Predictive in silico off-target profiling in drug discovery

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 295-317

  Schmidt, Friedemann ^a   Matter, Hans ^a   Hessler, Gerhard ^a   Czich, Andreas ^a  

^a SANOFI AVENTIS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMIODARONE; ASTEMIZOLE; CISAPRIDE; CLOZAPINE; GEFITINIB; GREPAFLOXACIN; IMATINIB; METHYSERGIDE; NORFENFLURAMINE; PERGOLIDE; SARPOGRELATE; SERTINDOLE; TERFENADINE; TERODILINE; THALIDOMIDE; THIORIDAZINE;

COMPUTER MODEL; DATA MINING; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; DRUG TARGETING; IN VITRO STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN TARGETING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA MINING; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PROTEINS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84895432647     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: 17568927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.13.202     Document Type: Review

References (159)

1. Vaz RJ, Klabunde T. Antitargets. Mannhold R, Kubinyi H, Folkers G (Eds). Wiley, NY, USA (2008).
2. Machado FS, Esper L, Dias A et al. Native and aspirin-Triggered lipoxins control innate immunity by inducing proteasomal degradation of TRAF6. J. Exp. Med. 205(5), 1077-1086 (2008).
3. Roth BL, Sheffler DJ, Kroeze WK. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: Selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Disc. 3, 353-359 (2004).
4. Petrelli A. Pharmacological kinase inhibitors: New hopes for cancer therapy. In: Polypharmacology in Drug Discovery. Peters JU (Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2012).
5. Singh BN, Vaughan Williams EM. The effect of amiodarone, a new anti-Anginal drug, on cardiac muscle. Br. J. Pharmacol. 39(4), 657-667 (1970).
6. Kodama I, Kamiya K, Toyama J. Cellular electropharmacology of amiodarone. Cardiovasc. Res. 35(1), 13-29 (1997).
7. Ito H, Ando H, Suzuki T et al. identification of a primary target of thalidomide teratogenicity. Science 327(5971), 1345-1350 (2010).
8. Lu HR, Vlaminckx E, Hermans AN et al. Predicting drug-induced changes in QT interval and arrhythmias: QT-shortening drugs point to gaps in the ICHS7B Guidelines. Br. J. Pharmacol. 154, 1427-1438 (2008).
9. Muntasir HA, Hossain M, Bhuiyan MA et al. Identification of a key amino acid of the human 5-HT(2B) serotonin receptor important for sarpogrelate binding. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 104(3), 274-247 (2007).
10. Hulot JS, V Fuster V. Antiplatelet therapy: Personalized medicine for clopidogrel resistance? Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 6(5), 334-336 (2009).
11. Schwarz UI. Clinical relevance of genetic polymorphisms in the human CYP2C9 gene. Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 33(Suppl. 2), 23-30 (2003).
12. Oldenburg J, Watzka M, Rost S et al. VKORC1: Molecular target of coumarins. J. Thromb. Haemost. 5(Suppl. 1), 1-6 (2007).
13. Bowes J, Brown AJ, Hamon J et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: The use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Disc. 11, 909-922 (2012).
14. Knudsen TB, Houck KA, Spies N et al. Activity profiles of 309 ToxCast™ chemicals evaluated across 292 biochemical targets. Toxicology 282(1-2), 1-15 (2011).
15. Judson RS, Martin MT, Egeghy PP et al. Aggregating data for computational toxicology applications: The U.S. environmental protection agency (EPA) aggregated computational toxicology resource (ACToR) System. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13(2), 1805-1831 (2012).
16. Urban L, Whitebread S, Hamon J et al. Screening for safety-relevant off-Target affinities. In: Polypharmacology in Drug Discovery. Peters JU (Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2012).
17. Whitebread S, Hamon H, Bojanic D et al. In vitro safety pharmacology profiling: An essential tool for drug development. Drug Discov. Today 10, 1421-1433 (2005).
