SimG: An alignment based method for evaluating the similarity of small molecules and binding sites

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 53, Issue 8, 2013, Pages 2103-2115

  Cai, Chaoqian ^a   Gong, Jiayu ^a   Liu, Xiaofeng ^a   Gao, Daqi ^a   Li, Honglin ^a  

^a EAST CHINA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (China)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGANDS; MOLECULES; SOLVENTS;

ACTIVE COMPOUNDS; CHEMICAL FEATURES; DOWNHILL SIMPLICES; MOLECULAR SIMILARITY; REFERENCE METHOD; SIMILARITY SCORES; SOLVENT EXPOSURE; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

BINDING SITES;

LIGAND; PROTEIN; MOLECULAR LIBRARY;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DRUG SCREENING; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION;

ALGORITHMS; BINDING SITES; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84883228319     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci400139j     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Gorse, A. D. Diversity in medicinal chemistry space Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2006, 6, 3-18
2. Ripphausen, P.; Nisius, B.; Peltason, L.; Bajorath, J. Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53, 8461-8467
3. Reddy, A. S.; Pati, S. P.; Kumar, P. P.; Pradeep, H. N.; Sastry, G. N. Virtual screening in drug discovery-a computational perspective Curr. Protein. Pept. Sci. 2007, 8, 329-351
4. Bender, A.; Jenkins, J. L.; Scheiber, J.; Sukuru, S. C. K.; Glick, M.; Davies, J. W. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 108-119
5. Martin, Y. C.; Kofron, J. L.; Traphagen, L. M. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 4350-4358
6. Patterson, D. E.; Cramer, R. D.; Ferguson, A. M.; Clark, R. D.; Weinberger, L. E. Neighborhood behavior: A useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 3049-3059
7. Bender, A.; Glen, R. C. Molecular similarity: A key technique in molecular informatics Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2, 3204-3218
8. Nikolova, N.; Jaworska, J. Approaches to measure chemical similarity-A review Qsar. Comb. Sci. 2004, 22, 1006-1026
9. Gohlke, H.; Klebe, G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2002, 41, 2645-2676
10. Hawkins, P. C. D.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82
11. Meyer, M.; Wilson, P.; Schomburg, D. Hydrogen bonding and molecular surface shape complementarity as a basis for protein docking J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 264, 199-210
12. Amovilli, C. Shape and similarity: Two aspects of molecular recognition J. Mol. Struct.-THEOCHEM 1991, 227, 1-9
13. Liebeschuetz, J.; Hennemann, J.; Olsson, T.; Groom, C. R. The good, the bad and the twisted: A survey of ligand geometry in protein crystal structures J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 169-183
14. Tasi, G.; Palinko, I.; Molnar, A.; Hannus, I. Molecular shape, dimensions, and shape selective catalysis J. Mol. Struct.-THEOCHEM 2003, 666, 69-77
15. Nicholls, A.; McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Good, A. C.; Warren, G.; Mathieu, M.; Muchmore, S. W.; Brown, S. P.; Grant, J. A.; Haigh, J. A.; Nevins, N.; Jain, A. N.; Kelley, B. Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: A perspective J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53, 3862-3886
16. Lengauer, T.; Rarey, M. Computational methods for biomolecular docking Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 1996, 6, 402-406
17. Shoichet, B. K.; Bodian, D. L.; Kuntz, I. D. Molecular docking using shape descriptors J. Comput. Chem. 1992, 13, 380-397
18. Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Huey, R.; Olson, A. J. Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: Parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4 J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1996, 10, 293-304
19. Kitchen, D. B.; Decornez, H.; Furr, J. R.; Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2004, 3, 935-949
20. Verdonk, M. L.; Cole, J. C.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Murray, C. W.; Taylor, R. D. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD Proteins 2003, 52, 609-623
21. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C. I.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C.; Lindsley, S.; Maiorov, V.; Truchon, J. F.; Cornell, W. D. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1504-1519
22. Perez-Nueno, V. I.; Ritchie, D. W.; Rabal, O.; Pascual, R.; Borrell, J. I.; Teixido, J. Comparison of ligand-based and receptor-based virtual screening of HIV entry inhibitors for the CXCR4 and CCR5 receptors using 3D ligand shape matching and ligand-receptor docking J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 509-533
23. Warren, G. L.; Andrews, C. W.; Capelli, A. M.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J.; Lambert, M. H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S. F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Wall, I. D.; Woolven, J. M.; Peishoff, C. E.; Head, M. S. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5912-5931
24. Englebienne, P.; Moitessier, N. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 4. Are popular scoring functions accurate for this class of proteins? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1568-1580
25. Stouch, T. R. The errors of our ways: Taking account of error in computer-aided drug design to build confidence intervals for our next 25 years J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2012, 26, 125-134
26. Ballester, P. J.; Richards, W. G. Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes J. Comput. Chem. 2007, 28, 1711-1723
27. Ballester, P. J.; Finn, P. W.; Richards, W. G. Ultrafast shape recognition: Evaluating a new ligand-based virtual screening technology J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2009, 27, 836-845
28. Ballester, P. J. Ultrafast shape recognition: method and applications Future Med. Chem. 2011, 3, 65-78
