Focused chemical libraries - Design and enrichment: An example of protein-protein interaction chemical space

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 6, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1291-1307

  Zhang, Xu ^a,b,c   Betzi, Stéphane ^c   Morelli, Xavier ^c   Roche, Philippe ^c  

^a FUJIAN INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH ON THE STRUCTURE OF MATTER   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

^c AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

DRUG INDUSTRY; HYDROPHOBICITY; MACHINE LEARNING; PEPTIDE LIBRARY; PHARMACOPHORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; PROTEIN TARGETING; REVIEW; CHEMICAL DATABASE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; TRENDS;

DATABASES, CHEMICAL; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; PROTEINS;

EID: 84906727867     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: 17568927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc.14.57     Document Type: Review

References (142)

1. Munoz B. The FDA approvals of 2013: A watershed? Forbes, 3rd January (2014). www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmunos/2014/01/03/the-fda-Approvals-of-2013- A-watershed/
2. Lipinski C, Lombardo F, Dominy B, Feeney P. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46(1-3), 3-26 (2001).
3. Veber DF, Johnson SR, Cheng HY, Smith BR, Ward KW, Kopple KD. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem. 45(12), 2615-2623 (2002).
4. Oprea TI. Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 14(3), 251-264 (2000).
5. Hughes JD, Blagg J, Price DA et al. Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 18(17), 4872-4875 (2008).
6. Lajiness MS, Vieth M, Erickson J. Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 7(4), 470-477 (2004).
7. Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Hannongbua S. In-silico ADME models: A general assessment of their utility in drug discovery applications. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 11(4), 358-381 (2011).
8. Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Montanari D, Overington J. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10(3), 197-208 (2011).
9. Bickerton GR, Paolini GV, Besnard J, Muresan S, Hopkins AL. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem. 4(2), 90-98 (2012).
10. Gleeson MP, Modi S, Bender A et al. The challenges involved in modeling toxicity data in silico: A review. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(9), 1266-1291 (2012).
11. Gleeson MP, Montanari D. Strategies for the generation, validation and application of in silico ADMET models in lead generation and optimization. Expert Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 8(11), 1435-1446 (2012).
12. Gupta S. New drug development. In: Drug Discovery and Clinical Research. JayPee Brothers Medical Publishers Ltd, Delhi, India, 1-135 (2011).
13. Gregori-Puigjané E, Mestres J. Coverage and bias in chemical library design. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12(3), 359-365 (2008).
14. Lipkin MJ, Stevens AP, Livingstone DJ, Harris CJ. How large does a compound screening collection need to be? Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 11(6), 482-493 (2008).
15. Morelli X, Bourgeas R, Roche P. Chemical and structural lessons from recent successes in protein-protein interaction inhibition (2P2I). Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 15(4), 475-481 (2011).
16. Mullard A. Protein-protein interaction inhibitors get into the groove. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11(March 2012), 173-175 (2012).
17. Makley LN, Gestwicki JE. Expanding the number of 'druggable' targets: Non-enzymes and protein-protein interactions. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 81(1), 22-32 (2013).
18. Higueruelo AP, Schreyer A, Bickerton GRJ, Pitt WR, Groom CR, Blundell TL. Atomic interactions and profile of small molecules disrupting protein-protein interfaces: The TIMBAL database. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 74(5), 457-467 (2009).
19. Bourgeas R, Basse M-J, Morelli X, Roche P. Atomic analysis of protein-protein interfaces with known inhibitors: The 2P2I database. PLoS ONE 5(3), e9598 (2010).
20. Basse MJ, Betzi S, Bourgeas R et al. 2P2Idb: A structural database dedicated to orthosteric modulation of protein-protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res. 41(Database issue), D824-D827 (2013).
21. Higueruelo AP, Jubb H, Blundell TL. TIMBAL v2: Update of a database holding small molecules modulating protein-protein interactions. Database (Oxford) 2013, bat039 (2013).
