Chemoinformatics Techniques for Processing Chemical Structure Databases

Computer Applications in Pharmaceutical Research and Development

Volumn , Issue , 2006, Pages 187-208

  Gillet, Valerie J ^a   Willett, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Chemoinformatics technique for structure databases; Compound selection and biological testing program; Searching 2D and 3D chemical structures

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889808388     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/0470037237.ch8     Document Type: Chapter

References (67)

1. Leach AR, Gillet VJ. An introduction to chemoinformatics. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2003.
2. Gasteiger J, Engel T. Chemoinformatics. Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 2003.
3. Barnard JM. Computer handling of generic chemical structures. Aldershot, Gower, 1984.
4. Berks AH. Current state of the art of Markush topological search systems. World Patent Inf 2001;23:5-13.
5. Weisgerber DW. Chemical Abstracts Service Chemical Registry System: history, scope, and impacts. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1997;48:349-60.
6. Fisanick W, Amaral NJ, Metanomski WV, Shively ER, Soukop KM, Stobaugh RE. Chemical Abstracts Service Information System. In: Schleyer P von R, Allinger NL, Clark T, Gasteiger J, Kollman PA, Schaefer HF and Schriener PR, editors, Encyclopedia of computational chemistry. Vol. 1. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1998. p. 277-315.
7. Ash JE, Hyde E, Chemical information systems. Chichester, Ellis Horwood, 1975.
8. Weiniger D. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1988;28:31-6.
9. Wilson R. Introduction to graph theory, 4th edition. Harlow, Longman, 1996.
10. Diestel R. Graph theory. New York, Springer-Verlag, 2000.
11. Read RC, Corneil DG. The graph isomorphism disease. J Graph Theory 1977;1:339-63.
12. Gati G. Further annotated bibliography on the isomorphism disease. J Graph Theory 1979;3:95-109.
13. Morgan HL. The generation of a unique machine description for chemical structures:a technique developed at Chemical Abstracts Service. J Chem Docum 1965;5:107-13.
14. Freeland RG, Funk SA, O'Korn LJ, Wilson GA. The CAS Chemical Registry System. II. Augmented connectivity molecular formula. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1979;19:94-8.
15. Barnard JM. Substructure searching methods: old and new. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1993;33:532-8.
16. Adamson GW, Cowell J, Lynch MF, McLure AHW, Town WG, Yapp AM. Strategic considerations in the design of screening systems for substructure searches of chemical structure files. J Chem Docum 1973;13:153-7.
17. Feldman A, Hodes, L. An efficient design for chemical structure searching. I. The screens. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1975;15:147-52.
18. Ullmann, JR. An algorithm for subgraph isomorphism. J ACM 1976;16:31-42.
19. Carhart RE, Smith DH, Venkataraghavan R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1985;25:64-73.
20. Willett P, Winterman V, Bawden, D. Implementation of nearest neighbour searching in an online chemical structure search system. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1986;26:36-41.
21. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs, GM Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998;38:983-96.
22. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov Today 2002;7:903-11.
23. Bender A, Glen RC. Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004;2:3204-18.
24. Raymond JW, Willett P. Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 2002;16:521-33.
25. Allen FH. The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. Acta Cryst B 2002; B58:380-8.
26. Green DVS. Automated three-dimensional structure generation. In: Martin YC and Willett P, editors, Designing bioactive molecules. Three-dimensional techniques and applications. Washington DC, American Chemical Society, 1998;47-71.
27. Zee-Cheng KY, Cheng CC. Common receptor-complement feature among some anti-leukemic compounds. J Pharm Sci 1970;59:1630-4.
28. Gund P. Three-dimensional pharmacophoric pattern searching. Prog Mol Subcell Biol 1977;5:117-43.
29. Jakes SE, Willett P. Pharmacophoric pattern matching in files of 3-D chemical structures: selection of inter-atomic distance screens. J Mol Graph 1986;4:12-20.
30. Sheridan RP, Nilakantan R, Rusinko A, Bauman N, Haraki KS, Venkataraghavan R. 3DSEARCH: a system for three-dimensional substructure searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1989;29:255-60.
31. Clark DE, Willett P, Kenny PW. Pharmacophoric pattern matching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: use of smoothed bounded-distance matrices for the representation and searching of conformationally-fl exible molecules. J Mol Graph 1992;10:194-204.
32. Valler MJ, Green DVS. Diversity screening versus focussed screening in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2000;5:286-93.
33. Hann MM, Leach AR, Green DVS. Computational chemistry, molecular complexity and screening set design. In: Oprea TI, editor, Chemoinformatics in drug discovery, Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 2004;43-57.
