Three-dimensional compound comparison methods and their application in drug discovery

Molecules

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2015, Pages 12841-12862

  Shin, Woong Hee ^a   Zhu, Xiaolei ^b   Bures, Mark Gregory ^c   Kihara, Daisuke ^a,d  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ANHUI UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c ELI LILLY AND COMPANY   (United States)

^d Purdue University   (United States)

Author keywords

3D zernike; Ligand based virtual screening; Molecular shape; Molecular surface; Patch Surfer; PL PatchSurfer; ROCS; Three dimensional similarity; USR

Indexed keywords

LIGAND;

CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; PRECLINICAL STUDY; PROCEDURES; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

DRUG DISCOVERY; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LIGANDS; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MODELS, MOLECULAR;

EID: 84938388869     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14203049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/molecules200712841     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Cavasotto, C.N.; Orry, A.J. Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2007, 7, 1006-1014.
2. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput. -Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
3. Sousa, S.F.; Fernandes, P.A.; Ramos, M.J. Protein-ligand docking: Current status and future challenges. Proteins 2006, 65, 12-26.
4. Schwartz, J.; Awale, M.; Reymond, J.L. SMIfp (SMILES fingerprint) Chemical Space for Virtual Screening and Visualization of Large Databases of Organic Molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 1979-1989.
5. Durant, J.L.; Leland, B.A.; Henry, D.R.; Nourse, J.G. Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1273-1280.
6. Barnard, J.M.; Downs, G.M. Chemical Fragment Generation and Clustering Software. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 141-142.
7. Raymond, J.W.; Gardiner, E.J.; Willett, P. RASCAL: Calculation of graph similarity using maximum common edge subgraphs. Comput. J. 2002, 45, 631-644.
8. Bender, A.; Mussa, H.Y.; Glen, R.C. Similarity Searching of Chemical Databases Using Atom Environment Descriptors (MOLPRINT2D): Evaluation of Performance. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1708-1718.
9. Hattori, M.; Okuno, Y.; Goto, S.; Kanehisa, M. Development of a Chemical Structure Comparison Method for Integrated Analysis of Chemical and Genomic Information in the Metabolic Pathways. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2003, 125, 11853-11865.
10. Hawkins, P.C.D.; Skillman, A.G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of Shape-Matching and Docking as Virtual Screening Tools. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82.
11. Ballester, P.J.; Richards, W.G. Ultrafast Shape Recognition to Search Compound Databases for Similar Molecular Shapes. J. Comput. Chem. 2007, 28, 1711-1723.
12. Hu, B.; Zhu, X.; Monroe, L.; Bures, M.G.; Kihara, D. PL-PatchSurfer: A Novel Molecular Local Surface-Based Method for Exploring Protein-Ligand Interactions. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 15122-15145.
13. Cheeseright, T.J.; Mackey, M.D.; Melville, J.L.; Vinter, J.G. FieldScreen: Virtual Screening Using Molecular Fields. Application to DUD Data Set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2108-2117.
14. Mavridis, L.; Hudson, B.D.; Ritchie, D.W. Toward High Throughput 3D Virtual Screening Using Spherical Harmonic Surface Representations. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1787-1796.
15. Leach, A.R.; Gillet, V.J. An Introduction to Chemoinformatics, Revised ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; p. 27.
16. Cleves, A.E.; Jain, A.N. Robust Ligand-Based Modeling of the Biological Targets of Known Drugs. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 2921-2938.
17. Ballester, P.J.; Richards, W.G. Ultrafast shape recognition for similarity search in molecular database. Proc. R. Soc. A. 2007, 463, 1307-1321.
18. Schreyer, A.M.; Blundell, T. USRCAT: Real-time ultrafast shape recognition with pharmacophoric constraints. J. Cheminform. 2012, 4, 27.
