Novel chemogenomic approaches to drug design

Chemical Genomics and Proteomics, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 173-204

  Rognan, Didier ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DE STRASBOURG   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84913526729     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1201/b12957     Document Type: Chapter

References (136)

1. An, J., Totrov, M., and Abagyan, R. 2005. Pocketome via comprehensive identification and classification of ligand binding envelopes. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 4:752-761.
2. Apweiler, R., Bairoch, A., Wu, C. H., et al. 2004. UniProt: The Universal Protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 32: D115-119.
3. Areias, F. M., Brea, J., Gregori-Puigjane, E., et al. 2010. In silico directed chemical probing of the adenosine receptor family. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 18: 3043-3052.
4. Bajorath, J. 2008. Computational analysis of ligand relationships within target families. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12:352-358.
5. Batista, J., Tan, L., and Bajorath, J. 2010. Atom-centered interacting fragments and similarity search applications. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:79-86.
6. Bender, A., Jenkins, J. L., Glick, M., et al. 2006. “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. 46:2445-2456.
7. Bender, A., Scheiber, J., Glick, M., et al. 2007. Analysis of pharmacology data and the prediction of adverse drug reactions and off-target effects from chemical structure. ChemMedChem 2:861-873.
8. Berman, H. M., Westbrook, J., Feng, Z., et al. 2000. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28:235-242.
9. Bock, J. R. and Gough, D. A. 2005. Virtual screen for ligands of orphan G protein-coupled receptors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45:1402-1414.
10. Campagna-Slater, V. and Schapira, M. 2009. Evaluation of virtual screening as a tool for chemical genetic applications. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49:2082-2091.
11. Campbell, S. J., Gaulton, A., Marshall, J., et al. 2010. Visualizing the drug target landscape. Drug Discov. Today 15:3-15.
12. Caron, P. R., Mullican, M. D., Mashal, R. D., et al. 2001. Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5: 464-470.
13. Chang, R. L., Xie, L., Bourne, P. E., and Palsson, B. O. 2010. Drug off-target effects predicted using structural analysis in the context of a metabolic network model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6: e1000938.
14. Chen, B., Dong, X., Jiao, D., et al. 2010a. Chem2Bio2RDF: A semantic framework for linking and data mining chemogenomic and systems chemical biology data. BMC Bioinformatics 11:255.
15. Chen, B. and Wild, D. J. 2010b. PubChem bioassays as a data source for predictive models. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 28:420-426.
16. Chen, B., Wild, D., and Guha, R. 2009. PubChem as a source of polypharmacology. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49: 2044-2055.
17. Choi, J., Davis, M. J., Newman, A. F., and Ragan, M. A. 2010. A semantic web ontology for small molecules and their biological targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:732-741.
18. Crisman, T. J., Parker, C. N., Jenkins, J. L., et al. 2007. Understanding false positives in reporter gene assays: In silico chemogenomics approaches to prioritize cell-based HTS data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47:1319-1327.
19. Crisman, T. J., Sisay, M. T., and Bajorath, J. 2008. Ligand-target interaction-based weighting of substructures for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48:1955-1964.
20. Daniel, M., Stuart, L., Christopher, C., Stuart, W., and Adam, N. 2009. Synthesis of natural-product-like molecules with over eighty distinct scaffolds. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 48:104-109.
21. Das, S., Krein, M. P., and Breneman, C. M. 2010. Binding affinity prediction with property-encoded shape distribution signatures. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:298-308.
22. Davis, F. P. and Sali, A. 2010. The overlap of small molecule and protein binding sites within families of protein structures. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6:e1000668.
23. de Franchi, E., Schalon, C., Messa, M., et al. 2010. Binding of protein kinase inhibitors to synapsin I inferred from pair-wise binding site similarity measurements. PLoS One 5:e12214.
24. DeGraw, A. J., Keiser, M. J., Ochocki, J. D., Shoichet, B. K., and Distefano, M. D. 2010. Prediction and evaluation of protein farnesyltransferase inhibition by commercial drugs. J. Med. Chem. 53:2464-2471.
25. Deng, Z., Chuaqui, C., and Singh, J. 2004. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): A novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47:337-344.
26. Dessailly, B. H., Nair, R., Jaroszewski, L., et al. 2009. PSI-2: Structural genomics to cover protein domain family space. Structure 17:869-881.
27. Faure, H., Gorojankina, T., Rice, N., et al. 2009. Molecular determinants of noncompetitive antagonist binding to the mouse GPRC6A receptor. Cell. Calcium 46:323-332.