18. Abassi YA, Xi B, Li N et al. Dynamic monitoring of beating periodicity of stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes as a predictive tool for preclinical safety assessment. Br. J. Pharmacol. 165(5), 1424-1441 (2012).
19. Naumann T, Matter H. Structural classification of protein kinases using 3D molecular interaction field analysis of their ligand binding sites: Target family landscapes. J. Med. Chem. 45, 2366-2378 (2002).
20. Jester BW, Gaj A, Shomin CD et al. Testing the promiscuity of commercial kinase inhibitors against the AGC kinase group using a split-luciferase screen. J. Med. Chem. 55(4), 1526-1537 (2012).
21. Tanramluk D, Schreyer A, Pitt WR et al. On the origins of enzyme inhibitor selectivity and promiscuity: A case study of protein kinase binding to staurosporine. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 74(1), 16-24 (2009).
22. Kirchner S. Kinases as antitargets in genotoxicity. In: Polypharmacology in Drug Discovery. Peters JU (Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2012).
23. Hasinoff BB, Patel D. The lack of target specificity of small molecule anticancer kinase inhibitors is correlated with their ability to damage myocytes in vitro. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 249(2), 132-139 (2010).
24. Young DW, Bender A, Hoyt J et al. Integrating high-content screening and ligand-Target prediction to identify mechanism of action. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 59-68 (2008).
25. Kapetanovic IM. Computer-Aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): In silico-chemico-biological approach. Chem. Biol. Interact. 171, 165-176 (2008).
26. James K. The evolution of quantitative drug design. In: Drug Design Strategies: Quantitative Approaches. Livingstone DJ, Davis AM (Eds). RSC Publishing, Cambridge, UK, 1-34 (2012).
27. Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP et al. ChEMBL: A large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(database issue), D1100-D1107 (2012).
28. Olah M, Rad R, Ostopovici L et al. WOMBAT and WOMBAT-PK: Bioactivity databases for lead and drug discovery. In: Chemical Biology: From Small Molecules to Systems Biology and Drug Design. Schreiber SL, Kapoor TM, Wess G (Eds). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2008).
29. Oprea TI, Alexander Tropsha A. Target, chemical and bioactivity databases-integration is key. Drug Discov. Today 3(4), 357-365 (2006).
30. Williams AJ. Public chemical compound databases. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 11, 393-404 (2008).
31. Koutsoukas A, Simms B, Kirchmair J et al. From in silico target prediction to multi-Target drug design: Current databases, methods and applications. J. Proteomics 74, 2554-2574 (2011).
32. Tiikkainen P, Franke LJ. Analysis of commercial and public bioactivity databases. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(2), 319-326 (2012).
33. Kramer C, Kalliokoski T, Gedeck P et al. The experimental uncertainty of heterogeneous public Ki data. J. Med. Chem. 55, 5165-5173 (2012).
34. Recanatini M, Bottegoni G, Cavalli A. In silico antitarget screening. Drug Discov. Today 1(3), 209-215 (2004).
35. Pujoll A, Mosca1 R, Farrés J et al. Unveiling the role of network and systems biology in drug discovery. Trends Pharm. Sci. 31, (3), 115-123 (2010).
36. Horst JA, Laurenzi A, Bernard B et al. Computational multitarget drug discovery. . In: Polypharmacology in Drug Discovery. Peters JU (Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2012).
37. Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: The next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 682-690 (2008).
38. Knight ZA, Lin H, Shokat KM. Targeting the cancer kinome through polypharmacology. Nat. Rev. Cancer 10, 130-137 (2010).
39. Achenbach J, Tiikkainen P, Franke L et al. Computational tools for polypharmacology and repurposing. Future Med. Chem. 3(8), 961-968 (2011).
40. Fukuoka Y, Takei D, Ogawa H. A two-step drug repositioning method based on a protein-protein interaction network of genes shared by two diseases and the similarity of drugs. Bioinformation 9(2), 89-93 (2013).
41. Lemonnier E, Degrez C, Phelep M et al. A randomised controlled trial of bumetanide in the treatment of autism in children. Transl. Psychiatry 2(12), e202 (2012).
