Approaches to virtual screening and screening library selection

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Volumn 19, Issue 26, 2013, Pages 4787-4796

  Wildman, Scott A ^a  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Compound library; Docking; Pharmacophore; QSAR; Scoring; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; LITERATURE; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; RELIABILITY; SCIENTIST; SCREENING; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84881342600     PISSN: 13816128     EISSN: 18734286     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1381612811319260009     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Web of Science, Thompson Reuters, July 2, 2012.
2. Smelie AS, Crippen GM, Richards WG. Fast drug-receptor mapping by site-directed distances. A novel method of predicting new pharmacological leads. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1991; 31: 386-92.
3. Martin YC. 3D database searching in drug design. J Med Chem 1992; 35: 2145-54.
4. Taboureau O, Baell JB, Fernandez-Recio J, Villoutreix BO. Established and emerging trends in computational drug discovery in the structural genomics era. Chem Biol 2012; 19: 29-41. Supplemental Information.
5. Slavica E, Ke S, Barata T, et al. Target fishing and docking studies of the novel derivatives of aryl-aminopyridines with potential anticancer activity. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 2012; 17: 5220-8
6. Lu PY, Bevan DR, Lewis SN, Hintecillas R, Bassaganya-Riera J. Molecular modeling of lanthionine synthetase component C-like protein 2: a potential target for the discovery of novel type 2 diabetes prophylactics and therapeutics. J Mol Model 2011; 17: 543-53.
7. Periwal V, Kishtapuram S, Scafria V. Computational models for invitro anti-tubercularactivity of molecules based on high-throughput chemical biology screening datasets. BMC Pharmacology 2012; 12: 1.
8. Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN, Ernsberger P, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotech 2007; 25: 197-206.
9. Gao Z, Li H, Zhang H, et al. PDTD: a web-accessible protein database for drug target identification. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9: 104.
10. AbdulHameed MDM, Chaudhury S, Singh N, Sun H, Wallqvist A, Tawa GJ. Exploring polypharmacology using a ROCS-base target fishing approach. J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52: 492-505.
11. Hendlich M, Bergner A, Gunther J, Klebe G. Relibase: Design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of proteinligand interactions. J Mol Bio 2003; 326: 607-20.
12. Kalliokoski T, Vulpetti A. Large-scale evaluation of CavBase for analyzing the polypharmacology of kinase inhibitors. Mol Inf 2011; 30: 923-5.
13. nd ed. Methods in Molecular Biology. Springer Protocols. Humana Press. Springer Science. New York 2009: 239-57.
14. nd ed. Methods in Molecular Biology. Springer Protocols. Humana Press. Springer Science. New York 2009: 1-32.
15. Khanna V, Ranganathan S. In silico approach to screen compounds active against parasitic nematodes of major socioeconomic importance. BMC Bioinformatics 2012; 12: S25.
16. Nicholls A. What do we know and when do we know it? J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008; 22: 239-55.
17. Jain AN, Nicholls A. Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008; 22: 133-9.
18. Hawkins PCD, Warren GL, Skillman AG, Nicholls A. How to do an evaluation: pitfalls and traps. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008; 22: 179-90.
19. Bender A, Glen RC. A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication. J Chem Inf Model 2005; 45: 1369-1375.
20. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under an ROC curve. Radiology 1982; 143: 29-36.
21. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148: 839-43.
22. Svensson F, Anders K, Skold C. Virtual screening data fusion using both structure-and ligand-based methods. J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52: 225-32.
23. Eriksson L, Jaworska J, Worth AP, Cronin MTD, McDowell RM, Gramatica P. Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification-and regressionbased QSARs. Env Health Persp 2003; 111: 1361-75.
24. Penzotti JE, Landrum GA, Putta S. Building predictive ADMET models for early decisions in drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Disc Dev 2004; 7: 49-61.
25. Roy K, Mitra I. On the use of the metric r(m)(2) as an effective tool for validation of QSAR models in computational drug design and predictive toxicology. Mini-rev Med Chem 2012; 12: 491-504.