22. Labbé CM, Laconde G, Kuenemann MA, Villoutreix BO, Sperandio O. iPPI-DB: A manually curated and interactive database of small non-peptide inhibitors of protein-protein interactions. Drug Discov. Today 18(19-20), 958-968 (2013).
23. Kozakov D, Hall DR, Chuang GY et al. Structural conservation of druggable hot spots in protein-protein interfaces. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108(33), 13528-13533 (2011).
24. Sugaya N, Furuya T. Dr. PIAS: An integrative system for assessing the druggability of protein-protein interactions. BMC Bioinformatics 12, 50 (2011).
25. Wanner J, Fry DC, Peng Z, Roberts J. Druggability assessment of protein-protein interfaces. Future Med. Chem. 3(16), 2021-2038 (2011).
26. Koes DR, Camacho CJ. PocketQuery: Protein-protein interaction inhibitor starting points from protein-protein interaction structure. Nucleic Acids Res. 40(Web Server issue), W387-W392 (2012).
27. Metz A, Ciglia E, Gohlke H. Modulating protein-protein interactions: From structural determinants of binding to druggability prediction to application. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(30), 4630-4647 (2012).
28. Ulucan O, Eyrisch S, Helms V. Druggability of dynamic protein-protein interfaces. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(30), 4599-4606 (2012).
29. Hamon V, Morelli X. Druggability of protein-protein interactions. In: Understanding and Exploiting Protein-Protein Interactions as Drug Targets. Future Science Ltd, London, UK, 18-31 (2013).
30. Higueruelo AP, Jubb H, Blundell TL. Protein-protein interactions as druggable targets: Recent technological advances. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 13(5), 791-796 (2013).
31. Reynes C, Host H, Camproux AC et al. Designing focused chemical libraries enriched in protein-protein interaction inhibitors using machine-learning methods. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6(3), e1000695 (2010).
32. Sperandio O, Reynès C, Camproux A, Villoutreix B. Rationalizing the chemical space of protein-protein interaction inhibitors. Drug Discov. Today 15(5-6), 220-229 (2010).
33. Sperandio O. Editorial: Toward the design of drugs on protein-protein interactions. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(30), 4585 (2012).
34. Villoutreix BO, Labbé CM, Lagorce D, Laconde G, Sperandio O. A leap into the chemical space of protein-protein interaction inhibitors. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(30), 4648-4667 (2012).
35. Fry D, Huang KS, Di Lello P et al. Design of libraries targeting protein-protein interfaces. ChemMedChem 8(5), 726-732 (2013).
36. Hamon V, Brunel JM, Combes S, Basse MJ, Roche P, Morelli X. 2P2Ichem: Focused chemical libraries dedicated to orthosteric modulation of protein-protein interactions. MedChemComm 4(5), 797-809 (2013).
37. Hamon V, Bourgeas R, Ducrot P et al. 2P2I HUNTER: A tool for filtering orthosteric protein-protein interaction modulators via a dedicated support vector machine. J. R. Soc. Interface 11(90), 20130860 (2014).
38. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z et al. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28(1), 235-242 (2000).
39. Gutmanas A, Alhroub Y, Battle GM et al. PDBe: Protein Data Bank in Europe. Nucleic Acids Res. 42(Database issue), D285-D291 (2014).
40. Berman HM, Kleywegt GJ, Nakamura H, Markley JL. The future of the protein data bank. Biopolymers 99(3), 218-222 (2013).
41. Rose PW, Bi C, Bluhm WF et al. The RCSB Protein Data Bank: New resources for research and education. Nucleic Acids Res. 41(Database issue), D475-D482 (2013).
42. DrugBank database. www.drugbank.ca
43. Vieth M, Sutherland JJ, Robertson DH, Campbell RM. Kinomics: Characterizing the therapeutically validated kinase space. Drug Discov. Today 10(12), 839-846 (2005).
