LIGSIFT: An open-source tool for ligand structural alignment and virtual screening

Bioinformatics

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 539-544

  Roy, Ambrish ^a   Skolnick, Jeffrey ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ALGORITHM; BINDING SITE; CHEMICAL DATABASE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PRECLINICAL STUDY; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; SOFTWARE;

ALGORITHMS; BINDING SITES; DATABASES, CHEMICAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; SOFTWARE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84928985757     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu692     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Baldi, P. and Nasr, R. (2010) When is chemical similarity significant? The statistical distribution of chemical similarity scores and its extreme values. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 50, 1205-1222.
2. Cheeseright, T.J. et al. (2008) FieldScreen: virtual screening using molecular fields. Application to the DUD data set. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 48, 2108-2117.
3. Eckert, H. and Bajorath, J. (2007) Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. Drug Disc. Today, 12, 225-233.
4. Grant, J.A. et al. (1996) A fast method of molecular shape comparison: a simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape. J. Comput. Chem., 17, 1653-1666.
5. Grant, J.A. and Pickup, B.T. (1995) A Gaussian description of molecular shape. J. Phys. Chem., 99, 3503-3510.
6. Hamza, A. et al. (2012) Ligand-based virtual screening approach using a new scoring function. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 52, 963-974.
7. Hawkins, P.C. et al. (2010) Conformer generation with OMEGA: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 50, 572-584.
8. Holliday, J.D. et al. (2003) Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 43, 819-828.
9. Huang, N. et al. (2006) Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem., 49, 6789-6801.
10. Jennings, A. and Tennant, M. (2007) Selection of molecules based on shape and electrostatic similarity: proof of concept of "electroforms". J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47, 1829-1838.
11. Jonker, R. and Volgenant, A. (1987) A shortest augmenting path algorithm for dense and sparse linear assignment problems. Computing, 38, 325-340.
12. Kirchmair, J. et al. (2009) How to optimize shape-based virtual screening: choosing the right query and including chemical information. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 49, 678-692.
13. O'Boyle, N.M. et al. (2008) Pybel: a Python wrapper for the OpenBabel cheminfor-matics toolkit. Chem. Cent. J., 2, 5.
14. Quintus, F. et al. (2009) Ligand scaffold hopping combining 3D maximal substructure search and molecular similarity. BMC Bioinformatics, 10, 245.
15. Renner, S. and Schneider, G. (2006) Scaffold-hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. ChemMedChem, 1, 181-185.
16. Rush, T.S. III et al. (2005) A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem., 48, 1489-1495.
17. Sperandio, O. et al. (2007) MED-SuMoLig: a new ligand-based screening tool for efficient scaffold hopping. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47, 1097-1110.
18. Taminau, J. et al. (2008) Pharao: pharmacophore alignment and optimization. J. Mol. Graph. Model., 27, 161-169.
19. Vainio, M.J. et al. (2009) ShaEP: molecular overlay based on shape and electrostatic potential. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 49, 492-502.