26. Golbraikh A, Tropsha A. Beware of q(2)! J Mol Graph Modell 2002; 20: 269-76.
27. Swamidass SJ, Calhoun BT, Bittker JA, Bodycombe NE, Clemons, PA. Enhancing the rate of scaffold discovery with diversityoriented prioritization. Bioinformatics 2011; 26: 2271-8.
28. Hack MD, Rassokhin DN, Buyck C, et al. Library enhancement through the wisdom of crowds. J Chem Inf Model 2011; 3275-86.
29. Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, Muresan S, Hopkins AL. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nature Chem 2012; 4: 90-8.
30. Lajiness MS, Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V. Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J Med Chem 2004; 47: 4891-6.
31. Raymond JW, Willett P. Similarity searching in databases of flexible 3D structures using smoothed bounded distance matrices. J Chem Inf Model 2003; 43: 908-16.
32. Tseng YJ, Hopfinger AJ, Esposito EX. The great descriptor melting pot: mixing descriptors for the common good of QSAR models J Comput Aided Mol Design 2012; 26: 39-43.
33. Scior T, Medina-Franco JL, Do QT, Martinez-Mayorga K, Rojas JAY, Bernard P. How to recognize and workaround pitfalls in QSAR studies: a critical review. Curr Med Chem 2009; 16: 4297-313.
34. Santos OA, Hopfinger AJ, Cherkasov A, de Alencastro RB. The receptor-dependent QSAR paradigm: an overview of the current state of the art. Med Chem 2009; 5: 359-66.
35. Plewczynski D, Spieser SAH, Koch U. Performance of machine learning methods for ligand-based virtual screening. Combin Chem High Throughput Screen 2009; 12: 358-68.
36. Xu C, Mager DW. Quantitative structure-pharmacokinetic relationships Expert Opin Drug Metab Tox 2011; 7: 63-77
37. Crippen GM. Distance geometry analysis of the benzodiazepine binding site. Mol Pharm 1982; 22: 11-9.
38. 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: 209-31.
39. Constans P, Amat L, CarboDorca R. Toward a global maximization of the molecular similarity function: Superposition of two molecules. J Comput Chem 1997; 18: 826-46.
40. Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Nicholls A. Comparison of shapematching and docking as virtual screening tools. J Med Chem 2007; 50: 74-82.
41. McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, et al. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2007; 47: 1504-19.
42. Armstrong MS, Finn PW, Morris GM, Richards WG. Improving the accuracy of ultrafast ligand-based screening: incorporating lipophilicity into ElectroShape as an extra dimension. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2011; 25: 785-90.
43. Wildman SA, Crippen GM. Prediction of physicochemical parameters by atomic contributions. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1999; 39: 868-73.
44. Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Ann Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 2003; 32: 335-73.
45. Baker NA, Sept D, Joseph S, Holst MJ, McCammon JA. Electrostatics of nanosystems: application to microtubules and the ribosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 10037-41.
46. Wlodawer A, Minor W, Dauter Z, Jaskolski M. Protein crystallography for non-crystallographers, or how to get the best (but not more) from published macromolecular structures. FEBS J 2008; 275: 1-21.
47. Raymond JW, Jalaie M, Bradley MP. Conditional probability: A new fusion method for merging disparate virtual screening results. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44: 601-9.
48. Hsieh JH, Yin S, Wang XS, Liu S, Dokholyan NV, Tropsha A. Cheminformatics Meets Molecular Mechanics: A combined application of knowledge-based pose scoring and physical force fieldbased hit scoring functions improves the accuracy of structurebased virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52: 16-28.
49. Cherkasov A, Ban F, Li Y, Fallahi M, Hammond GL. Progressive docking: a hybrid QSAR/docking approach for accelerating in silico high throughput screening. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 7466-78.
50. Teague SJ, Davis AM, Leeson PD, Oprea T. The design of leadlike combinatorial libraries. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 1999; 38: 3743-8.
51. Carr RAE, Congreve M, Murray CW, Rees DC. Fragment-based lead discovery: leads by design. Drug Disc Today 2005; 10: 987-92.
52. Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS, Hopkins AL. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nature Biotech 2006; 24: 805-15.
53. Simon Z, Peragovics A, Vigh-Smeller M, et al. Drug effect prediction by polypharmacology-based interaction profiling. J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52: 134-45.