44. Harris CJ, Hill RD, Sheppard DW, Slater MJ, Stouten PF. The design and application of target-focused compound libraries. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 14(6), 521-531 (2011).
45. Sutherland JJ, Gao C, Cahya S, Vieth M. What general conclusions can we draw from kinase profiling data sets? Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1834(7), 1425-1433 (2013).
46. Acharya C, Coop A, Polli JE, Mackerell AD. Recent advances in ligand-based drug design: Relevance and utility of the conformationally sampled pharmacophore approach. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 7(1), 10-22 (2011).
47. Favia AD. Theoretical and computational approaches to ligand-based drug discovery. Front. Biosci. (Landmark Ed.) 16, 1276-1290 (2011).
48. Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Bajorath J. State-of-The-Art in ligand-based virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today 16(9-10), 372-376 (2011).
49. Sukumar N, Das S. Current trends in virtual high throughput screening using ligand-based and structure-based methods. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 14(10), 872-888 (2011).
50. Wilson GL, Lill MA. Integrating structure-based and ligand-based approaches for computational drug design. Future Med. Chem. 3(6), 735-750 (2011).
51. Chen L, Morrow JK, Tran HT, Phatak SS, Du-Cuny L, Zhang S. From laptop to benchtop to bedside: Structure-based drug design on protein targets. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(9), 1217-1239 (2012).
52. Cheng T, Li Q, Zhou Z, Wang Y, Bryant SH. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: A problem-centric review. AAPS J. 14(1), 133-141 (2012).
53. Pirhadi S, Shiri F, Ghasemi JB. Methods and applications of structure based pharmacophores in drug discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 13(9), 1036-1047 (2013).
54. Sheppard DW, Lipkin MJ, Harris CJ, Catana C, Stouten PF. Strategies for small molecule library design. Curr. Pharm. Des. 19, 1-9 (2013).
55. Sheppard DW, MacRitchie JA. Building in molecular diversity for targeted libraries. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e461-466 (2013).
56. 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 50(2), 205-216 (2010).
57. Butkiewicz M, Lowe EW, Mueller R et al. Benchmarking ligand-based virtual high-Throughput screening with the PubChem database. Molecules 18(1), 735-756 (2013).
58. Rush TS, Grant JA, Mosyak L, Nicholls A. A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 48(5), 1489-1495 (2005).
59. Tawa GJ, Baber JC, Humblet C. Computation of 3D queries for ROCS based virtual screens. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 23(12), 853-868 (2009).
60. Ebalunode JO, Zheng W. Molecular shape technologies in drug discovery: Methods and applications. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10(6), 669-679 (2010).
61. AbdulHameed MD, Chaudhury S, Singh N, Sun H, Wallqvist A, Tawa GJ. Exploring polypharmacology using a ROCS-based target fishing approach. J. Chem. Inf. Model 52(2), 492-505 (2012).
62. Ballester PJ. Ultrafast shape recognition: Method and applications. Future Med. Chem. 3(1), 65-78 (2011).
63. Cannon EO, Nigsch F, Mitchell JB. A novel hybrid ultrafast shape descriptor method for use in virtual screening. Chem. Cent. J. 2, 3 (2008).
64. 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. 25(8), 785-790 (2011).
65. Schreyer AM, Blundell T. USRCAT: Real-Time ultrafast shape recognition with pharmacophoric constraints. J. Cheminform. 4(1), 27 (2012).
66. Sutherland JJ, Nandigam RK, Erickson JA, Vieth M. Lessons in molecular recognition. 2. Assessing and improving cross-docking accuracy. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47(6), 2293-2302 (2007).
67. Meng XY, Zhang HX, Mezei M, Cui M. Molecular docking: A powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 7(2), 146-157 (2011).
68. 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. 51(11), 3124-3132 (2008).
69. Korb O, Stützle T, Exner TE. Accelerating molecular docking calculations using graphics processing units. J. Chem. Inf. Model 51(4), 865-876 (2011).