34. Willett P. Computational methods for the analysis of molecular diversity. Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design Vols 7/8. Dordrecht; Kluwer, 1997.
35. Lewis RA, Pickett SD, Clark, DE. Computer-aided molecular diversity analysis and combinatorial library design. In: Lipkowitz KB and Boyd DB, editors, Reviews in Computational Chemistry. Vol. 16. 2000;1-51.
36. Bohm H-J, Schneider G. Virtual screening for bioactive molecules. Weinheim:Wiley-VCH, 2000.
37. Lajiness MS. Molecular similarity-based methods for selecting compounds for screening. In: Rouvray DH, editor, Computational chemical graph theory. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 1990;299-316.
38. Snarey M, Terrett NK, Willett P, Wilton DJ. Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. J Mol Graph Model 1997;15:372-85.
39. Hudson BD, Hyde RM, Rahr E, Wood J, Osman J. Parameter based methods for compound selection from chemical databases. Quant Struct-Act Relat 1996;15:285-9.
40. Pearlman RS, Smith KM. Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1998;9/10/11:339-53.
41. Downs GM, Barnard JM. Clustering methods and their uses in computational chemistry. In: Lipkowitz KB and Boyd DB, editors, Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol. 18. New York, VCH Publishers, 2002;1-40.
42. Jarvis RA, Patrick EA. Clustering using a similarity measure based on shared near neighbours. IEEE Trans Comput 1973; C-22:1025-34.
43. Ward JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimise an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 1963;58:236-44.
44. Wild DJ, Blankley J. Comparison of 2D fingerprint types and hierarchy level selection methods for structural grouping using Ward's clustering. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40:155-62.
45. Lewis RA, Mason JS, McLay, IM. Similarity measures for rational set selection and analysis of combinatorial libraries: The diverse property-derived (DPD) approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997;37:599-614.
46. Pearlman RS, Smith KM. Metric validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999;39:28-35.
47. Cavallaro CL, Schnur DM, Tebben AJ. Molecular diversity in lead discovery:From quantity to quality. In: Oprea TI, editor, Chemoinformatics in drug discovery, Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 2004;175-98.
48. Davies K. Using pharmacophore diversity to select molecules to test from commercial catalogues. In: Chaiken IM and Janda KD, editors, Molecular diversity and combinatorial chemistry. Libraries and drug discovery. Washington DC:American Chemical Society, 1996;309-16.
49. Mason JS, Pickett, SD. Partition-based selection. Perspect Drug Discov Des, 1997;7/8:85-114.
50. Mason JS, Morize I, Menard PR, Cheney DL, Hulme C, Labaudiniere RF. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications:Overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J Med Chem 1999;42:3251-64.
51. Waldman M, Li H, Hassan M. Novel algorithms for the optimization of molecular diversity of combinatorial libraries. J Mol Graph Model 2000;18:412-26.
52. Agrafiotis DK. Stochastic algorithms for maximising molecular diversity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997;37:841-51.
53. Hassan M, Bielawski JP, Hempel JC, Waldman M. Optimisation and visualisation of molecular diversity of combinatorial libraries. Mol Diversity 1996;2:64-74.
54. Walters WP, Murcko MA. Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002;54:255-71.
55. Leach AR, Bradshaw J, Green DVS, Hann MM, Delany JJ III. Implementation of a system for reagent selection and library enumeration, profiling and design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999;39:1161-72.
56. Lipinski CA. Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. J Pharm Toxicol Methods 2000;44:235-49.
57. Oprea TI. Property distributions of drug-related chemical databases. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 2000;14:251-264.55.
58. Clark DE, Pickett SD. Computational methods for the prediction of "druglikeness". Drug Discov Today 2000;5:49-58.
59. Oprea TI, Davis AM, Teague SJ, Leeson PD. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001;41:1308-15.
60. 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.
61. Ridley DD. Strategies for chemical reaction searching in SciFinder. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40:1077-84.
62. Chen L. Reaction classification and knowledge acquisition. In: Gasteiger J, editor, Handbook of chemoinformatics. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2003;348-88.
63. Wilton DJ, Willett P, Mullier G, Lawson K. Comparison of ranking methods for virtual screening in lead-discovery programmes. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:469-74.
64. Jorissen RN, Gilson MK. Virtual screening of molecular databases using a Support Vector Machine. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:549-61.
65. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R. Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins 2002;47:409-43.
66. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 2002;16:151-66.
67. Schuffenhauer A, Gillet VJ, Willett P. Similarity searching in files of 3D chemical structures: analysis of the BIOSTER database using 2D fingerprints and molecular field descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40:295-307.