54. Linusson A, Elofsson M, Andersson IE, Dahlgren MK. Statistical molecular design of balanced compound libraries for QSAR modeling. Curr Med Chem 2010; 17: 2001-16.
55. Rishton GM. Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS. Drug Disc Today 1997; 2: 382-4.
56. Hann MM, Leach AR, Harper G. Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001; 41: 856-64.
57. Coan KED, Shoichet BK. Stoichiometry and physical chemistry of promiscuous aggregate-based inhibitors. J Am Chem Soc 2008; 130: 9606-12.
58. Sushko I, Salmina E, Potemkin VA, Poda G, Tetko IV. ToxAlerts: a web server of structural alerts for toxic chemicals and compounds with potential adverse reactions. J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52: 2310-6.
59. Saiakhov RD, Klopman G. MultiCASE expert systems and the REACH initiative. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008; 18: 159-75.
60. Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum Exp Toxicol 1991; 10; 261-73.
61. Irwin JJ, Sterling T, Mysinger MM, Bolstad ES, Coleman RG. ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology. J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52. 1757-68.
62. Good AC, Oprea TI. Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008; 22: 169-78.
63. Huang NA, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2006; 49: 6789-801.
64. Bolton E, Wang Y, Thiessen PA, Bryant SH. PubChem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities. In Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry, Volume 4, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 2008.
65. Wang Y, Xiao J, Suzek TO, et al. PubChem's BioAssay database. Nucl Acids Res 2012; 40: D400-12.
66. Gaulton A, Bellis L, Chambers J, et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for chemical biology and drug discovery. Nucl Acids Res 2012; 40: D1100-7.
67. Swamidass SJ. Mining small-molecule screens to repurpose drugs. Brief Bioinf 2011; 12: 327-335.
68. Scior T, Bender A, Tresadern G, et al. Recognizing pitfalls in virtual screening: a critical review J Chem Inf Model 2012; 52: 867-81.
69. Spandl RJ, Bender A, Spring DR. Diversity-oriented synthesis; a spectrum of approaches and results. Org Biomol Chem 2008; 6: 1149-58.
70. López-Vallejo F, Nefzi A, Bender A, et al. Increased diversity of libraries from libraries: chemoinformatic analysis of bis-diazacyclic libraries. Chem Biol Drug Des 2011; 77: 328-42.
71. Schreiber SL. Target-oriented and diversity-oriented organic synthesis in drug discovery. Science 2000; 287: 1964-9.
72. López-Vallejo F, Caulfield T, Martínez-Mayorga K, et al. Integrating virtual screening and combinatorial chemistry for accelerated drug discovery. Comb Chem High Throughput Screening 2011; 14: 475-87.
73. Alex AA, Flocco MM. Fragment-based drug discovery: What has it achieved so fair? Curr Topics Med Chem 2007; 16: 1544-67.
74. Blomberg N, Cosgrove DA, Kenny PW, Kolmodin K. Design of compound libraries for fragment screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2009; 23: 513-25.
75. Gozalbes R, Simon L, Froloff N, Sartori E, Monteils C, Baudelle R. Development and experimental validation of a docking strategy for the generation of kinase-targeted libraries. J Med Chem 2008; 51: 3124-32.
76. Ilouga PE, Hesterkamp T. On the prediction of statistical parameters in high-throughput screening using resampling techniques. J Biomol Screen 2012; 17: 705-12.
77. Walters WP, Namchuk M. Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit. Nature Rev 2003; 2: 259-66.
78. Nicholls A, Grant JA. Molecular shape and electrostatics in the encoding of relevant chemical information. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2005; 19: 661-86.
79. Shanmugasundaram V, Maggiora GM, Lajiness MS. Hit-directed nearest-neighbor searching. J Med Chem 2005; 48: 240-8.
80. Martin YC, Kofron JL, Traphagen LM. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J Med Chem 2002; 19: 4350-8.
81. Raymond JW, Blankley CJ, Willett P. Comparison of chemical clustering methods using graph-and fingerprint-based similarity measures. J Mol Graph Modell 2003; 21: 421-33.
82. Raymond JW, Kibbey CE. An automated method for exploring targeted substructural diversity within sets of chemical structures. J Chem Inf Model 2005; 45: 1195-204.