Revisiting de novo drug design: Receptor based pharmacophore screening

Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 14, Issue 16, 2014, Pages 1890-1898

  Amaravadhi, Harikishore ^a   Baek, Kwanghee ^b   Yoon, Ho Sup ^a,b  

^a NANYANG TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY   (Singapore)

^b Kyung Hee University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

3D QSAR; Analog based drug design; Consensus scoring; De novo drug design; Fragment based drug design; Pharmacophore; Receptor based pharmacophore

Indexed keywords

B RAF KINASE; DEXTRO AMINO ACID OXIDASE; HEAT SHOCK PROTEIN; MATRIX METALLOPROTEINASE; N METHYL DEXTRO ASPARTIC ACID RECEPTOR; POTASSIUM CHANNEL HERG; PROTEIN BCL 2; STROMELYSIN; VEMURAFENIB; DRUG RECEPTOR; LIGAND;

ARTICLE; COMPUTER MODEL; DE NOVO DRUG DESIGN; DRUG BINDING SITE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG STRUCTURE; ENZYME ACTIVITY; EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM; GENETIC ALGORITHM; HYDROGEN BOND; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR MODEL; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PHARMACOPHORE; PLASMODIUM; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SCORING SYSTEM; STOCHASTIC MODEL; SURFACE PLASMON RESONANCE; VIRTUAL SCREENING; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; ANIMAL; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; HUMAN; METABOLISM; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANIMALS; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; RECEPTORS, DRUG; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84911390933     PISSN: 15680266     EISSN: 18734294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2174/1568026614666140929115506     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Yoon, S.; Smellie, A.; Hartsough, D.; Filikov, A. Surrogate docking: structure-based virtual screening at high throughput speed. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 2005, 19 (7), 483-497.
2. Klebe, G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discov. Today., 2006, 11, (13-14), 580-594.
3. Florence, L.S.; Jurgen, B. Virtual Screening Methods that Complement HTS. Comb. Chem. High Throug. Screen, 2004, 7 (4), 259-269.
4. Sousa, S.F.; Fernandes, P.A.; Ramos, M.J. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins., 2006, 65 (1), 15-26.
5. 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 Discov., 2004, 3 (11), 935-949.
6. Lee, H.S.; Choi, J.; Kufareva, I.; Abagyan, R.; Filikov, A.; Yang, Y.; Yoon, S. Optimization of high throughput virtual screening by combining shape-matching and docking methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48 (3), 489-497.
7. Carlson, H.A. Protein Flexibility is an Important Component of Structure-Based Drug Discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des., 2002, 8 (17), 1571-1578.
8. Totrov, M.; Abagyan, R. Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol., 2008, 18 (2), 178-184.
9. Jiang, F.; Kim, S.H. "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. J. Mol. Biol., 1991, 219, (1), 79-102.
10. Jain, A.N. Effects of protein conformation in docking: improved pose prediction through protein pocket adaptation. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 2009, 23 (6), 355-374.
11. Sherman, W.; Day, T.; Jacobson, M.P.; Friesner, R.A.; Farid, R. Novel procedure for modeling ligand/receptor induced fit effects. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49 (2), 534-553.
12. Carlson, H.A.; McCammon, J.A. Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. Mol. Pharmacol., 2000, 57 (2), 213-218.
13. Rueda, M.; Bottegoni, G.; Abagyan, R. Recipes for the selection of experimental protein conformations for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 50 (1), 186-193.
14. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46 (12), 2287-2303.
15. Feher, M. Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. Drug Discov. Today., 2006, 11 (9-10), 421-428.
16. Leach, A.R.; Shoichet, B.K.; Peishoff, C.E. Prediction of proteinligand interactions. Docking and scoring: successes and gaps. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49 (20), 5851-5855.
17. Oda, A.; Tsuchida, K.; Takakura, T.; Yamaotsu, N.; Hirono, S. Comparison of consensus scoring strategies for evaluating computational models of protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46 (1), 380-391.
18. Wang, B.; Westerhoff, L.M.; Merz, K.M,; Jr. A critical assessment of the performance of protein-ligand scoring functions based on NMR chemical shift perturbations. J. Med. Chem., 2007, 50 (21), 5128-5134.