28. Feldman, H. J. and Labute, P. 2010. Pocket similarity: Are alpha carbons enough? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:1466-1475.
29. Ferrara, P., Gohlke, H., Price, D. J., Klebe, G., and Brooks, C. L., 3rd. 2004. Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47:3032-3047.
30. Frantz, S. 2005. Drug discovery: Playing dirty. Nature 437:942-943.
31. Frimurer, T. M., Ulven, T., Elling, C. E., et al. 2005. A physicogenetic method to assign ligand-binding relationships between 7TM receptors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15:3707-3712.
32. Gao, Z., Li, H., Zhang, H., et al. 2008. PDTD: A Web-accessible protein database for drug target identification. BMC Bioinformatics 9:104.
33. Garcia-Serna, R., Ursu, O., Oprea, T. I., and Mestres, J. 2010. iPHACE: Integrative navigation in pharmacological space. Bioinformatics 26:985-986.
34. Giacomini, K. M., Krauss, R. M., Roden, D. M., et al. 2007. When good drugs go bad. Nature 446:975-977.
35. Gold, N. D. and Jackson, R. M. 2006. Fold independent structural comparisons of protein-ligand binding sites for exploring functional relationships. J. Mol. Biol. 355:1112-1124.
36. Gregori-Puigjane, E. and Mestres, J. 2006. SHED: Shannon entropy descriptors from topological feature distributions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46:1615-1622.
37. Gregori-Puigjane, E. and Mestres, J. 2008a. Coverage and bias in chemical library design. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 12:359-365.
38. Gregori-Puigjane, E. and Mestres, J. 2008b. A ligand-based approach to mining the chemogenomic space of drugs. Comb. Chem. High. Throughput Screen. 11:669-676.
39. Gunther, S., Kuhn, M., Dunkel, M., et al. 2008. SuperTarget and matador: Resources for exploring drug-target relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 36:D919-922.
40. Halgren, T. A. 2009. Identifying and characterizing binding sites and assessing druggability. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49:377-389.
41. Harmar, A. J., Hills, R. A., Rosser, E. M., et al. 2009. IUPHAR-DB: The IUPHAR database of G protein-coupled receptors and ion channels. Nucleic Acids Res. 37:D680-685.
42. Hert, J., Irwin, J. J., Laggner, C., Keiser, M. J., and Shoichet, B. K. 2009. Quantifying biogenic bias in screening libraries. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5:479-483.
43. Hert, J., Keiser, M. J., Irwin, J. J., Oprea, T. I., and Shoichet, B. K. 2008. Quantifying the relationships among drug classes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48:755-765.
44. Hu, L., Benson, M. L., Smith, R. D., Lerner, M. G., and Carlson, H. A. 2005. Binding MOAD (mother of all databases). Proteins 60:333-340.
45. Huang, B. 2009. MetaPocket: A meta approach to improve protein ligand binding site prediction. OMICS 13:325-330.
46. Hur, J. and Wild, D. J. 2008. PubChemSR: A search and retrieval tool for PubChem. Chem. Cent. J. 2:11.
47. Jacob, L., Hoffmann, B., Stoven, V., and Vert, J. P. 2008. Virtual screening of GPCRs: An in silico chemogenomics approach. BMC Bioinformatics 9:363.
48. Jacob, L. and Vert, J. P. 2008. Protein-ligand interaction prediction: An improved chemogenomics approach. Bioinformatics 24:2149-2156.
49. Keiser, M. J., Roth, B. L., Armbruster, B. N., et al. 2007. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat. Biotechnol. 25:197-206.
50. Keiser, M. J., Setola, V., Irwin, J. J., et al. 2009. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462:175-181.
51. Kellenberger, E., Foata, N., and Rognan, D. 2008. Ranking targets in structure-based virtual screening of three-dimensional protein libraries: Methods and problems. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48:1014-1025.
52. Kellenberger, E., Muller, P., Schalon, C., et al. 2006. sc-PDB: An annotated database of druggable binding sites from the Protein Data Bank. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46:717-727.
53. Kinnings, S. L., Liu, N., Buchmeier, N., et al. 2009. Drug discovery using chemical systems biology: Repositioning the safe medicine Comtan to treat multi-drug and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5:e1000423.
54. Kinoshita, K., Furui, J., and Nakamura, H. 2002. Identification of protein functions from a molecular surface database, eF-site. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 2:9-22.
55. Klabunde, T. 2007. Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery: Similar receptors bind similar ligands. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152:5-7.
56. Klabunde, T. and Evers, A. 2005. GPCR antitarget modeling: Pharmacophore models for biogenic amine binding GPCRs to avoid GPCR-mediated side effects. Chembiochem. 6:876-889.