29. Grant, J. A.; Gallardo, M. A.; Pickup, B. T. A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of Gaussian descriptor of molecular shape J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 1653-1666
30. ROCS, version 2.2; OpenEye Scientific Software: Santa Fe, NM, 2006.
31. Mak, L.; Grandison, S.; Morris, R. J. An extension of spherical harmonics to region-based rotationally invariant descriptors for molecular shape description and comparison J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2008, 26, 1035-1045
32. Morris, R. J.; Najmanovich, R. J.; Kahraman, A.; Thornton, J. M. Real spherical harmonic expansion coefficients as 3D shape descriptors for protein binding pocket and ligand comparisons Bioinformatics 2005, 21, 2347-2355
33. DiMaio, F. P.; Soni, A. B.; Phillips, G. N.; Shavlik, J. W. Spherical-harmonic decomposition for molecular recognition in electron-density maps Int. J. Data Min. Bioin. 2009, 3, 205-227
34. Mavridis, L.; Hudson, B. D.; Ritchie, D. W. Toward high throughput 3D virtual screening using spherical harmonic surface representations J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1787-1796
35. Cai, C.; Gong, J.; Liu, X.; Jiang, H.; Gao, D.; Li, H. A novel, customizable and optimizable parameter method using spherical harmonics for molecular shape similarity comparisons J. Mol. Model. 2012, 18, 1597-1610
36. Brady, G. P.; Stouten, P. F. W. Fast prediction and visualization of protein binding pockets with PASS J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 383-401
37. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B. K.; Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801
38. A Directory of Useful Decoys. http://dud.docking.org/ (accessed Jun 13, 2010).
39. Jahn, A.; Hinselmann, G.; Fechner, N.; Zell, A. Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening J. Cheminf. 2013, 1 Article 14 http://www.jcheminf.com/content/1/1/14 (accessed Apr 30, 2013)
40. Good, A. C.; Oprea, T. I. Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: A help or hindrance in tool selection? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 169-178
41. Jain, A. N. Surflex: Fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 499-511
42. Dundas, J.; Ouyang, Z.; Tseng, J.; Binkowski, A.; Turpaz, Y.; Liang, J. CASTp: Computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, 34, W116-W118
43. Pipeline Pilot, version 7.5; Accelrys: San Diego, CA, 2008.
44. Grant, J. A.; Pickup, B. T. A Gaussian description of molecular shape J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 3503-3510
45. Good, A. C.; Hodgkin, E. E.; Richards, W. G. The utilisation of Gaussian functions for the rapid evaluation of molecular similarity J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1992, 32, 188-191
46. Maldonado, A. G.; Doucet, J. P.; Petitjean, M.; Fan, B. T. Molecular similarity and diversity in chemoinformatics: From theory to applications Mol. Diversity 2006, 10, 39-79
47. Sastry, G. M.; Dixon, S. L.; Sherman, W. Rapid shape-based ligand alignment and virtual screening method based on atom/feature-pair similarities and volume overlap scoring J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011, 51, 2455-2466
48. Geppert, H.; Vogt, M.; Bajorath, J. Current trends in ligand-based virtual screening: Molecular representations, data mining methods, new application areas, and performance evaluation J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 205-216
49. Nicholls, A. What do we know and when do we know it? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 239-255
50. Fawcett, T. An introduction to ROC analysis Pattern Recog. Lett. 2006, 27, 861-874
51. Clark, R. D.; Webster-Clark, D. J. Managing bias in ROC curves J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 141-146
52. Truchon, J. F.; Bayly, C. I. Evaluating virtual screening methods: Good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508
53. Kirchmair, J.; Markt, P.; Distinto, S.; Wolber, G.; Langer, T. Evaluation of the performance of 3D virtual screening protocols: RMSD comparisons, enrichment assessments, and decoy selection - what can we learn from earlier mistakes? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 213-228
54. Jain, A. N.; Nicholls, A. Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 133-139
55. Mackey, M. D.; Melville, J. L. Better than random? The chemotype enrichment problem J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1154-1162
56. Marques, J. M. C.; Llanio-Trujillo, J. L.; Abreu, P. E.; Pereira, F. B. How different are two chemical structures? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 2129-2140
57. Swamidass, S. J.; Baldi, P. Mathematical correction for fingerprint similarity measures to improve chemical retrieval J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 952-964
58. Kotani, T.; Higashiura, K. Rapid evaluation of molecular shape similarity index using pairwise calculation of the nearest atomic distances J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 58-63
59. Haigh, J. A.; Pickup, B. T.; Grant, J. A.; Nicholls, A. Small molecule shape-fingerprints J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 673-684
60. Perez-Nueno, V. I.; Rabal, O.; Borrell, J. I.; Teixido, J. APIF: A new interaction fingerprint based on atom pairs and its application to virtual screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 1245-1260
61. Giganti, D.; Guillemain, H.; Spadoni, J. L.; Nilges, M.; Zagury, J. F.; Montes, M. Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: Impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 992-1004
62. Ewing, T. J. A.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 411-428
63. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T. Time-efficient docking of flexible ligands into active sites of proteins Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Mol. Biol. 1995, 3, 300-308
64. Schapira, M.; Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R. Prediction of the binding energy for small molecules, peptides and proteins J. Mol. Recognit. 1999, 12, 177-190