Building a virtual ligand screening pipeline using free software: A survey

Briefings in Bioinformatics

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 352-366

  Glaab, Enrico ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG   (Luxembourg)

Author keywords

ADMETox; Docking; Off target effects; protein ligand binding; Virtual screening; Workflow management

Indexed keywords

LIGAND;

ALGORITHM; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; MOLECULAR DOCKING; PROCEDURES; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE;

ALGORITHMS; DRUG DISCOVERY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR DOCKING SIMULATION; PROTEIN INTERACTION MAPPING; SEQUENCE ANALYSIS, PROTEIN; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84963747750     PISSN: 14675463     EISSN: 14774054     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbv037     Document Type: Article

References (207)

1. Schames JR, Henchman RH, Siegel JS, et al. Discovery of a Novel Binding Trench in HIV Integrase. J Med Chem 2004;47: 1879-81.
2. Clark DE. What has virtual screening ever done for drug discovery? Expert Opin Drug Discov 2008;3:841-51.
3. MacConnachie AM. Zanamivir (Relenza)-a new treatment for influenza. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 1999;15:369-70.
4. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug Discov Today 2005;10:1675-82.
5. Berman HM. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 2000;28: 235-42.
6. Oberai A, Ihm Y, Kim S, et al. A limited universe of membrane protein families and folds. Protein Sci 2006;15:1723-34.
7. Oshiro C, Bradley EK, Eksterowicz J, et al. Performance of 3D-Database Molecular Docking Studies into Homology Models. J Med Chem 2004;47:764-7.
8. Pieper U, Webb BM, Dong GQ, et al. ModBase, a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;32:D21-22.
9. Kiefer F, Arnold K, Künzli M, et al. The SWISS-MODEL Repository and associated resources. Nucleic Acids Res 2009; 37:D387-9.
10. Haas J, Roth S, Arnold K, et al. The Protein Model Portal-a comprehensive resource for protein structure and model information. Database (Oxford) 2013;2013:bat031.
11. Vyas V, Ukawala R, Chintha C, et al. Homology modeling a fast tool for drug discovery: current perspectives. Indian J Pharm Sci 2012;74:1.
12. Bordogna A, Pandini A, Bonati L. Predicting the accuracy of protein-ligand docking on homology models. J Comput Chem 2011;32:81-98.
13. Gabanyi MJ, Adams PD, Arnold K, et al. The Structural Biology Knowledgebase: a portal to protein structures, sequences, functions, and methods. J Struct Funct Genomics 2011;12:45-54.
14. Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. ZINC-A free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2005;45:177-82.
15. Bolton EE, Wang Y, Thiessen PA, et al. PubChem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities. Annu Rep Comput Chem 2008;4:217-41.
16. Pence HE, Williams A. Chemspider: an online chemical information resource. J Chem Educ 2010;87:1123-24.
17. Hurst T. Chemnavigator.com: an IResearch (TM) system for the acquisition of compounds for pharmaceutical lead follow-up. Abstr Pap Am Chem Soc 2000;219:U462.
18. Liu T, Lin Y, Wen X, et al. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res 2007;35:D198-201.
19. Schneider G, Tanrikulu Y, Schneider P. Self-organizing molecular fingerprints: a ligand-based view on drug-like chemical space and off-target prediction. Future Med Chem 2009;1:213-18.
20. Tseng YY, Dupree C, Chen ZJ, et al. SplitPocket: identification of protein functional surfaces and characterization of their spatial patterns. Nucleic Acids Res 2009;37:W984-9.
21. Volkamer A, Kuhn D, Rippmann F, et al. DoGSiteScorer: a web-server for automatic binding site prediction, analysis, and druggability assessment. Bioinformatics 2012;28: 2074-5.
22. IUPAC-IUB Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature. IUPAC-IUB commission on biochemical nomenclature. J Mol Biol 1970;52:1-17.
23. Laskowski RA, MacArthur MW, Moss DS, et al. PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures. J Appl Crystallogr 1993;26:283-91.