57. Kuhn, M., von Mering, C., Campillos, M., Jensen, L. J., and Bork, P. 2008. STITCH: Interaction networks of chemicals and proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 36:D684-688.
58. Li, L., Bum-Erdene, K., Baenziger, P. H., et al. 2010. BioDrugScreen: A computational drug design resource for ranking molecules docked to the human proteome. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:D765-773.
59. Li, L., Li, J., Khanna, M., et al. 2010. Docking small molecules to predicted off-targets of the cancer drug erlotinib leads to inhibitors of lung cancer cell proliferation with suitable in vitro pharmacokinetic properties. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 1:229-233.
60. Li, Q., Wang, Y., and Bryant, S. H. 2009. A novel method for mining highly imbalanced high-throughput screening data in PubChem. Bioinformatics 25:3310-3316.
61. Li, Z. R., Lin, H. H., Han, L. Y., et al. 2006. PROFEAT: A web server for computing structural and physicochemical features of proteins and peptides from amino acid sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 34:W32-37.
62. Liu, T., Lin, Y., Wen, X., Jorissen, R. N., and Gilson, M. K. 2007. BindingDB: A web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 35:D198-201.
63. Liu, X., Ouyang, S., Yu, B., et al. 2010. PharmMapper server: A web server for potential drug target identification using pharmacophore mapping approach. Nucleic Acids Res. 38 Suppl: W609-614.
64. Marcou, G. and Rognan, D. 2007. Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47:195-207.
65. Martin, R. E., Green, L. G., Guba, W., Kratochwil, N., and Christ, A. 2007. Discovery of the first nonpeptidic, small-molecule, highly selective somatostatin receptor subtype 5 antagonists: A chemogenomics approach. J. Med. Chem. 50:6291-6294.
66. Martin, Y. C., Kofron, J. L., and Traphagen, L. M. 2002. Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? J. Med. Chem. 45:4350-4358.
67. Meslamani, J. E. and Rognan, D. 2010. Predicting Ligand-Protein Binding Using SVM: A Novel Chemogenomic Screening Method. 18th EUROQSAR workshop, Rhodes, Greece, 2010:117.
68. Mestres, J., Gregori-Puigjane, E., Valverde, S., and Sole, R. V. 2008. Data completeness-The Achilles heel of drug-target networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 26:983-984.
69. Mestres, J., Gregori-Puigjane, E., Valverde, S., and Sole, R. V. 2009. The topology of drug-target interaction networks: Implicit dependence on drug properties and target families. Mol. Biosyst. 5:1051-1057.
70. Mestres, J., Martin-Couce, L., Gregori-Puigjane, E., Cases, M., and Boyer, S. 2006. Ligand-based approach to in silico pharmacology: Nuclear receptor profiling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46:2725-2736.
71. Milletti, F. and Vulpetti, A. 2010. Predicting polypharmacology by binding site similarity: From kinases to the protein universe. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:1418-1431.
72. Nair, R., Liu, J., Soong, T. T., et al. 2009. Structural genomics is the largest contributor of novel structural leverage. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics 10:181-191.
73. Nettles, J. H., Jenkins, J. L., Bender, A., et al. 2006. Bridging chemical and biological space: “Target fishing” using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 49:6802-6810.
74. Nidhi, Glick, M., Davies, J. W., and Jenkins, J. L. 2006. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46:1124-1133.
75. Nielsen, T. E. and Schreiber, S. L. 2008. Towards the optimal screening collection: A synthesis strategy. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 47:48-56.
76. Ong, S. E., Schenone, M., Margolin, A. A., et al. 2009. Identifying the proteins to which small-molecule probes and drugs bind in cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:4617-4622.
77. Overington, J. 2009. ChEMBL. An Interview with John Overington, Team Leader, Chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A. Warr. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 23:195-198.
78. Paolini, G. V., Shapland, R. H., Van Hoorn, W. P., Mason, J. S., and Hopkins, A. L. 2006. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24:805-815.
79. Perot, S., Sperandio, O., Miteva, M. A., Camproux, A. C., and Villoutreix, B. O. 2010. Druggable pockets and binding site centric chemical space: A paradigm shift in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 15:656-667.
80. Pieper, U., Eswar, N., Webb, B. M., et al. 2009. MODBASE, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources. Nucleic Acids Res. 37:D347-354.
81. Rognan, D. 2007. Chemogenomic approaches to rational drug design. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152:38-52.