70. Wu J, Hong B, Takeda T, Guo JT. High performance transcription factor-DNA docking with GPU computing. Proteome Sci. 10(Suppl. 1), S17 (2012).
71. Ballester PJ, Mangold M, Howard NI et al. Hierarchical virtual screening for the discovery of new molecular scaffolds in antibacterial hit identification. J. R. Soc. Interface 9(77), 3196-3207 (2012).
72. Morelli X, Hupp T. Searching for the Holy Grail; protein-protein interaction analysis and modulation. EMBO Rep. 13(10), 877-879 (2012).
73. Stumpf M, Thorne T, de Silva E et al. Estimating the size of the human interactome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105(19), 6959-6964 (2008).
74. Venkatesan K, Rual J, Vazquez A et al. An empirical framework for binary interactome mapping. Nat. Methods 6(1), 83-90 (2009).
75. Arkin MR, Whitty A. The road less traveled: Modulating signal transduction enzymes by inhibiting their protein-protein interactions. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 13(3), 284-290 (2009).
76. Wilson AJ. Inhibition of protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. Chem. Soc. Rev. 38(12), 3289-3300 (2009).
77. Zinzalla G, Thurston DE. Targeting protein-protein interactions for therapeutic intervention: A challenge for the future. Future Med. Chem. 1(1), 65-93 (2009).
78. Selivanova G. Therapeutic targeting of p53 by small molecules. Semin. Cancer Biol. 20(1), 46-56 (2010).
79. Ballatore C, Brunden KR, Trojanowski JQ, Lee VM, Smith AB, Huryn DM. Modulation of protein-protein interactions as a therapeutic strategy for the treatment of neurodegenerative tauopathies. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 11(3), 317-330 (2011).
80. Fry D. Small-Molecule Inhibitors of Protein-Protein Interactions. Vassilev L, Fry D (Eds). Springer, NJ, USA (2011).
81. Garner AL, Janda KD. Protein-protein interactions and cancer: Targeting the central dogma. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 11(3), 258-280 (2011).
82. Wilson CG, Arkin MR. Small-molecule inhibitors of IL-2/ IL-2R: Lessons learned and applied. Curr. Top. Microbiol. Immunol. 348, 25-59 (2011).
83. Bienstock RJ. Computational drug design targeting protein-protein interactions. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(9), 1240-1254 (2012).
84. Fry DC. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: How to mimic a protein partner. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(30), 4679-4684 (2012).
85. Khoury K, Dömling A. P53 MDM2 inhibitors. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18(30), 4668-4678 (2012).
86. Fayne D. De-peptidising protein-protein interactions-big jobs for small molecules. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e467-e474 (2013).
87. Grillo-Bosch D, Choquet D, Sainlos M. Inhibition of PDZ domain-mediated interactions. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e531-e540 (2013).
88. Ivanov AA, Khuri FR, Fu H. Targeting protein-protein interactions as an anticancer strategy. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 34(7), 393-400 (2013).
89. Milroy LG, Brunsveld L, Ottmann C. Stabilization and inhibition of protein-protein interactions: The 14-13-3 case study. ACS Chem. Biol. 8(1), 27-35 (2013).
90. Mori M, Vignaroli G, Botta M. Small molecules modulation of 14-13-3 protein-protein interactions. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e541-547 (2013).
91. Ottmann C. Small-molecule modulation of protein-protein interactions. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e499-500 (2013).
92. Silvian L, Enyedy I, Kumaravel G. Inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: New methodologies to tackle this challenge. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e509-e515 (2013).
93. Wilson CG, Arkin MR. Probing structural adaptivity at PPI interfaces with small molecules. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(4), e501-508 (2013).
94. Zhou G, Chu S. Discovery of small molecule fusion inhibitors targeting HIV-1 gp41. Curr. Pharm. Des. 19(10), 1818-1826 (2013).
95. Zinzalla G. Understanding and Exploiting Protein-Protein Interactions as Drug Targets. Future Science Ltd, London, UK (2013).