24. Günther S, Kuhn M, Dunkel M, et al. SuperTarget and matador: resources for exploring drug-target relationships. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:D919-22.
25. Roth BL, Lopez E, Patel S, et al. The multiplicity of serotonin receptors: uselessly diverse molecules or an embarrassment of riches? Neuroscience 2000;6:252-62.
26. Benson ML, Smith RD, Khazanov NA, et al. Binding MOAD, a high-quality protein-ligand database. Nucleic Acids Res 2008; 36:D674-78.
27. Vriend G. WHAT IF: a molecular modeling and drug design program. J Mol Graph 1990;8:52-6.
28. Laurie ATR, Jackson RM. Methods for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites for structure-based drug design and virtual ligand screening. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2006; 7:395-406.
29. Roider HG, Pavlova N, Kirov I, et al. Drug2Gene: an exhaustive resource to explore effectively the drug-target relation network. BMC Bioinformatics 2014;15:68.
30. Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, et al. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J Med Chem 2004;47: 2977-80.
31. Tang J, Szwajda A, Shakyawar S, et al. Making sense of largescale kinase inhibitor bioactivity data sets: a comparative and integrative analysis. J Chem Inf Model 2014;54:735-43.
32. Kramer C, Kalliokoski T, Gedeck P, et al. The experimental uncertainty of heterogeneous public K i data. J Med Chem 2012;55:5165-73.
33. Madhavi Sastry G, Adzhigirey M, Day T, et al. Protein and ligand preparation: parameters, protocols, and influence on virtual screening enrichments. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2013; 27:221-34.
34. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 2004;47: 1739-49.
35. Huang B. MetaPocket: a meta approach to improve protein ligand binding site prediction. OMICS 2009;13:325-30.
36. Dundas J, Ouyang Z, Tseng J, et al. CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:W116-8.
37. Eisenberg D, Lüthy R, Bowie JU. VERIFY3D: assessment of protein models with three-dimensional profiles. Methods Enzymol 1997;277:396-406.
38. Joosten RP, Salzemann J, Bloch V, et al. PDB-REDO: automated re-refinement of X-ray structure models in the PDB. J Appl Crystallogr 2009;42:376-84.
39. Gopalakrishnan K, Sowmiya G, Sheik SS, et al. Ramachandran plot on the web (2.0). Protein Pept Lett 2007;14: 669-71.
40. Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, et al. UCSF Chimera-a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem 2004;25:1605-12.
41. Rother K. Introduction to PyMOL. Methods Mol Biol Clift Nj 2005;635:1-32.
42. Humphrey W, Dalke A, Schulten K. VMD: visual molecular dynamics. J Mol Graph 1996;14:33-8.
43. Krieger E, Vriend G. YASARA View-molecular graphics for all devices-from smartphones to workstations. Bioinformatics 2014;30:2981-2.
44. Goodsell DS. Representing structural information with RasMol. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 2005;Chapter 5:Unit 5.4.
45. Guex N, Peitsch MC. SWISS-MODEL and the Swiss-Pdb viewer: an environment for comparative protein modeling. Electrophoresis 1997;18:2714-23.
46. Moll A, Hildebrandt A, Lenhof HP, et al. BALLView: an objectoriented molecular visualization and modeling framework. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2005;19:791-800.
47. Rossato G, Ernst B, Vedani A, et al. AcquaAlta: a directional approach to the solvation of ligand-protein complexes. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:1867-81.
48. Labute P. Protonate3D: assignment of ionization states and hydrogen coordinates to macromolecular structures. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 2009;75:187-205.
49. Zsoldos Z, Reid D, Simon A, et al. eHiTS: a new fast, exhaustive flexible ligand docking system. J Mol Graph Model 2007;26: 198-212.
50. Anandakrishnan R, Aguilar B, Onufriev AV. H++ 3.0: automating pK prediction and the preparation of biomolecular structures for atomistic molecular modeling and simulations. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:W537-41.