82. Rognan, D. 2010. Structure-based approaches to target fishing and ligand profiling. Mol. Inf. 29:176-187.
83. Rollinger, J. M., Schuster, D., Danzl, B., et al. 2009. In silico target fishing for rationalized ligand discovery exemplified on constituents of Ruta graveolens. Planta Med. 75:195-204.
84. Roth, B. L., Sheffler, D. J., and Kroeze, W. K. 2004. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively nonselective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3:353-359.
85. Sato, T., Honma, T., and Yokoyama, S. 2010. Combining machine learning and pharmacophore-based interaction fingerprint for in silico screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:170-185.
86. Schalon, C., Surgand, J. S., Kellenberger, E., and Rognan, D. 2008. A simple and fuzzy method to align and compare druggable ligand-binding sites. Proteins 71:1755-1778.
87. Scheiber, J., Chen, B., Milik, M., et al. 2009a. Gaining insight into off-target mediated effects of drug candidates with a comprehensive systems chemical biology analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49:308-317.
88. Scheiber, J. and Jenkins, J. L. 2009b. Chemogenomic analysis of safety profiling data. Methods Mol. Biol. 575:207-223.
89. Scheiber, J., Jenkins, J. L., Sukuru, S. C., et al. 2009c. Mapping adverse drug reactions in chemical space. J. Med. Chem. 52:3103-3107.
90. Schierz, A. C. 2009. Virtual screening of bioassay data. J. Cheminform. 1:21.
91. Schmidtke, P. and Barril, X. 2010. Understanding and predicting druggability. A high-throughput method for detection of drug binding sites. J. Med. Chem. 53:5858-5867.
92. Schmitt, S., Kuhn, D., and Klebe, G. 2002. A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. J. Mol. Biol. 323:387-406.
93. Schneider, M., Lane, L., Boutet, E., et al. 2009. The UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot knowledgebase and its plant proteome annotation program. J. Proteomics 72:567-573.
94. Schreyer, A. and Blundell, T. 2009. CREDO: A protein-ligand interaction database for drug discovery. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 73:157-167.
95. Schuster, D., Laggner, C., and Langer, T. 2005. Why drugs fail-A study on side effects in new chemical entities. Curr. Pharm. Des. 11:3545-3559.
96. Shadbolt, N. and Berners-Lee, T. 2008. Web science emerges. Sci. Am. 299:76-81.
97. Shoichet, B. K. 2004. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 432:862-865.
98. Shoshan, M. C. and Linder, S. 2008. Target specificity and off-target effects as determinants of cancer drug efficacy. Expert. Opin. Drug Metab. Toxicol. 4:273-280.
99. Shulman-Peleg, A., Nussinov, R., and Wolfson, H. J. 2004. Recognition of functional sites in protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 339:607-633.
100. Snyder, K. A., Feldman, H. J., Dumontier, M., Salama, J. J., and Hogue, C. W. 2006. Domain-based small molecule binding site annotation. BMC Bioinformatics 7:152.
101. Southan, C., Varkonyi, P., and Muresan, S. 2009. Quantitative assesment of the expanding complementarity between public and commercial databases of bioactive compounds. J. Cheminform. 1:10.
102. Stauch, B., Hofmann, H., Perkovic, M., et al. 2009. Model structure of APOBEC3C reveals a binding pocket modulating ribonucleic acid interaction required for encapsidation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106:12079-12084.
103. Steindl, T. M., Schuster, D., Laggner, C., and Langer, T. 2006. Parallel screening: A novel concept in pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46:2146-2157.
104. Strömbergsson, H., Daniluk, P., Kryshtafovych, A., et al. 2008. Interaction model based on local protein substructures generalizes to the entire structural enzyme-ligand space. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48:2278-2288.
105. Strömbergsson, H. and Kleywegt, G. J. 2009. A chemogenomics view on protein-ligand spaces. BMC Bioinformatics 10 Suppl 6:S13.
106. Strömbergsson, H., Lapins, M., Kleywegt, G. J., and Wikberg, J. E. S. 2010. Towards proteome-wide interaction models using the proteochemometrics approach. Mol. Inf. 29:499-508.
107. Surgand, J. S., Rodrigo, J., Kellenberger, E., and Rognan, D. 2006. A chemogenomic analysis of the transmembrane binding cavity of human G-protein-coupled receptors. Proteins 62:509-538.
108. Tan, L. and Bajorath, J. 2009. Utilizing target-ligand interaction information in fingerprint searching for ligands of related targets. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 74:25-32.
109. Tan, L., Batista, J., and Bajorath, J. 2010a. Computational methodologies for compound database searching that utilize experimental protein-ligand interaction information. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 76:191-200.