42. Xie L, Evangelidis T, Bourne PE. Drug discovery using chemical systems biology: Weak inhibition of multiple kinases may contribute to the anti-cancer effect of nelfinavir. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7(4), e1002037 (2011).
43. Azmi AS. Network pharmacology for cancer drug discovery: Are we there yet? Future Med. Chem. 4(8), 939-941 (2012).
44. Gehlenborg N, O'Donoghue SI, Baliga NS et al. Visualization of omics data for systems biology. Nat. Methods 7(3), 56-68 (2010).
45. Smoot M, Ono K, Ruscheinski J et al. Cytoscape 2.8: New features for data integration and network visualization. Bioinformatics 27(3), 431-432 (2011).
46. Fechner N, Papadatos G, Evans D et al. ChEMBLSpace-A graphical explorer of the chemogenomic space covered by the ChEMBL database. Bioinformatics 29(4), 523-524 (2013).
47. Kuhn M, Szklarczyk D, Franceschini A et al. STITCH 3: Zooming in on protein-chemical interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(database issue), D876-D880 (2012).
48. Funk C, Ponelle C, Scheuermann G et al. Cholestatic potential of troglitazone as a possible factor contributiong to troglitazone-induced hepatotoxicity: In vivo and in vitro interaction at the canalicular bile salt export pump (Bsep) in the rat. Mol. Pharmacol. 59(3), 627-635 (2001).
49. Mestres J, Gregori-Puigjané E, Valverde S et al. Data completeness-The Achilles heel of drug-Target networks. Nat. Biotech. 26, 983-984 (2008).
50. Maggiora G.M, Johnson MA. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. Wiley, NY, USA, 99-117 (1990).
51. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM. Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 983-996 (1998).
52. Willett P. Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems. Letchworth, Research Studies Press, Hertfordshire, UK (1997).
53. Dunkel M, Günther S, Ahmed J et al. SuperPred: Drug classification and target prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 36(web server issue), W55-W59 (2008).
54. Bauer RA, Bourne PE, Formella A et al. Superimpose: A 3D structural superposition server. Nucleic Acids Res. 36(web server issue), W47-W54 (2008).
55. Sharaf MA, Illman DL, Kowalski BR. Chemometrics. Wiley, NY, USA (1986).
56. Zheng W, Tropsha A. A novel variable selection QSAR approach based on the k-nearest neighbor principle. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 185-194 (2000).
57. Gregori-Puigjané E, Mestres J. A ligand-based approach to mining the chemogenomic space of drugs. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen 11, 669-676 (2008).
58. Liu T, Lin Y, Wen X et al. BindingDB: A web-Accessible dtabase of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D198-D201 (2007).
59. Vidal D, Garcia-Serna R, Mestres J. Ligand-based approaches to in silico pharmacology. Methods Mol. Biol. 672, 489-502 (2011).
60. Vidal D, Garcia-Serna R, Remez N et al. Performance of ligand-based approaches to predicting the complete target profile of drug-like molecules. (In Press) (2014).
61. Vidal D, Mestres J. In silico receptorome profiling of antipsychotic drugs. Mol. Inf. 29, 543-551 (2010).
62. Areias FM, Brea JM, Gregori-Puigjané E et al. In silico directed chemical probing of the adenosine receptor family. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 18, 3043-3052 (2010).
63. Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN et al. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat. Biotech. 25, 197-206 (2007).
64. Chen B, McConnell KJ, Wale N et al. Comparing bioassay response and similarity ensemble approaches to probing protein pharmacology. Bioinformatics 27 (21), 3044-3048 (2011).
65. Keiser MJ, Setola V, Irwin JJ et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462, 175-181 (2009).
66. Lounkine E, Keiser MJ, Whitebread S et al. Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature 486(7403), 361-367 (2012).