51. Dalton JAR, Jackson RM. An evaluation of automated homology modelling methods at low target template sequence similarity. Bioinformatics 2007;23:1901-8.
52. O'Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, et al. Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform 2011;3:33.
53. Chen IJ, Foloppe N. Drug-like bioactive structures and conformational coverage with the ligprep/confgen suite: comparison to programs MOE and catalyst. J Chem Inf Model 2010; 50:822-39.
54. Shelley JC, Cholleti A, Frye LL, et al. Epik: a software program for pKa prediction and protonation state generation for drug-like molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007;21:681-91.
55. Brink T Ten, Exner TE. Influence of protonation, tautomeric, and stereoisomeric states on protein-ligand docking results. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:1535-46.
56. Oehme DP, Brownlee RTC, Wilson DJD. Effect of atomic charge, solvation, entropy, and ligand protonation state on MM-PB(GB)SA binding energies of HIV protease. J Comput Chem 2012;33:2566-80.
57. Lipinski CA. Lead-and drug-like compounds: the rule-of-five revolution. Drug Discov Today Technol 2004;1:337-41.
58. Walters WP. Going further than Lipinski's rule in drug design. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2012;7:99-107.
59. Abreu RMV, Froufe HJC, Daniel POM, et al. ChemT, an opensource software for building template-based chemical libraries. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2011;22:603-10.
60. Kuntz ID. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science 1992;257:1078-82.
61. Lang PT, Brozell SR, Mukherjee S, et al. DOCK 6: combining techniques to model RNA-small molecule complexes. RNA 2009;15:1219-30.
62. Kim D-S, Kim C-M, Won C-I, et al. BetaDock: shape-priority docking method based on beta-complex. J Biomol Struct Dyn 2011;29:219-42.
63. Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins 1990;8:195-202.
64. Morris GM, Ruth H, Lindstrom W, et al. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem 2009;30:2785-91.
65. Böhm HJ. LUDI: rule-based automatic design of new substituents for enzyme inhibitor leads. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1992;6:593-606.
66. Kramer B, Metz G, Rarey M, et al. Ligand docking and screening with FLEXX. Med Chem Res 1999;9:463-78.
67. Csermely P, Palotai R, Nussinov R. Induced fit, conformational selection and independent dynamic segments: an extended view of binding events. Trends Biochem Sci 2010;35: 539-46.
68. Vogt AD, Di Cera E. Conformational selection or induced fit? A critical appraisal of the kinetic mechanism. Biochemistry 2012;51:5894-902.
69. Totrov M, Abagyan R. Flexible ligand docking to multiple receptor conformations: a practical alternative. Curr Opin Struct Biol 2008;18:178-84.
70. Hartmann C, Antes I, Lengauer T. Docking and scoring with alternative side-chain conformations. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinform 2009;74:712-26.
71. Zhao Y, Sanner MF. FLIPDock: docking flexible ligands into flexible receptors. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 2007;68:726-37.
72. Cavasotto CN, Kovacs JA, Abagyan RA. Representing receptor flexibility in ligand docking through relevant normal modes. J Am Chem Soc 2005;127:9632-40.
73. Meiler J, Baker D. ROSETTALIGAND: protein-small molecule docking with full side-chain flexibility. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 2006;65:538-48.
74. Tietze S, Apostolakis J. GlamDock: development and validation of a new docking tool on several thousand proteinligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:1657-72.
75. Venkatachalam CM, Jiang X, Oldfield T, et al. LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. J Mol Graph Model 2003;21: 289-307.
76. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC, et al. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 1997; 267:727-48.
77. Corbeil CR, Englebienne P, Moitessier N. Docking ligands into flexible and solvated macromolecules. 1. Development and validation of FITTED 1.0. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47: 435-49.
78. Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FlexX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 1999;37:228-41.
79. Jain AN. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J Med Chem 2003;46:499-511.
80. McGann M. FRED pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:578-96.
81. Zsoldos Z, Reid D, Simon A, et al. eHiTS: an innovative approach to the docking and scoring function problems. Curr Protein Pept Sci 2006;7:421-35.
