Cuervo, J.H.; Abraham, W.M.; Adams, S.P. Identification of potent and novel β4β1 antagonists using in silico screening. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 2988-2993.
95. Baurin, N.; Mozziconacci, J.-C.; Arnoult, E.; Chavatte, P.; Marot, C.; Morin-Allory, L. 2D QSAR consensus prediction for high-throughput virtual screening. An application to COX-2 inhibition modeling and screening of the NCI database. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 276-285.
96. Labute, P. Binary QSAR: a new method for the determination of quantitative structure activity relationships. Pac. Symp. Biocomput., 1999, 4, 444-455.
97. Gillet, V.J.; Willett, P.; Bradshaw, J. Similarity searching using reduced graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 338-345.
98. Barker, E.J.; Gardiner, E.J.; Gillet, V.J.; Kitts, P.; Morris, J. Further development of reduced graphs for identifying bioactive compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 346-356.
99. Barnard, J.M. Substructure searching methods. Old and new. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1993, 33, 532-538.
100. Rarey, M.; Dixon, J.S. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity method based on tree matching. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 1998, 12, 471-490.
101. Putta, S.; Lemmen, L.; Beroza, P.; Greene, J. A novel shape-feature based approach to virtual library screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2002, 42, 1230-1240.
102. Salim, N.; Holliday, J.D.; Willett, P. Combination of fingerprint-based similarity coefficients using data fusion. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2000, 43, 435-442.
103. Xue, L.; Godden, J.W.; Stahura, F.L.; Bajorath, J. Profile scaling increases the similarity search performance of molecular fingerprints containing numerical descriptors and structural keys. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1218-1225.
104. Blower, P.; Fligner, M.; Verducci, J.; Bjoraker, J. On combining recursive partitioning and simulated annealing to detect groups of biologically active compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2002, 42, 393-404.
105. Stockfisch, T.P. Partially unified multiple property recursive partitioning (PUMP-RP): a new method for predicting and understanding drug selectivity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1608-1613.
106. van Rhee, A.M. Use of recursion forests in the sequential screening process: consensus selection by multiple recursion trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 941-948.
107. Svetnik, V.; Liaw, A.; Tong, C.; Culberson, J.C.; Sheridan, R.P.; Feuston, B.P. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1947-1958.
108. Godden, J.W.; Xue, L.; Bajorath J. Classification of biologically active compounds by median partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2002, 42, 1263-1269.
109. Godden, J.W., Furr, J.R.; Bajorath, J. Recursive median partitioning for virtual screening of large databases. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 182-188.
110. Godden, J.W.; Furr, J.R.; Xue, L.; Stahura, F.L.; Bajorath, J. Molecular similarity analysis and virtual screening by mapping of consensus positions in binary-transformed chemical descriptor spaces with variable dimensionality. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2004, 44, 21-29.
111. Nicolaou, C.A.; Tamura, S.Y.; Kelley, B.P.; Bassett, S.I.; Nutt, R.F. Analysis of large screening data sets via adaptively grown phylogenetic-like trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2002, 42, 1069-1079.
112. Tamura, S.Y.; Bacha, P.A.; Gruver, H.S.; Nutt, R.F. Data analysis of high-throughput screening results: application of multi-domain clustering to the NCI anti-HIV data set. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45, 3082-3093.
113. Rassokhin, D.N., Lobanov, V.S.; Agrafiotis, D.K. Nonlinear mapping of massive data sets by fuzzy clustering and neural networks. J. Comput. Chem., 2000, 22, 373-386.
114. Feher, M.; Schmidt, J.M. Fuzzy clustering as a means of selecting representative conformers and molecular alignments. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 810-818.
115. Harper, G.; Bradshaw, J.; Gittin, J.C.; Green, D.V.S.; Leach, A.R. Prediction of biological activity for high-throughput screening using binary kernel discrimination. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2001, 41, 1295-1300.
116. Wilton, D.; Willet, P.; Lawson, K.; Mullier, G. Comparison of ranking methods for virtual screening in lead discovery programs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 469-474.
117. Byvatov, E.; Fechner, U.; Sadowski, J.; Schneider, G. Comparison of support vector machine and artificial neural network systems for drug/nondrug classification. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 1882-1889.
118. Zernov, V.V.; Balakin, K.V.; Ivaschenko, A.A.; Savchuk, N.P.; Pletnev, I.V. Drug discovery using support vector machines. The case studies of drug-likeness, agrochemical-likeness, and enzyme inhibition predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 2048-2056.
119. Warmuth, M.K.; Liao, J.; Rätsch, G.; Mathieson, M.; Putta, S.; Lemmen, C. Active learning with support vector machines in the drug discovery process. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 667-673.
120. Sorich, M.J.; Miners, J.O.; McKinnon, R.A.; Winkler, D.A.; Burden, F.R.; Smith, P.A. Comparison of linear and non-linear classification algorithms for the prediction of drug and chemical metabolism by human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 2003, 43, 2019-2024.