19. Grant, J.A.; Gallardo, M.A.; Pickup, B.T. A Fast Method of Molecular Shape Comparison: A Simple Application of a Gaussian Description of Molecular Shape. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 1653-1666.
20. Mills, J.E.J.; Dean, P.M. Three-dimensional hydrogen-bond geometry and probability information from a crystal survey. J. Comput. -Aided Mol. Des. 1996, 10, 607-622.
21. Vaz de Lima, L.A.C.; Nascimento, A.S. MolShaCS: A free and open source tool for ligand similarity identification based on Gaussian descriptors. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2013, 50, 296-303.
22. Vainio, M.J.; Puranen, J.S.; Johnson, M.S. ShaEP: Molecular Overlay Based on Shape and Electrostatic Potential. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 492-502.
23. Liu, X.; Jiang, H.; Li, H. SHAFTS: A Hybrid Approach for 3D Molecular Similarity Calculation. 1. Method and Assessment of Virtual Screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2011, 51, 2372-2385.
24. Hann, M.M.; Leach, A.R.; Harper, G. Molecular Complexity and Its Impact on the Probability of Finding Leads for Drug Discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 856-864.
25. Sanner, M.F.; Olson, A.J.; Spehner, J.C. Reduced surface: An efficient way to compute molecular surface. Biopolymers 1996, 38, 305-320.
26. Bender, A.; Mussa, H.Y.; Gill, G.S.; Glen, R.C. Molecular Surface Point Environment for Virtual Screening and the Elucidation of Binding Patterns (MOLPRINT3D). J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6569-6583.
27. Goodford, P.J. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 1985, 28, 849-857.
28. Reid, D.; Sadjad, B.S.; Zsoldos, Z.; Simon, A. LASSO-ligand activity by similarity order: A new tool for ligand based virtual screening. J. Comput. -Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22, 479-487.
29. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B.K.; Irwin, J.J. Benchmarking Sets for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
30. Aurenhammer, F. Voronoi Diagrams-A Survey of a Fundamental Geometric Data Structure. ACM Comput. Surv. 1991, 23, 345-405.
31. Wilson, J.A.; Bender, A.; Kaya, T.; Clemons, P.A. Alpha Shapes Applied to Molecular Shape Characterization Exhibit Novel Properties Compared to Established Shape Descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 2231-2241.
32. Rubner, Y.; Guibas, L.J.; Tomasi, C. The earth mover's distance as a metric for image retrieval. Int. J. Comput. Vis. 2000, 40, 99-121.
33. Kim, D.S.; Kim, C.M.; Won, C.I.; Kim, J-K.; Ryu, J.; Cho, Y.; Lee, C.; Bhak, J. BetaDock: Shape-Priority Docking Method Based on Beta-Complex. J. Biomol. Struct. Dyn. 2011, 29, 219-242.
34. Kim, D.S.; Seo, J.; Kim, D.; Ryu, J.; Cho, C.H. Three-dimensional beta shapes. Comput. Aided Des. 2006, 38, 1179-1191.
35. Kihara, D.; Lee, S.; Chikhi, R.; Esquivel-Rodriguez, J. Molecular surface representation using 3D Zernike descriptors for protein shape comparison and docking. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2011, 12, 520-530.
36. Venkatraman, V.; Lee, S.; Kihara, D. Potential for protein surface shape analysis using spherical harmonics and 3D Zernike descriptors. Cell Biochem. Biophys. 2009, 54, 23-32.
37. Connolly, M.L. Analytical molecular surface calculation. J. Appl. Cryst. 1983, 16, 548-558.
38. Venkatraman, V.; Chakravarthy, P.; Kihara, D. Application of 3D Zernike descriptors to shape-based ligand similarity searching. J. Cheminform. 2009, 1, 19.
39. Lee, S.; Kihara, D. Detecting local ligand-binding site similarity in nonhomologous proteins by surface patch comparison. Proteins 2012, 80, 1177-1195.
40. Zhu, X.; Xiong, Y.; Kihara, D. Large-scale binding ligand prediction by improved patch-based method Patch-Surfer2.0. Bioinformatics 2015, 31, 707-713.
41. Demange, G.; Gale, D.; Sotomayor, M. Multi-item auctions. J. Polit. Econ. 1986, 94, 863-872.
42. Cheersight, T.; Mackey, M.; Rose, S.; Vinter, A. Molecular Field Extrema as Descriptors of Biological Activity: Definition and Validation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 605-676.
43. Tervo, A.J.; Ronkko, T.; Nyronen, T.H.; Poso, A. BRUTUS: Optimization of a Grid-Based Similarity Function for Rigid-Body Molecular Superposition. 1. Alignment and Virtual Screening Applications. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 4076-4086.
