Diversity selection of compounds based on 'protein affinity fingerprints' improves sampling of bioactive chemical space

Chemical Biology and Drug Design

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 252-266

  Nguyen, Ha P ^a   Koutsoukas, Alexios ^a   Mohd Fauzi, Fazlin ^a,b   Drakakis, Georgios ^a   Maciejewski, Mateusz ^a   Glen, Robert C ^a   Bender, Andreas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Bioactive chemical space; Compound selection; Diversity selection; in silico target prediction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; COMBINATORIAL LIBRARY; DIVERSITY SELECTION; DNA FINGERPRINTING; GENE LIBRARY; GENETIC ALGORITHM; GENETIC VARIABILITY; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

BIOACTIVE CHEMICAL SPACE; COMPOUND SELECTION; DIVERSITY SELECTION; IN SILICO TARGET PREDICTION;

ALGORITHMS; BERBERINE ALKALOIDS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES;

EID: 84882787252     PISSN: 17470277     EISSN: 17470285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/cbdd.12155     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Warr W.A. (1997) Combinatorial chemistry and molecular diversity. An overview. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;37:134-140.
2. Gillet V.J. (2011) Diversity selection algorithms. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci;1:580-589.
3. Lakshmi B.A., DeCaprio D. (2010) Cheminformatics approaches to analyze diversity in compound screening libraries. Curr Opin Chem Biol;14:325-330.
4. Johnson M.A., Maggiora J.M. (1990) Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Glick M., Klon A.E., Acklin P., Davies J.W. (2004) Enrichment of extremely noisy high-throughput screening data using a naive Bayes classifier. J Biomol Screen;9:32-36.
6. Roth H.J. (2005) There is no such thing as 'diversity'!. Curr Opin Chem Biol;9:293-295.
7. Willet P. (2005) Evaluation of molecular similarity and molecular diversity methods using biological activity data. In: Bajorath J., editor. Chemoinformatics: Concepts, Methods, and Tools for Drug Discovery. New York, NY, USA: Humana Press; p. 51-63.
8. Tversky A. (1977) Features of similarity. Psychol Rev;84:327-354.
9. Puyzn T., Leszczynski J. (2010) Recent Advances in QSAR Studies: Methods and Applications. Amsterdam: Springer; p. 29-102.
10. Bender A., Glen R.C. (2004) Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem;2:3204-3218.
11. Maldonado A.G., Doucet J.P., Petitjean M., Fan B.T. (2006) Molecular similarity and diversity in chemoinformatics: from theory to applications. Mol Divers;10:39-79.
12. Todeschini R., Gramatica P. (1988) 3D-modelling and prediction by WHIM descriptors. Part 5. Theory development and chemical meaning of WHIM descriptors. J Chem Inf Model;28:31-36.
13. Durant J.L., Leland B.A., Henry D.R., Nourse J.G. (2002) Reoptimization of MDL keys for use in drug discovery. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;42:1273-1280.
14. Pearlman R.S., Smith K.M. (1998) Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect Drug Discov Des;9-11:339-353.
15. Glen R.C., Bender A., Arnby C.H., Carlsson L., Boyer S., Smith J. (2006) Circular fingerprints: flexible molecular descriptors with applications from physical chemistry to ADME. IDrugs;9:199-204.
16. Lajiness M.S. (1990) Molecular similarity-based methods for selecting compounds for screening. In: Rouvray D.H., editor. Computational Chemical Graph Theory. New York, NY, USA: Nova Science; p. 299-316.
17. Meinl T., Ostermann C., Berthold M.R. (2011) Maximum-score diversity selection for early drug discovery. J Chem Inf Model;51:37-247.
18. Snarey M., Terrett N.K., Willet P., Wilton D.J. (1997) Comparisons of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. J Mol Graph Model;15:372-385.
19. Gillet V., Willet P., Bradshaw J., Darren V.S. (1999) Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimize diversity and physical properties. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;39:169-177.
20. Hudson B.D., Hyde R.M., Rahr E., Wood J., Osman J. (1996) Parameter based methods for compound selection from chemical databases. Quant Struct-Act Relat;15:285-289.
21. Nilakantan R., Bauman N., Haraki K.S. (1997) Database diversity assessment; new ideas, concepts and tools. J Comput Aided Mol Des;11:447-452.
22. Gobbi A., Lee M.L. (2003) DISE: directed sphere exclusion. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;43:317-323.
23. Downs G.M., Willet P. (1994) Clustering of chemical-structure databases for compound selection. In: van de Waterbeemd H., editor. Advanced Computer-Assisted Techniques in Drug Discovery. New York: VCH; p. 111-130.
24. Sanders M.P., Roumen L., van der Horst E., Lane J.R., Vischer H.F., van Offenbeek J., de Vries H. et al. (2012) A prospective cross-screening study on G-protein-coupled receptors: lessons learned in virtual compound library design. J Med Chem;55:5311-5325.