19. Shen, Q.; Xiong, B.; Zheng, M.; Luo, X.; Luo, C.; Liu, X.; Du, Y.; Li, J.; Zhu, W.; Shen, J.; Jiang, H. Knowledge-based scoring functions in drug design: 2. Can the knowledge base be enriched? J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2011, 51 (2), 386-397.
20. 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 (20), 5912-5931.
21. Danziger, D.J.; Dean, P.M. Automated site-directed drug design: a general algorithm for knowledge acquisition about hydrogenbonding regions at protein surfaces. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci., 1989, 236 (1283), 101-113.
22. Bohm, H.J. LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 1992, 6 (6), 593-606.
23. Allen, F.H. The Cambridge Structural Database: a quarter of a million crystal structures and rising. Acta. Crystallogr. B., 2002, 58 (Pt 3 ), 380-388.
24. Goodford, P.J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem., 1985, 28 (7), 849-857.
25. Miranker, A.; Karplus, M. Functionality maps of binding sites: a multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins., 1991, 11 (1), 29-34.
26. Clark, D.E.; Frenkel, D.; Levy, S.A.; Li, J.; Murray, C.W.; Robson, B.; Waszkowycz, B.; Westhead, D.R. PRO-LIGAND: an approach to de novo molecular design. 1. Application to the design of organic molecules. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 1995, 9 (1), 13-32.
27. Gillet, V.; Myatt, G.; Zsoldos, Z.; Johnson, A.P. SPROUT, HIPPO and CAESA: Tools for de novo structure generation and estimation of synthetic accessibility. Perspec. Drug Discov. Des., 1995, 3 (1), 34-50.
28. Hajduk, P.J.; Sheppard, G.; Nettesheim, D.G.; Olejniczak, E.T.; Shuker, S.B.; Meadows, R.P.; Steinman, D.H.; Carrera, G.M.; Marcotte, P.A.; Severin, J.; Walter, K.; Smith, H.; Gubbins, E.; Simmer, R.; Holzman, T.F.; Morgan, D.W.; Davidsen, S.K.; Summers, J.B.; Fesik, S.W. Discovery of Potent Nonpeptide Inhibitors of Stromelysin Using SAR by NMR. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1997, 119 (25), 5818-5827.
29. Shuker, S.B.; Hajduk, P.J.; Meadows, R.P.; Fesik, S.W. Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR. Science, 1996, 274, 1531-1534.
30. Wyatt, P.G.; Woodhead, A.J.; Berdini, V.; Boulstridge, J.A.; Carr, M.G.; Cross, D.M.; Davis, D.J.; Devine, L.A.; Early, T.R.; Feltell, R.E.; Lewis, E.J.; McMenamin, R.L.; Navarro, E.F.; O'Brien, M.A.; O'Reilly, M.; Reule, M.; Saxty, G.; Seavers, L.C.; Smith, D.M.; Squires, M.S.; Trewartha, G.; Walker, M.T.; Woolford, A.J. Identification of N-(4-piperidinyl)-4-(2,6-dichlorobenzoylamino)- 1H-pyrazole-3-carboxamide (AT7519), a novel cyclin dependent kinase inhibitor using fragment-based X-ray crystallography and structure based drug design. J. Med. Chem., 2008, 51 (16), 4986- 4999.
31. Bollag, G.; Hirth, P.; Tsai, J.; Zhang, J.; Ibrahim, P.N.; Cho, H.; Spevak, W.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, Y.; Habets, G.; Burton, E.A.; Wong, B.; Tsang, G.; West, B.L.; Powell, B.; Shellooe, R.; Marimuthu, A.; Nguyen, H.; Zhang, K.Y.J.; Artis, D.R.; Schlessinger, J.; Su, F.; Higgins, B.; Iyer, R.; D/'Andrea, K.; Koehler, A.; Stumm, M.; Lin, P.S.; Lee, R.J.; Grippo, J.; Puzanov, I.; Kim, K.B.; Ribas, A.; McArthur, G.A.; Sosman, J.A.; Chapman, P.B.; Flaherty, K.T.; Xu, X.; Nathanson, K.L.; Nolop, K. Clinical efficacy of a RAF inhibitor needs broad target blockade in BRAF-mutant melanoma. Nature, 2010, 467 (7315), 596-599.