82. Ravitz O, Zsoldos Z, Simon A. Improving molecular docking through eHiTS' tunable scoring function. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2011;25:1033-51.
83. Schmidt B. DOCKTITE-a highly versatile step-by-step workflow for covalent docking and virtual screening in MOE. J Chem Inf Model 2015; 55:398-406. doi:10.1021/ci500681r:.
84. Chemical Computing Group Inc. Molecular Operating Environment (MOE). Sci Comput Instrum 2004;22:32.
85. Ouyang X, Zhou S, Su CTT, et al. CovalentDock: automated covalent docking with parameterized covalent linkage energy estimation and molecular geometry constraints. J Comput Chem 2013;34:326-36.
86. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, et al. CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 1983;4:187-17.
87. Zhu K, Borrelli KW, Greenwood JR, et al. Docking covalent inhibitors: a parameter free approach to pose prediction and scoring. J Chem Inf Model 2014;54:1932-40.
88. London N, Miller RM, Irwin JJ, et al. Covalent Docking of Large Libraries for the Discovery of Chemical Probes. Biophys J 2014;106:264a.
89. Klon AE, Glick M, Davies JW. Combination of a naive bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of high-throughput docking results. J Med Chem 2004;47:4356-9.
90. Teramoto R, Fukunishi H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47: 526-34.
91. Plewczynski D, Lazńiewski M, Grotthuss M, Von, et al. VoteDock: consensus docking method for prediction of protein-ligand interactions. J Comput Chem 2011;32:568-81.
92. Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK, et al. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:1455-74.
93. Case DA, Cheatham TE, Darden T, et al. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 2005;26: 1668-88.
94. Huang SY, Zou X. Inclusion of solvation and entropy in the knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:262-73.
95. Charifson PS, Corkery JJ, Murcko MA, et al. Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates fromdocking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J Med Chem 1999;42:5100-9.
96. Beerenwinkel N, Lengauer T, Selbig J, et al. Geno2pheno: interpreting genotypic HIV drug resistance tests. IEEE Intell Syst Their Appl 2001;16:35-41.
97. Sun Y, Ewing TJ, Skillman AG, et al. CombiDOCK: structurebased combinatorial docking and library design. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1998;12:597-604.
98. Verdonk ML, Chessari G, Cole JC, et al. Modeling water molecules in protein-ligand docking using GOLD. J Med Chem 2005;48:6504-15.
99. Eldridge MD, Murray CW, Auton TR, et al. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997;11:425-45.
100. Hao G-F, Yang S-G, Yang G-F. Structure-based Design of Conformationally Flexible Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors to Combat Resistant HIV. Curr Pharm Des 2014;20:725-39.
101. Esser L, Yu C-A, Xia D. Structural basis of resistance to anticytochrome bc1 complex inhibitors: implication for drug improvement. Curr Pharm Des 2013;20:704-24.
102. Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, et al. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 1996;261:470-89.
103. Wang R, Lai L, Wang S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:11-26.
104. Gehlhaar DK, Verkhivker GM, Rejto PA, et al. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease: conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem Biol 1995;2:317-24.
105. Cao Y, Li L. Improved protein-ligand binding affinity prediction by using a curvature-dependent surface-area model. Bioinformatics 2014;30:1674-80.
106. Li GB, Yang LL, Wang WJ, et al. ID-score: a new empirical scoring function based on a comprehensive set of descriptors related to protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Inf Model 2013;53:592-600.
107. Jain AN. Surflex-Dock 2.1: robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007;21:281-306.
108. Gohlke H, Hendlich M, Klebe G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 2000;295:337-56.
109. Neudert G, Klebe G. DSX: a knowledge-based scoring function for the assessment of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:2731-45.
110. Muegge I. PMF scoring revisited. J Med Chem 2006;49: 5895-902.
111. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich EI. SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence. J Am Chem Soc 1996; 118:11733-44.
112. Grinter SZ, Zou X. A Bayesian statistical approach of improving knowledge-based scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. J Comput Chem 2014;35:932-43.