25. Paterson D. (1996) Neighborhood behaviour: a useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. J Med Chem;39:3049-3059.
26. Maggiora G.M. (2006) Editorial: on outliers and activity cliffs - why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model;46:4.
27. Petrone P.M., Simms B., Nigsch F., Lounkine E., Kutchukian P., Cornett A., Deng Z., Davies J.D., Jenkins J.L., Glick M. (2012) Rethinking molecular similarity: comparing compounds on the basis of biological activity. ACS Chem Biol;7:1399-1409.
28. Kauvar L.M., Villar H.O., Sportsman J.R., Higgins D.L., Schmidt D.E. (1998) Protein affinity map of chemical space. J Chromatogr, B: Anal Technol Biomed Life Sci;715:93-102.
29. Kauvar L.M., Higgins D.L., Villar H.O., Sportsman J.R., Engqvist-Goldstein A., Bukar R., Bauer K.E., Dilley H., Rocke D.M. (1995) Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. Chem Biol;2:107-118.
30. Weber A., Teckentrup A., Briem H. (2002) FlexSim-R: a virtual affinity fingerprint descriptor to calculate similarities of functional groups. J Comput Aided Mol Des;16:903-916.
31. Lessel U.F., Briem H. (2000) Flexsim-X: a method for the detection of molecules with similar biological activity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;40:246-253.
32. Nidhi K.N., Glick M., Davies J.W., Jenkins J.L. (2006) Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J Chem Inf Model;46:1124-1133.
33. Dixon S.L., Villar H.O. (1998) Bioactive diversity and screening library selection via affinity fingerprinting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;38:1192-1203.
34. Koutsoukas A., Lowe R., Kalantar Motamedi Y., Mussa H.Y., Klaffke W., Mitchell J.B.O., Glen R.C., Bender A. (2012) In silico target prediction: defining a benchmarking dataset and comparison of performance of the multiclass Naive Bayes and Parzen-Rosenblatt Window. J Chem Inf Model; under revision.
35. Koutsoukas A., Simms B., Kirchmair J., Bond P., Whitmore A.V., Zimmer S., Young M.P., Jenkins J.L., Glick M., Glen R.C., Bender A. (2011) From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: current databases, methods and applications. J Proteomics;74:2554-2574.
36. Launkine E., Keiser J.K., Whitebread S., Mikhailov D., Hamon J., Jenkins J.L., Lavan P., Weber E., Doak A.K., Cote S., Shoichet B.K., Urban L. (2012) Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature;486:361-367.
37. Prathipati P., Ma N.L., Ujjini H.M., Bender A. (2009) Fishing the target of antitubercular compounds: in silico target deconvolution model development and validation. J Proteome Res;8:2788-2798.
38. Nettles J.H., Jenkins J.L., Bender A., Deng Z., Davies J.W., Glick M. (2006) Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J Med Chem;49:6802-6810.
39. Bender A., Jenkins J.L., Glick M., Deng Z., Nettles J.H., Davies J.W. (2006) "Bayes affinity fingerprints" improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: when are multi-target drugs a feasible concept? J Chem Inf Model;46:2445-2456.
40. Sierk M.L., Pearson W.R. (2004) Sensitivity and selectivity in protein structure comparison. Protein Sci;13:773-785.
41. Truchon J.F., Bayly C.I. (2007) Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem. J Chem Inf Model;47:488-508.
42. Bender A., Mussa H.Y., Glen R.C., Reiling S. (2004) Molecular similarity searching using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naive Bayesian classifier. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;44:170-178.
43. Duan J., Dixon S.L., Lowrie J.F., Sherman W. (2010) Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: insight into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods. J Mol Graph Model;29:157-170.
44. Bender A., Mussa H.Y., Glen R.C., Reiling S. (2004) Molecular similarity searching using atom environments (MOLPRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;44:1708-1718.
45. Sastry M., Lowrie J.F., Dixon S.L., Sherman W. (2010) Large-scale systematic analysis of 2D fingerprint methods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. J Chem Inf Model;50:771-784.
46. Clark R.D., Langton W.J. (1998) Balancing representativeness against diversity using optimizable K-dissimilarity and hierarchical clustering. J Chem Inf Comput Sci;38:1079-1086.
47. Willet P. (1999) Dissimilarity-based algorithms for selecting structurally diverse sets of compounds. J Comput Biol;6:447-457.
48. Colliandre L., Guilloux V., Bourq S., Morin-Allory L. (2012) Visual characterization and diversity quantification of chemical libraries: 2. Analysis and selection of size-independent, subspace-specific diversity indices. J Chem Inf Model;52:327-342.
49. Azzaoui K., Hamon J., Faller B., Whitebread S., Jacoby E., Bender A., Jenkins J.L., Urban L. (2007) Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem;2:874-880.