96. Falchi F, Caporuscio F, Recanatini M. Structure-based design of small-molecule protein-protein interaction modulators: The story so far. Future Med. Chem. 6(3), 343-357 (2014).
97. Ferro S, De Luca L, Morreale F et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of novel antiviral agents as protein-protein interaction inhibitors. J. Enzyme Inhib. Med. Chem. 29(2), 237-242 (2014).
98. Jin L, Wang W, Fang G. Targeting protein-protein interaction by small molecules. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 54, 435-456 (2014).
99. Nero TL, Morton CJ, Holien JK, Wielens J, Parker MW. Oncogenic protein interfaces: Small molecules, big challenges. Nat. Rev. Cancer 14(4), 248-262 (2014).
100. HTStec. Future Directions of HTS Trends. HTStec, Cambridge, London, 1-9 (2012).
101. Yin H, Hamilton AD. Strategies for targeting protein-protein interactions with synthetic agents. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 44(27), 4130-4163 (2005).
102. Fletcher S, Hamilton AD. Targeting protein-protein interactions by rational design: Mimicry of protein surfaces. J. R. Soc. Interface 3(7), 215-233 (2006).
103. Davis JM, Tsou LK, Hamilton AD. Synthetic non-peptide mimetics of alpha-helices. Chem. Soc. Rev. 36(2), 326-334 (2007).
104. Vagner J, Qu H, Hruby VJ. Peptidomimetics, a synthetic tool of drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12(3), 292-296 (2008).
105. Benyamini H, Friedler A. Using peptides to study protein-protein interactions. Future Med. Chem. 2(6), 989-1003 (2010).
106. Azzarito V, Long K, Murphy NS, Wilson AJ. Inhibition of a-helix-mediated protein-protein interactions using designed molecules. Nat. Chem. 5(3), 161-173 (2013).
107. Hruby VJ, Cai M. Design of peptide and peptidomimetic ligands with novel pharmacological activity profiles. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 53, 557-580 (2013).
108. Isvoran A, Craciun D, Martiny V, Sperandio O, Miteva MA. Computational analysis of protein-protein interfaces involving an alpha helix: Insights for terphenyl-like molecules binding. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol. 14, 31 (2013).
109. Akram ON, Degraff DJ, Sheehan JH et al. Tailoring peptidomimetics for targeting protein-protein interactions. Mol. Cancer Res. 12(7), 967-978 (2014).
110. Jayatunga MK, Thompson S, Hamilton AD. a-helix mimetics: Outwards and upwards. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 24(3), 717-724 (2014).
111. Pagliaro L, Felding J, Audouze K et al. Emerging classes of protein-protein interaction inhibitors and new tools for their development. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8(4), 442-449 (2004).
112. Neugebauer A, Hartmann RW, Klein CD. Prediction of protein-protein interaction inhibitors by chemoinformatics and machine learning methods. J. Med. Chem. 50(19), 4665-4668 (2007).
113. Wells JA, McClendon CL. Reaching for high-hanging fruit in drug discovery at protein-protein interfaces. Nature 450(7172), 1001-1009 (2007).
114. ASINEX's Protein-Protein Interactions (PPI) Library. www.asinex.com/PPI- Library.html
115. Drug-Like Compounds from ChemDiv. http://us.chemdiv.com/index.php?option= com-content&vie w=article&id=85&Itemid=184
116. Life Chemicals: Online Building Blocks Shop. www.lifechemicals.com/ downloads/9356/13062/13074
117. Target-focused libraries. www.otavachemicals.com/products/target-focused- libraries/ protein-protein-interaction
118. Bromodomain Containing Protein 4 Brd4-Focused Library. www.otavachemicals.com/targets/bromodomain-containing-protein-4-brd4-focused- library
119. 2P2I Hunter. http://2p2idb.cnrs-mrs.fr/2p2i-hunter.html
120. Fuller JC, Burgoyne NJ, Jackson RM. Predicting druggable binding sites at the protein-protein interface. Drug Discovery Today 14(3-4), 155-161 (2009).
121. Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C. Escape from flatland: Increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J. Med. Chem. 52(21), 6752-6756 (2009).
122. Marson CM. New and unusual scaffolds in medicinal chemistry. Chem Soc Rev. 40(11), 5514-5533 (2011).
123. Dragon 6. www.talete.mi.it
124. Tse C, Shoemaker AR, Adickes J et al. ABT-263: A potent and orally bioavailable Bcl-2 family inhibitor. Cancer Res. 68(9), 3421-3428 (2008).
125. Ackler S, Mitten MJ, Foster K et al. The Bcl-2 inhibitor ABT-263 enhances the response of multiple chemotherapeutic regimens in hematologic tumors in vivo. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 66(5), 869-880 (2010).
126. Tahir SK, Wass J, Joseph MK et al. Identification of expression signatures predictive of sensitivity to the Bcl-2 family member inhibitor ABT-263 in small cell lung carcinoma and leukemia/ lymphoma cell lines. Mol. Cancer Ther. 9(3), 545-557 (2010).
127. Gandhi L, Camidge DR, Ribeiro De Oliveira M et al. Phase I study of navitoclax (ABT-263), a novel Bcl-2 family inhibitor, in patients with small-cell lung cancer and other solid tumors. J. Clin. Oncol. 29(7), 909-916 (2011).
128. Zuegg J, Cooper MA. Drug-likeness and increased hydrophobicity of commercially available compound libraries for drug screening. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 12(14), 1500-1513 (2012).
129. Walters WP, Murcko MA. Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 54(3), 255-271 (2002).
130. Rishton GM. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov. Today 8(2), 86-96 (2003).
131. Moreira IS, Martins JM, Ramos RM, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. Understanding the importance of the aromatic amino-Acid residues as hot-spots. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1834(1), 404-414 (2013).
132. Fry DC, So S-S. Modulators of protein-protein interactions: Importance of three-dimensionality. In: Protein-Protein Interactions in Drug Discovery. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 55-62 (2013).
133. Lipinski C, Hopkins A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 432(7019), 855-861 (2004).
134. Renner S, van Otterlo WA, Dominguez Seoane M et al. Bioactivity-guided mapping and navigation of chemical space. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5(8), 585-592 (2009).
135. Reymond JL, Awale M. Exploring chemical space for drug discovery using the chemical universe database. ACS Chem. Neurosci. 3(9), 649-657 (2012).
136. Ruddigkeit L, Blum LC, Reymond JL. Visualization and virtual screening of the chemical universe database GDB-17. J. Chem. Inf. Model 53(1), 56-65 (2013).
137. Schwartz J, Awale M, Reymond JL. SMIfp (SMILES fingerprint) chemical space for virtual screening and visualization of large databases of organic molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model 53(8), 1979-1989 (2013).
138. Oprea TI, Gottfries J. Chemography: The art of navigating in chemical space. J. Comb. Chem. 3(2), 157-166 (2001).
139. Colliandre L, Le Guilloux V, Bourg S, Morin-Allory L. Visual characterization and diversity quantification of chemical libraries: 2. Analysis and selection of size-independent, subspace-specific diversity indices. J. Chem. Inf. Model 52(2), 327-342 (2012).
140. Le Guilloux V, Colliandre L, Bourg S, Guénegou G, Dubois-Chevalier J, Morin-Allory L. Visual characterization and diversity quantification of chemical libraries: 1. creation of delimited reference chemical subspaces. J. Chem. Inf. Model 51(8), 1762-1774 (2011).
141. Screening Assistant 2. http://sa2.sourceforge.net
142. Le Guilloux V, Arrault A, Colliandre L, Bourg S, Vayer P, Morin-Allory L. Mining collections of compounds with Screening Assistant 2. J. Cheminform. 4(1), 20 (2012).