110. Tan, L., Batista, J., and Bajorath, J. 2010b. Rationalization of the performance and target dependence of similarity searching incorporating protein-ligand interaction information. Che. Inf. Model. 50:1042-1052.
111. Tan, L., Lounkine, E., and Bajorath, J. 2008. Similarity searching using fingerprints of molecular fragments involved in protein-ligand interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48:2308-2312.
112. Tan, L., Vogt, M., and Bajorath, J. 2009. Three-dimensional protein-ligand interaction scaling of two-dimensional fingerprints. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 74:449-456.
113. Ursu, O. and Oprea, T. I. 2010. Model-free drug-likeness from fragments. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:1387-1394.
114. Van der Horst, E., Peironcely, J. E., Ijzerman, A. P., et al. 2010. A novel chemogenomics analysis of G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and their ligands: A potential strategy for receptor de-orphanization. BMC Bioinformatics 11:316.
115. Vert, J. P. and Jacob, L. 2008. Machine learning for in silico virtual screening and chemical genomics: New strategies. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 11:677-685.
116. Vidal, D. and Mestres, J. 2010. In silico receptorome screening of antipsychotic drugs. Mol. Inf. 29:543-551.
117. Vieth, M., Higgs, R. E., Robertson, D. H., et al. 2004. Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1697:243-257.
118. Wang, R., Fang, X., Lu, Y., and Wang, S. 2004. The PDBbind database: Collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J. Med. Chem. 47:2977-2980.
119. Wang, Y., Xiao, J., Suzek, T. O., et al. 2009. PubChem: A public information system for analyzing bioactivities of small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 37:W623-633.
120. Wassermann, A. M., Geppert, H., and Bajorath, J. 2009. Ligand prediction for orphan targets using support vector machines and various target-ligand kernels is dominated by nearest neighbor effects. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49:2155-2167.
121. Weber, A., Casini, A., Heine, A., et al. 2004. 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.
122. Weill, N. and Rognan, D. 2009. Development and validation of a novel protein-ligand fingerprint to mine chemogenomic space: Application to G protein-coupled receptors and their ligands. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49:1049-1062.
123. Weill, N. and Rognan, D. 2010. Alignment-free ultra-high-throughput comparison of druggable protein-ligand binding sites. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50:123-135.
124. Weisel, M., Proschak, E., Kriegl, J. M., and Schneider, G. 2009. Form follows function: Shape analysis of protein cavities for receptor-based drug design. Proteomics 9:451-459.
125. Weisel, M., Proschak, E., and Schneider, G. 2007. PocketPicker: Analysis of ligand binding-sites with shape descriptors. Chem. Cent. J. 1:7.
126. Wermuth, C. G. 2006. Similarity in drugs: Reflections on analogue design. Drug Discov. Today 11:348-354.
127. Wishart, D. S., Knox, C., Guo, A. C., et al. 2008. DrugBank: A knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets. Nucleic Acids Res. 36:D901-906.
128. Wolber, G. and Langer, T. 2005. Ligand Scout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45:160-169.
129. Xie, L. and Bourne, P. E. 2007. A robust and efficient algorithm for the shape description of protein structures and its application in predicting ligand binding sites. BMC Bioinformatics 8 Suppl 4:S9.
130. Xie, L. and Bourne, P. E. 2008. Detecting evolutionary relationships across existing fold space, using sequence order-independent profile-profile alignments. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:5441-5446.
131. Xie, L., Li, J., and Bourne, P. E. 2009. Drug discovery using chemical systems biology: Identification of the protein-ligand binding network to explain the side effects of CETP inhibitors. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5: e1000387.
132. Xie, L., Wang, J., and Bourne, P. E. 2007. In silico elucidation of the molecular mechanism defining the adverse effect of selective estrogen receptor modulators. PLoS Comput. Biol. 3:e217.
133. Xiong, B., Liu, K., Wu, J., et al. 2008. DrugViz: A Cytoscape plugin for visualizing and analyzing small molecule drugs in biological networks. Bioinformatics 24:2117-2118.
134. Yang, L., Chen, J., and He, L. 2009. Harvesting candidate genes responsible for serious adverse drug reactions from a chemical-protein interactome. PLoS Comput. Biol. 5:e1000441.
135. Yeturu, K. and Chandra, N. 2008. PocketMatch: A new algorithm to compare binding sites in protein structures. BMC Bioinformatics 9:543.
136. Zhu, F., Han, B., Kumar, P., et al. 2010. Update of TTD: Therapeutic Target Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 38:D787-791.