32. Tsai, J.; Lee, J.T.; Wang, W.; Zhang, J.; Cho, H.; Mamo, S.; Bremer, R.; Gillette, S.; Kong, J.; Haass, N.K.; Sproesser, K.; Li, L.; Smalley, K.S.; Fong, D.; Zhu, Y.L.; Marimuthu, A.; Nguyen, H.; Lam, B.; Liu, J.; Cheung, I.; Rice, J.; Suzuki, Y.; Luu, C.; Settachatgul, C.; Shellooe, R.; Cantwell, J.; Kim, S.H.; Schlessinger, J.; Zhang, K.Y.; West, B.L.; Powell, B.; Habets, G.; Zhang, C.; Ibrahim, P.N.; Hirth, P.; Artis, D.R.; Herlyn, M.; Bollag, G. Discovery of a selective inhibitor of oncogenic B-Raf kinase with potent antimelanoma activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A., 2008, 105 (8), 3041-3046.
33. Scott, D.E.; Coyne, A.G.; Hudson, S.A.; Abell, C. Fragment-based approaches in drug discovery and chemical biology. Biochemistry., 2012, 51 (25), 4990-5003.
34. Congreve, M.; Carr, R.; Murray, C.; Jhoti, H. A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discov. Today, 2003, 8 (19), 876-877.
35. Oltersdorf, T.; Elmore, S.W.; Shoemaker, A.R.; Armstrong, R.C.; Augeri, D.J.; Belli, B.A.; Bruncko, M.; Deckwerth, T.L.; Dinges, J.; Hajduk, P.J.; Joseph, M.K.; Kitada, S.; Korsmeyer, S.J.; Kunzer, A.R.; Letai, A.; Li, C.; Mitten, M.J.; Nettesheim, D.G.; Ng, S.; Nimmer, P.M.; O'Connor, J.M.; Oleksijew, A.; Petros, A.M.; Reed, J.C.; Shen, W.; Tahir, S.K.; Thompson, C.B.; Tomaselli, K.J.; Wang, B.; Wendt, M.D.; Zhang, H.; Fesik, S.W.; Rosenberg, S.H. An inhibitor of Bcl-2 family proteins induces regression of solid tumours. Nature, 2005, 435 (7042), 677-681.
36. Hondo, T.; Warizaya, M.; Niimi, T.; Namatame, I.; Yamaguchi, T.; Nakanishi, K.; Hamajima, T.; Harada, K.; Sakashita, H.; Matsumoto, Y.; Orita, M.; Takeuchi, M. 4-Hydroxypyridazin-3(2H)-one derivatives as novel D-amino acid oxidase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem., 2013, 56 (9), 3582-3592.
37. Carlson, H.A.; Masukawa, K.M.; Rubins, K.; Bushman, F.D.; Jorgensen, W.L.; Lins, R.D.; Briggs, J.M.; McCammon, J.A. Developing a dynamic pharmacophore model for HIV-1 integrase. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43 (11), 2100-2114.
38. Kirchhoff, P.D.; Brown, R.; Kahn, S.; Waldman, M.; Venkatachalam, C.M. Application of structure-based focusing to the estrogen receptor. J. Comput. Chem., 2001, 22 (10), 993-1003.
39. Chen, J.; Lai, L. Pocket v.2: further developments on receptorbased pharmacophore modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2006, 46 (6), 2684-2691.
40. Loving, K.; Salam, N.K.; Sherman, W. Energetic analysis of fragment docking and application to structure-based pharmacophore hypothesis generation. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des., 2009, 23 (8), 541-554.
41. Harikishore, A.; Niang, M.; Rajan, S.; Preiser, P.R.; Yoon, H.S. Small molecule Plasmodium FKBP35 inhibitor as a potential antimalaria agent. Sci. Rep., 2013, 3, 2501.
42. Hartenfeller, M.; Zettl, H.; Walter, M.; Rupp, M.; Reisen, F.; Proschak, E.; Weggen, S.; Stark, H.; Schneider, G. DOGS: reactiondriven de novo design of bioactive compounds. PLoS Comput Bio., 2012, 8 (2), e1002380.
43. Lewell, X.Q.; Judd, D.B.; Watson, S.P.; Hann, M.M. RECAP-- retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1998, 38 (3), 511-522.
44. Vinkers, H.M.; de Jonge, M.R.; Daeyaert, F.F.; Heeres, J.; Koymans, L.M.; van Lenthe, J.H.; Lewi, P.J.; Timmerman, H.; Van Aken, K.; Janssen, P.A. SYNOPSIS: SYNthesize and OPtimize System in Silico. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46 (13), 2765-2773.