44. Cramer, R.D.; Patterson, D.E.; Bunce, J.D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959-5967.
45. Parretti, M.F.; Kromer, R.T.; Rothman, J.H.; Richards, W.G. Alignment of Molecules by the Monte Carlo Optimization of Molecular Similarity Indices. J. Comput. Chem. 1997, 18, 1344-1353.
46. Yang, S.-Y. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: Challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov. Today 2010, 15, 444-450.
47. Cross, S.; Baroni, M.; Carosati, E.; Benedetti, P.; Clementi, S. FLAP: GRID Molecular Interaction Fields in Virtual Screening. Validation using the DUD Data Set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 1442-1450.
48. Abrahamian, E.; Fox, P.C.; Naerum, L.; Christensen, I.T.; Thøgersen, H.; Clark, R.D. Efficient Generation, Storage, and Manipulation of Fully Flexible Pharmacophore Multiplets and Their Use in 3-D Similarity Searching. J. Chem. Inf. Sci. 2003, 43, 458-468.
49. Fox, P.C.; Wolohan, P.R.N.; Abrahamian, E.; Clark, R.D. Parameterization and Conformational Sampling Effects in Pharmacophore Multiplet Searching. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2326-2334.
50. Qing, X.; Lee, X.Y.; de Raeymaeker, J.; Tame, J.R.H.; Zhang, K.Y.J.; de Maeyer, M.; Voet, R.A.D. Pharmacophore modeling: Advances, limitations, and current utility in drug discovery. J. Recept. Ligand Channel Res. 2014, 7, 81-92.
51. De Luca, L.; Barreca, M.L.; Ferro, S.; Christ, F.; Iraci, N.; Gitto, R.; Monforte, A.M.; Debyser, Z.; Chimirri, A. Pharmacophore-based discovery of small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions between HIV-1 integrase and cellular cofactor LEDGF/p75. ChemMedChem 2009, 4, 1311-1316.
52. Christ, F.; Voet, A.; Marchand, A.; Nicolet, S.; Desimmie, B.A.; Marchand, D.; Bardiot, D.; van der Veken, N.J.; van Remoortel, B.; Strelkov, S.V.; et al. Rational design of small-molecule inhibitors of the LEDGF/p75-integrase interaction and HIV replication. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2010, 6, 442-448.
53. 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, 4759-4767.
54. Howkins, P.C.; Nicholis, A. Conformer generation with OMEGA: Learning from the data set and the analysis of failures. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 2919-2936.
55. Halgren, T.A.; Murphy, R.B.; Friesner, R.A.; Beard, H.S.; Frye, L.L.; Pollard, W.T.; Banks, J.L. Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 2. Enrichment Factors in Database Screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1750-1759.
56. Shin, W.H.; Kim, J.K.; Kim, D.S.; Seok, C. GalaxyDock2: Protein-Ligand Docking Using Beta-Complex and Global Optimization. J. Comput. Chem. 2013, 34, 2647-2656.
57. Evers, A.; Hessler, G.; Matter, H.; Klabunde, T. Virtual Screening of Biogenic Amine-Binding G-Protein Coupled Receptors: Comparative Evaluation of Protein- and Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Protocols. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 5448-5465.
58. Kellenberger, E.; Springael, J.-Y.; Parmentier, M.; Hachet-Haas, M.; Galzi, J.-L.; Rognan, D. Identification of Nonpeptide CCR5 Receptor Agonists by Structure-based Virtual Screening. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 1294-1303.
59. Hu, X.; Compton, J.R.; AbdulHameed, M.D.M.; Marchand, C.L.; Robertson, K.L.; Leary, D.H.; Jadhav, A.; Hershfield, J.R.; Wallqvist, A.; Friedlander, A.M.; et al. 3-Substituted Indole Inhibitors against Francisella tularensis FabI Identified by Structure-based Virtual Screening. J. Med. Chem. 2013, 56, 5275-5287.
60. Shen, M.; Yu, H.; Li, Y.; Li, P.; Pan, P.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, L.; Li, S.; Lee S.M.-Y.; Hou, T. Discovery of Rho-Kinase inhibitors by docking-based virtual screening. Mol. BioSyst. 2013, 9, 1511-1521.
61. Truchon, J.F.; Bayly, C.I. Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508.
62. Carlson, H.A. Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 447-452.
63. Venkatraman, V.; Perez-Nueno, V.I.; Mavridis, L.; Ritchie, D.W. Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of 3D Methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 2079-2093.