113. Mooij WTM, Verdonk ML. General and targeted statistical potentials for protein-ligand interactions. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 2005;61:272-87.
114. Reulecke I, Lange G, Albrecht J, et al. Towards an integrated description of hydrogen bonding and dehydration: decreasing false positives in virtual screening with the HYDE scoring function. ChemMedChem 2008;3:885-97.
115. Guimarães CRW, Cardozo M. MM-GB/SA rescoring of docking poses in structure-based lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model 2008;48:958-70.
116. Sgobba M, Caporuscio F, Anighoro A, et al. Application of a post-docking procedure based on MM-PBSA and MM-GBSA on single and multiple protein conformations. Eur J Med Chem 2012;58:431-40.
117. Krüger DM, Evers A. Comparison of structure-and ligandbased virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors. ChemMedChem 2010;5: 148-58.
118. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem 2006;49:6789-801.
119. Rohrer SG, Baumann K. Maximum unbiased validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on PubChem bioactivity data. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:169-84.
120. Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID, Bodian DL. Molecular docking using shape descriptors. J Comput Chem 1992;13:380-97.
121. Norgan AP, Coffman PK, Kocher JPA, et al. Multilevel parallelization of autodock 4.2. J Cheminform 2011;3:12.
122. Collignon B, Schulz R, Smith JC, et al. Task-parallel message passing interface implementation of Autodock4 for docking of very large databases of compounds using high-performance super-computers. J Comput Chem 2011;32: 1202-9.
123. Korb O, Stützle T, Exner TE. Accelerating molecular docking calculations using graphics processing units. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:865-76.
124. Pechan I, Fehér B. Molecular docking on FPGA and GPU platforms. Proc.-21st Int. Conf. F. Program. Log Appl FPL 2011; 2011:474-7.
125. Pechan I, Fehér B, Bérces A. FPGA-based acceleration of the AutoDock molecular docking software. Ph.D. Res. Microelectron. Electron. (PRIME), 2010 Conf. 2010.
126. Sastry GM, Inakollu VSS, Sherman W. Boosting virtual screening enrichments with data fusion: coalescing hits from two-dimensional fingerprints, shape, and docking. J Chem Inf Model 2013;53:1531-42.
127. Miteva MA. In Silico Lead Discovery. Sharjah, United Arab Emirates: Bentham Science Publishers, 2011.
128. Bikker JA, Brooijmans N, Wissner A, et al. Kinase domain mutations in cancer: implications for small molecule drug design strategies. J Med Chem 2009;52:1493-509.
129. Longley DB, Johnston PG. Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance. J Pathol 2005;205:275-92.
130. Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina. J Comput Chem 2010;31: 445-61.
131. Schnecke V, Swanson CA, Getzoff ED, et al. Screening a peptidyl database for potential ligands to proteins with side-chain flexibility. Proteins Struct Funct Genet 1998;33: 74-87.
132. Zavodszky MI, Rohatgi A, Van Voorst JR, et al. Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening. J. Mol. Recognit. 2009;22:280-92.
133. Grosdidier A, Zoete V, Michielin O. SwissDock, a proteinsmall molecule docking web service based on EADock DSS. Nucleic Acids Res 2011;39:W270-7.
134. Grosdidier A, Zoete V, Michielin O. Fast docking using the CHARMM force field with EADock DSS. J Comput Chem 2011; 32:2149-59.
135. Hsu K-C, Chen Y-F, Lin S-R, et al. iGEMDOCK: a graphical environment of enhancing GEMDOCK using pharmacological interactions and post-screening analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12 (Suppl 1):S33.
136. Ruiz-Carmona S, Alvarez-Garcia D, Foloppe N, et al. rDock: a fast, versatile and open source program for docking ligands to proteins and nucleic acids. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10: 1003571.
137. Shin WH, Kim JK, Kim DS, et al. GalaxyDock2: protein-ligand docking using beta-complex and global optimization. J Comput Chem 2013;34:2647-56.