45. Hartenfeller, M.; Schneider, G. De novo drug design. Met. Mol. Bio., 2011, 672, 299-323.
46. Spankuch, B.; Keppner, S.; Lange, L.; Rodrigues, T.; Zettl, H.; Koch, C.P.; Reutlinger, M.; Hartenfeller, M.; Schneider, P.; Schneider, G. Drugs by numbers: reaction-driven de novo design of potent and selective anticancer leads. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Eng., 2013, 52 (17), 4676-4681.
47. Nisius, B.; Rester, U. Fragment Shuffling: An Automated Workflow for Three-Dimensional Fragment-Based Ligand Design. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 49 (5), 1211-1222.
48. Dey, F.; Caflisch, A. Fragment-Based de Novo Ligand Design by Multiobjective Evolutionary Optimization. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48 (3), 679-690.
49. Fischer, J.R.; Lessel, U.; Rarey, M. LoFT: Similarity-Driven Multiobjective Focused Library Design. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 50 (1), 1-21.
50. Nicolaou, C.A.; Apostolakis, J.; Pattichis, C.S. De Novo Drug Design Using Multiobjective Evolutionary Graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 49 (2), 295-307.
51. van der Horst, E.; Marqués-Gallego, P.; Mulder-Krieger, T.; van Veldhoven, J.; Kruisselbrink, J.; Aleman, A.; Emmerich, M.T.M.; Brussee, J.; Bender, A.; Ijzerman, A.P. Multi-Objective Evolutionary Design of Adenosine Receptor Ligands. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2012, 52 (7), 1713-1721.
52. Lipinski, C.A.; Lombardo, F.; Dominy, B.W.; Feeney, P.J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug. Deliv. Rev., 2001, 46 (1-3), 3-26.
53. Veber, D.F.; Johnson, S.R.; Cheng, H.Y.; Smith, B.R.; Ward, K.W.; Kopple, K.D. Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. J. Med. Chem., 2002, 45 (12), 2615-2623.
54. Cheng, A.; Merz, K.M.; Jr. Prediction of aqueous solubility of a diverse set of compounds using quantitative structure-property relationships. J. Med. Chem., 2003, 46 (17), 3572-3580.
55. Egan, W.J.; Merz, K.M.J.; Baldwin, J.J. Prediction of drug absorption using multivariate statistics. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43 (21), 3867-3877.
56. Egan, W.J.; Lauri, G. Prediction of intestinal permeability. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev., 2002, 54 (3), 273-289.
57. Votano, J.R.; Parham, M.; Hall, L.M.; Hall, L.H.; Kier, L.B.; Oloff, S.; Tropsha, A. QSAR modeling of human serum protein binding with several modeling techniques utilizing structure-information representation. J. Med. Chem., 2006, 49 (24), 7169-7181.
58. Obiol-Pardo, C.; Gomis-Tena, J.; Sanz, F.; Saiz, J.; Pastor, M. A multiscale simulation system for the prediction of drug-induced cardiotoxicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2011, 51 (2), 483-492.
59. Woo, Y.T.; Lai, D.Y.; Argus, M.F.; Arcos, J.C. Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol. Lett., 1995, 79 (1-3), 219-228.
60. Ridings, J.E.; Barratt, M.D.; Cary, R.; Earnshaw, C.G.; Eggington, C.E.; Ellis, M.K.; Judson, P.N.; Langowski, J.J.; Marchant, C.A.; Payne, M.P.; Watson, W.P.; Yih, T.D. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: an update on the DEREK system. Toxicology., 1996, 106 (1-3), 267-279.
61. Rosenkranz, H.S.; Klopman, G. Structural basis of carcinogenicity in rodents of genotoxicants and non-genotoxicants. Mutat. Res., 1990, 228 (2), 105-124.
62. Tanrikulu, Y.; Schneider, G. Pseudoreceptor models in drug design: bridging ligand- and receptor-based virtual screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 2008, 7 (8), 667-677.
63. Hawkins, P.C.; Skillman, A.G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shapematching and docking as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem., 2007, 50 (1), 74-82.
64. Madhavi Sastry, G.; Adzhigirey, M.; Day, T.; Annabhimoju, R.; Sherman, W. Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 27 (3), 221-234.
65. Verdonk, M.L.; Cole, J.C.; Hartshorn, M.J.; Murray, C.W.; Taylor, R.D. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins., 2003, 52 (4), 609-623.