67. Hansch C, Leo A. Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA (1995).
68. Kawai K, Fujishima S, Takahashi Y. Predictive activity profiling of drugs by topological-fragment-spectra-based support vector machines. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48(6), 1152-1160 (2008).
69. Chen B, Sheridan RP, Hornak V et al. Comparison of random forest and pipeline pilot naive bayes in prospective QSAR predictions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(3), 792-803 (2012).
70. Schneider P, Stutz K, Kasper L et al. Target profile prediction and practical evaluation of a biginelli-Type dihydropyrimidine compound library. Pharmaceuticals 4, 1236-1247 (2011).
71. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Glick M et al. 'Bayes affinity fingerprints' improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: When are multitarget drugs a feasible concept? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(6), 2445-2456 (2006).
72. Rogers D, Brown RD, Hahn M. using extended-connectivity fingerprints with laplacian-modified bayesian analysis in high-Throughput screening follow-up. J. Biomol. Screen 10, 682-686 (2005).
73. Xia X, Maliski EG, Gallant P et al. Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. J. Med. Chem. 47(18), 4463-4470 (2004).
74. Bender A. Bayesian methods in virtual screening and chemical biology. Methods Mol. Biol. 672, 175-196 (2011).
75. Martin E, Mukherjee P, Sullivan D et al. Profile-QSAR: A novel meta-QSAR method that combines activities across the kinase family to accurately predict affinity, selectivity, and cellular activity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 1942-1956 (2011).
76. Martin E, Mukherjee P. Kinase-kernel models: Accurate in silico screening of 4 million compounds across the entire human kinome. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(1), 156-170 (2012).
77. Lagunin A, Stepanchikova A, Filimonov D et al. PASS: Prediction of activity spectra for biologically active substances. Bioinformatics 16(8), 747-748 (2000).
78. Zakharov AV, Lagunin AA, Filimonov DA et al. Quantitative prediction of antitarget interaction profiles for chemical compounds. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 25, 2378-;2385 (2012).
79. Baringhaus K-H, Hessler G, Matter H et al. Development and applications of global ADMET models: In-silico prediction of human microsomal lability. In: Chemoinformatics for Drug Discovery. Bajorath J (Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2014).
80. Quinlan Jr. Instance-based learning algorithms. Machine Learn. 6, 93-96 (1991).
81. Quinlan Jr. Learning with continuous classes. In: Proceedings AI'92, 5th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Adams A, Sterling L (Eds). World Scientific, Singapore, Singapore, 343-348 (1992).
82. Matter H, Anger LT, Giegerich C et al. Development of in silico filters to predict activation of the pregnane X receptor (PXR) by structurally diverse drug-like molecules. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 20, 5352-5365 (2012).
83. Butina D, Gola JMR. Modeling aqueous solubility. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 837-841 (2003).
84. Sheridan RP, Feuston BP, Maiorov VN et al. Similarity to molecules in the training set is a good discriminator for prediction accuracy in QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 1912-;1928 (2004).
85. Force T, Krause DS, Van Etten RA. Molecular mechanisms of cardiotoxicity of tyrosine kinase inhibition. Nat Rev Cancer. 7(5), 332-344 (2007).
86. Dror O, Shulman-Peleg A, Nussinov R et al. Predicting molecular interactions in silico: I. A guide to pharmacophore identification and its applications to drug design. Curr. Med. Chem. 11(1), 71-90 (2004).
87. Sun H. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Curr. Med. Chem. 15, 1018-1024 (2008).
88. Klabunde T. Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery: Similar receptors bind similar ligands. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152, 5-7 (2007).
89. Klabunde T, Evers A. GPCR anti-Target modeling: Pharmacophore models for biogenic amine binding GPCRs to avoid GPCR-mediated side effects. ChemBioChem 6, 876-;889 (2005).
90. Thai KM, Ngo TD, Tran TD et al. Pharmacophore modeling for antitargets. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 13 (9), 1002-1014 (2013).
91. Steindl TM, Schuster D, Laggner C et al. Parallel screening: A novel concept in pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46(5), 2146-2157 (2006).