138. Abagyan R, Totrov M, Kuznetsov D. ICM-A new method for protein modeling and design: applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. J Comput Chem 1994;15:488-506.
139. Bottegoni G, Kufareva I, Totrov M, et al. Four-dimensional docking: a fast and accurate account of discrete receptor flexibility in ligand docking. J Med Chem 2009;52:397-406.
140. Thomsen R, Christensen MH. MolDock: a new technique for high-accuracy molecular docking. J Med Chem 2006;49: 3315-21.
141. Lie MA, Thomsen R, Pedersen CNS, et al. Molecular docking with ligand attached water molecules. J Chem Inf Model 2011; 51:909-17.
142. Weininger D. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1988;28:31-6.
143. Rarey M, Dixon JS. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1998;12:471-90.
144. Bravi G, Gancia E, Mascagni P, et al. MS-WHIM, new 3D theoretical descriptors derived from molecular surface properties: a comparative 3D QSAR study in a series of steroids. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1997;11:79-92.
145. Mundy JL, Huang C, Liu J, et al. MORSE: a 3D object recognition system based on geometric invariants. Image Underst Work 1994;II:1393-402.
146. Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 1988;110: 5959-67.
147. Klebe G. Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis: CoMSIA. Comp Gen Pharmacol 1998;3:87-104.
148. Tosco P, Balle T. Open3DQSAR: a new open-source software aimed at high-throughput chemometric analysis of molecular interaction fields. J Mol Model 2011;17:201-8.
149. Mekenyan O. Dynamic QSAR techniques: applications in drug design and toxicology. Curr Pharm Des 2002;8:1605-21.
150. Todeschini R, Consonni V. Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics. Recent Adv QSAR Stud 2010;29-103.
151. Chen X, Reynolds CH. Performance of similarity measures in 2D fragment-based similarity searching: comparison of structural descriptors and similarity coefficients. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2002;42:1407-14.
152. Vitányi PMB, Balbach FJ, Cilibrasi RL, et al. Normalized information distance. Inf Theory Stat Learn 2009;45-82.
153. Melville JL, Riley JF, Hirst JD. Similarity by compression. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:25-33.
154. Clement OO, Mehl AT. HipHop: pharmacophores based on multiple common-feature alignments. In Pharmacophore perception, Development, and Use in Drug Design. La Jolla: International University Line, 2000, 69-84.
155. Mills JEJ, de Esch IJP, Perkins TDJ, et al. SLATE: a method for the superposition of flexible ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2001;15:81-96.
156. Martin YC, Bures MG, Danaher EA, et al. A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1993;7:83-102.
157. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1995;9:532-49.
158. Richmond NJ, Abrams CA, Wolohan PRN, et al. GALAHAD: 1. Pharmacophore identification by hypermolecular alignment of ligands in 3D. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2006;20:567-87.
159. Jones G. GAPE: an improved genetic algorithm for pharmacophore elucidation. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:2001-18.
160. Schneidman-Duhovny D, Dror O, Inbar Y, et al. PharmaGist: a webserver for ligand-based pharmacophore detection. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36:W223-8.
161. Lemmen C, Lengauer T, Klebe G. FLEXS: a method for fast flexible ligand superposition. J Med Chem 1998;41: 4502-20.
162. Pozzan A. Molecular descriptors and methods for ligand based virtual high throughput screening in drug discovery. Curr Pharm Des 2006;12:2099-110.
163. Gohlke H, Klebe G. Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small-molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chemie Int Ed 2002;41: 2644-76.
164. Wegner JK, Fröhlich H, Zell A. Feature selection for descriptor based classification models. 1. Theory and GA-SEC algorithm. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:921-30.
165. Kubinyi H. QSAR: Hansch Analysis and Related Approaches. New York: Wiley Interscience, 2008, 1.
166. Venkatraman V, Pérez-Nueno VI, Mavridis L, et al. Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:2079-93.
167. Pan Y, Li L, Kim G, et al. Identification and validation of novel human pregnane X receptor activators among prescribed drugs via ligand-based virtual screening. Drug Metab Dispos 2011;39:337-44.