66. Perola, E.; Walters, W.P.; Charifson, P.S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins., 2004, 56(2), 235-249.
67. Zhang, C.; Liu, S.; Zhu, Q.; Zhou, Y. A knowledge-based energy function for protein-ligand, protein-protein, and protein-DNA complexes. J. Med. Chem., 2005, 48 (7), 2325-2335.
68. Teramoto, R.; Fukunishi, H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2007, 47 (2), 526-534.
69. Cheng, T.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Liu, Z.; Wang, R. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 49 (4), 1079-1093.
70. Cheng, T.; Liu, Z.; Wang, R. A knowledge-guided strategy for improving the accuracy of scoring functions in binding affinity prediction. BMC Bioinformatics., 2010, 11, 193.
71. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/ scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem., 2000, 43(25), 4759- 4767.
72. Cross, J.B.; Thompson, D.C.; Rai, B.K.; Baber, J.C.; Fan, K.Y.; Hu, Y.; Humblet, C. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 49 (6), 1455-1474.
73. Firth-Clark, S.; Kirton, S.B.; Willems, H.M.G.; Williams, A. De Novo Ligand Design to Partially Flexible Active Sites: Application of the ReFlex Algorithm to Carboxypeptidase A, Acetylcholinesterase, and the Estrogen Receptor. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2008, 48 (2), 296-305.
74. Hartenfeller, M.; Proschak, E.; Schuller, A.; Schneider, G. Concept of combinatorial de novo design of drug-like molecules by particle swarm optimization. Chem. Biol. Drug Des., 2008, 72 (1), 16-26.
75. Kutchukian, P.S.; Lou, D.; Shakhnovich, E.I. FOG: Fragment Optimized Growth algorithm for the de novo generation of molecules occupying druglike chemical space. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2009, 49 (7), 1630-1642.
76. Zaliani, A.; Boda, K.; Seidel, T.; Herwig, A.; Schwab, C.H.; Gasteiger, J.; Claussen, H.; Lemmen, C.; Degen, J.; Parn, J.; Rarey, M. Second-generation de novo design: a view from a medicinal chemist perspective. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 2009, 23 (8), 593-602.
77. Fischer, J.R.; Lessel, U.; Rarey, M. Improving Similarity-Driven Library Design: Customized Matching and Regioselective Feature Trees. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2011, 51 (9), 2156-2163.
78. Damewood, J.R.; Lerman, C.L.; Masek, B.B. NovoFLAP: A Ligand-Based De Novo Design Approach for the Generation of Medicinally Relevant Ideas. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2010, 50 (7), 1296-1303.
79. Yuan, Y.; Pei, J.; Lai, L. LigBuilder 2: A Practical de Novo Drug Design Approach. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2011, 51 (5), 1083-1091.
80. Hartenfeller, M.; Zettl, H.; Walter, M.; Rupp, M.; Reisen, F.; Proschak, E.; Weggen, S.; Stark, H.; Schneider, G. DOGS: reactiondriven de novo design of bioactive compounds. PLoS Comput. Biol., 2012, 8 (2), e1002380.
81. Beato, C.; Beccari, A.R.; Cavazzoni, C.; Lorenzi, S.; Costantino, G. Use of Experimental Design To Optimize Docking Performance: The Case of LiGenDock, the Docking Module of Ligen, a New De Novo Design Program. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2013, 53, 1503-1517.
82. Beccari, A.R.; Cavazzoni, C.; Beato, C.; Costantino, G. LiGen: a High Performance workflow for chemistry driven de novo design. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2013, 53 (6), 1518-1527.
83. Beno, B.R.; Langley, D.R. MORPH: A New Tool for Ligand Design. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2013, 50 (6), 1159-1164.
84. Pfeffer, P.; Fober, T.; Hüllermeier, E.; Klebe, G. GARLig: A Fully Automated Tool for Subset Selection of Large Fragment Spaces via a Self-Adaptive Genetic Algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 2010, 50 (9), 1644-1659.
85. Babine, R.E.; Bleckman, T.M.; Kissinger, C.R.; Showalter, R.; Pelletier, L.A.; Lewis, C.; Tucker, K.; Moomaw, E.; Parge, H.E.; Villafranca, J.E. Design, synthesis and X-ray crystallographic studies of novel FKBP-12 ligands. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 1995, 5 (15), 1719-1724.