92. Aronov AM, McClain B, Moody CS et al. Kinase-likeness and kinase-privileged fragments: Toward virtual polypharmacology. J. Med. Chem. 51, 1214-1222 (2008).
93. Schuster D. 3D pharmacophores as tools for activity profiling. Drug Discov. Today 7(4), e205-e211 (2010).
94. Langer T, Wermuth C-G. Selective optimization of side activities (SOSA): A promising way for drug discovery. In: Polypharmacology in Drug Discovery. Peters JU (Ed.). John Wiley and Sons, NJ, USA (2012).
95. Kinnings SL, Jackson RM. ReverseScreen3D: A structure-based ligand matching method to identify protein targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(3), 624-634 (2011).
96. Grant JA, Pickup BT. A gaussian description of molecular shape. J. Phys. Chem. 99, 3503-3510 (1995).
97. Nicholls A, Grant JA. Molecular shape and electrostatics in the encoding of relevant chemical information. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 19, 661-686 (2005).
98. Mills JEJ, Dean PM. Three-dimensional hydrogen-bond geometry and probability information from a crystal survey. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 10, 607-622 (1996).
99. AbdulHameed MD, Chaudhury S, Singh N et al. Exploring polypharmacology using a ROCS-based target fishing approach. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52(2), 492-505 (2012).
100. Sotriffer C, Matter H. The challenge of affinity prediction: Scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening. In Virtual Screening. Sotriffer C (Ed.). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 179-221 (2011).
101. Chen YZ, Zhi DG. Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43, 217-226 (2001).
102. Hui-fang L, Qing S, Jian Z, Wei F. Evaluation of various inverse docking schemes in multiple targets identification. J. Mol. Graphics Model. 29, 326-330 (2010).
103. Chen YZ, Ung CY. Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-;protein inverse docking approach. J. Mol. Graphics Model. 20, 199-;218 (2001).
104. Lee M, Kim D. Large-scale reverse docking profiles and their applications. BMC Bioinformatics 13(Suppl. 17), S6 (2012).
105. Pons C, Grosdidier S, Solernou A et al. Present and future challenges and limitations in protein-protein docking. Proteins 78, 95-108 (2010).
106. Pirard B. Structure-based chemogenomics: Analysis of protein family landscapes. Methods Mol. Biol. 575, 281-296 (2009).
107. Goodford PA. Computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 28, 849-857 (1985).
108. Nissink JWM, Verdonk ML, Klebe G. Simple knowledge-based descriptors to predict protein-ligand interactions. Methodology and validation. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14, 787-803 (2000).
109. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Watson P et al. SuperStar: Improved knowledge-based interaction fields for protein binding sites. J. Mol. Biol. 307, 841-859 (2001).
110. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 295, 337-356 (2000).
111. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G. Predicting binding modes, binding affinities and 'hot spots' for protein-ligand complexes using a knowledge-based scoring function. Perspectives Drug Disc. Dev. 20, 115-144 (2000).
112. Kastenholz MA, Pastor M, Cruciani G et al. GRID/CPCA: A new computational tool to design selective ligands. J. Med. Chem. 43, 3033-3044 (2000).
113. Westerhuis JA, Kourti T, Macgregor JF. Analysis of multiblock and hierarchical PCA and PLS models. J. Chemom. 12, 301-321 (1998).
114. Pirard B, Matter H. Matrix metalloproteinase target family landscape: A chemometrical approach to ligand selectivity based on protein binding site analysis. J. Med. Chem. 49, 51-69 (2006).
115. Matter H, Naumann T, Pirard B. Target family landscapes to match ligand selectivity with binding site topology in chemical biology. In: EuroQSAR2002: Designing Drugs and Crop Protectants: Processes, problems and solutions. Ford M, Livingstone DZ Dearden J, Van de Waterbeemd H (Eds). Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 183-185 (2003).
116. Pirard B. Peroxisome proliferator-Activated receptors target family landscape: A chemometrical approach to ligand selectivity based on protein binding site analysis. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 17(11), 785-796 (2004).
117. Kurz M, Brachvogel V, Matter H et al. Insights into the bile acid transportation system: The human ileal lipid-binding protein (ILBP)-cholyltaurine complex and its comparison to homologous structures. Proteins 50, 312-328 (2003).
118. Lapinsh M, Prusis P, Gutcaits A et al. Development of proteo-chemometrics: A novel technology for the analysis of drug-receptor interactions. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1525, 180-190 (2001).
119. Lapinsh M, Prusis P, Mutule I et al. QSAR and proteo-chemometric analysis of the interaction of a series of organic compounds with melanocortin receptor subtypes. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2572-2579 (2003).
120. Lapinsh M, Prusis P, Lundstedt T et al. Proteochemometrics modeling of the interaction of amine G-protein coupled receptors with a diverse set of ligands. Mol. Pharm. 61, 1465-1475 (2002).
121. Vulpetti A, Kalliokoski T, Milletti F. Chemogenomics in drug discovery: Computational methods based on the comparison of binding sites. Future Med. Chem. 4(15), 1971-1979 (2012).
122. Morris RJ, Najmanovich RJ, Kahraman A et al. Real spherical harmonic expansion coefficients as 3D shape descriptors for protein binding pocket and ligand comparisons. Bioinformatics 21 (10), 2347-2355 (2005).
123. Schmitt S, Hendlich M, Klebe G. From structure to function: A new approach to detect functional similarity among proteins independent from sequence and fold homology. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 40(17), 3141-3144 (2001).
124. Schmitt S, Kuhn D, Klebe G. A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J. Mol. Biol. 323(2), 387-406 (2002).
125. Weber A, Casini A, Heine A et al. Unexpected nanomolar inhibition of carbonic anhydrase by COX-2-selective celecoxib: New pharmacological opportunities due to related binding site recognition. J. Med. Chem. 47, 550-557 (2004).
126. Kuhn D, Weskamp N, Schmitt S et al. From the similarity analysis of protein cavities to the functional classification of protein families using cavbase. J. Mol. Biol. 359(4), 1023-1044 (2006).
127. Kuhn D, Weskamp N, Hüllermeier E et al. Functional classification of protein kinase binding sites using Cavbase. ChemMedChem 2(10), 1432-1447 (2007).
128. Kalliokoski T, Vulpetti A. Large-scale evaluation of cavbase for analyzing the polypharmacology of kinase inhibitors. Mol. Inf. 30, 923-925 (2011).
129. von Behren MM, Volkamer A, Henzler AM et al. Fast protein binding site comparison via an index-based screening method. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 411-422 (2013).
130. Weskamp N, Hüllermeier E, Klebe G. Merging chemical and biological space: Structural mapping of enzyme binding pocket space. Proteins 76(2), 317-330 (2009).
131. Minai R, Matsuo Y, Onuki H et al. Method for comparing the structures of protein ligand-binding sites and application for predicting protein-drug interactions. Proteins 72, 367-381 (2008).
132. Jambon M, Imberty A, Deleage G et al. A new bioinformatic approach to detect common 3D sites in protein structures. Proteins 52, 137-145 (2003).
133. Brakoulias A, Jackson R. Towards a structural classification of phosphate binding sites in protein-nucleotide complexes: An automated all-Against-All structural comparison using geometric matching. Proteins 56, 250-260 (2004).
134. Shulman-Peleg A, Nussinov R, Wolfson H. Recognition of functional sites in protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 339, 607-633 (2004).
135. Kinoshita K, Furui J, Nakamura H. Identification of protein functions from a molecular surface database, eF-site. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 2, 9-22 (2002).
136. Kinoshita K, Murakami Y, Nakamura H. eF-seek: Prediction of the functional sites of proteins by searching for similar electrostatic potential and molecular surface shape. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, W398-W402 (2007).
137. Najmanovich R, Kurbatova N, Thornton J. Detection of 3D atomic similarities and their use in the discrimination of small molecule protein-binding sites. Bioinformatics 24, i105-i111 (2008).
138. Konc J, Janezic D. ProBiS-2012: Web server and web services for detection of structurally similar binding sites in proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, W214-W221 (2012).
139. Yeturu K, Chandra N. PocketMatch: A new algorithm to compare binding sites in protein structures. BMC Bioinf. 9, 543 (2008).
140. Xiong B, Wu J, Burk D et al. BSSF: A fingerprint based ultrafast binding site similarity search and function analysis server. BMC Bioinf. 11, 47 (2010).
141. Das S, Kokardekar A, Breneman C. Rapid comparison of protein binding site surfaces with property encoded shape distributions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49, 2863-2872 (2009).
142. Baroni M, Cruciani G, Sciabola S et al. A common reference framework for analyzing/ comparing proteins and ligands. Fingerprints for ligands and proteins (FLAP): Theory and application. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47, 279-294 (2007).
143. Schalon C, Surgand J-S, Kellenberger E et al. A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand-binding sites. Proteins 71, 1755-1778 (2008).
144. Weill N, Rognan D. Alignment-free ultra-high-Throughput comparison of druggable protein-ligand binding sites. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 123-135 (2010).
145. Milletti F, Vulpetti A. Predicting polypharmacology by binding site similarity: From kinases to the protein universe. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 1418-1431 (2010).
146. Apsel B, Blair JA, Gonzalez B et al. Targeted polypharmacology: Discovery of dual inhibitors of tyrosine and phosphoinositide kinases. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 691-699 (2008).
147. Levinson NM, Kuchment O, Shen K et al. A Src-like inactive conformation in the abl tyrosine kinase domain. PLoS Biol. 4, 753-767 (2006).
148. Seeliger MA, Nagar B, Frank F, Cao X, Henderson MN, Kuriyan J. c-Src binds to the cancer drug imatinib with an inactive Abl/c-Kit conformation and a distributed thermodynamic penalty. Structure 15, 299-311 (2007).
149. Vogt I, Mestres J. Drug-Target networks. Mol. Inf. 29(1-2), 10-14 (2010).
150. Baringhaus K-H, Matter H. Efficient strategies for lead optimization by simultaneously addressing affinity, selectivity and pharmacokinetic parameters. In: Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry: Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery. Oprea TI (Ed.). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany, 333-379 (2004).
151. Ekins S, Olechno J, Williams AJ. Dispensing processes impact apparent biological activity as determined by computational and statistical analyses. PLoS ONE 8(5), e62325 (2013).
152. Kramer C, Kalliokoski T, Gedeck P et al. The experimental uncertainty of heterogeneous public Ki data. J. Med. Chem. 55(11), 5165-5173 (2012).
153. Raval A, Piana S, Eastwood MP et al. Refinement of protein structure homology models via long, all-Atom molecular dynamics simulations. Proteins 80(8), 2071-2079 (2012).
154. Sahigara F, Mansouri K, Ballabio D et al. Comparison of different approaches to define the applicability domain of QSAR models. Molecules 17, 4791-4810 (2012).
155. Sahigara F, Ballabio D, Todeschini R et al. Defining a novel k-nearest neighbours approach to assess the applicability domain of a QSAR model for reliable predictions. J. Chem. Inf. 5, 27 (2013).
156. Hassan M, Brown RD, Varma-O'Brien S et al. Cheminformatics analysis and learning in a data pipelining environment. Mol. Divers. 10(3), 283-299 (2006).
157. Warr WA. Scientific workflow systems: Pipeline pilot and KNIME. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des. 26(7), 801-804 (2012).
158. Carrascosa MC, Massaguer OL, Mestres J. PharmaTrek: A semantic web explorer for open innovation in multitarget drug discovery. Mol. Inform. 31(8), 537-541 (2012).
159. Besnard J, Ruda GF, Setola V et al. Automated design of ligands to polypharmacological profiles. Nature 492(7428), 215-220 (2012).