168. Franke L, Schwarz O, Müller-Kuhrt L, et al. Identification of natural-product-derived inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase activity by ligand-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 2007;50: 2640-6.
169. Yamazaki K, Kusunose N, Fujita K, et al. Identification of phosphodiesterase-1 and 5 dual inhibitors by a ligand-based virtual screening optimized for lead evolution. Bioorganic Med Chem Lett. 2006;16:1371-9.
170. Swann SL, Brown SP, Muchmore SW, et al. A unified, probabilistic framework for structure-and ligand-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 2011;54:1223-32.
171. Hou T, Wang J, Zhang W, et al. Recent advances in computational prediction of drug absorption and permeability in drug discovery. Curr Med Chem 2006;13:2653-67.
172. Varnek A, Baskin I. Machine learning methods for property prediction in chemoinformatics: quo vadis? J Chem Inf Model 2012;52:1413-37.
173. Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK. The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb Sci 2003;22:69-77.
174. Testa B, Balmat AL, Long A, et al. Predicting drug metabolism-An evaluation of the expert system METEOR. Chem Biodivers 2005;2:872-85.
175. Darvas F. METABOLEXPERT: an expert system for predicting metabolism of substances. QSAR Environ Toxicol 1987;71-81.
176. Klopman G, Tu M, Talafous J. META. 3. A genetic algorithm for metabolic transform priorities optimization. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997;37:329-34.
177. Lewis DFV, Ioannides C, Parke DV. COMPACT and molecular structure in toxicity assessment: a prospective evaluation of 30 chemicals currently being tested for rodent carcinogenicity by the NCI/NTP. Environ Health Perspect 1996; 104:1011-16.
178. Benigni R, Bossa C, Alivernini S, et al. Assessment and Validation of US EPA's OncoLogicVR Expert System and Analysis of Its Modulating Factors for Structural Alerts. J. Environ. Sci. Health. C. Environ. Carcinog. Ecotoxicol Rev 2012;30:152-73.
179. Saiakhov R, Chakravarti S, Klopman G. Effectiveness of CASE ultra expert system in evaluating adverse effects of drugs. Mol Inform 2013;32:87-97.
180. Chakravarti SK, Saiakhov RD, Klopman G. Optimizing predictive performance of CASE ultra expert system models using the applicability domains of individual toxicity alerts. J Chem Inf Model 2012;52:2609-18.
181. Saiakhov RD, Klopman G. MultiCASE Expert Systems and the REACH Initiative. Toxicol Mech Methods 2008;18:159-75.
182. Marchant CA. Prediction of rodent carcinogenicity using the DEREK system for 30 chemicals currently being tested by the National Toxicology Program. Environ Health Perspect 1996; 104:1065-73.
183. Venkatapathy R, Moudgal CJ, Bruce RM. Assessment of the oral rat chronic lowest observed adverse effect level model in TOPKAT, a QSAR software package for toxicity prediction. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:1623-9.
184. Dearden JC. In silico prediction of drug toxicity. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2003;17:119-27.
185. Drwal MN, Banerjee P, Dunkel M, et al. ProTox: a web server for the in silico prediction of rodent oral toxicity. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:W53-8.
186. Mombelli E, Devillers J. Evaluation of the OECD (Q)SAR Application Toolbox and Toxtree for predicting and profiling the carcinogenic potential of chemicals. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2010;21:731-52.
187. Wang JC, Chu PY, Chen CM, et al. idTarget: a web server for identifying protein targets of small chemical molecules with robust scoring functions and a divide-and-conquer docking approach. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40:W393-9.
188. Li H, Gao Z, Kang L, et al. TarFisDock: a web server for identifying drug targets with docking approach. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34:W219-24.
189. Chen YZ, Ung CY. Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-protein inverse docking approach. J Mol Graph Model 2001;20:199-18.
190. Kinnings SL, Jackson RM. ReverseScreen3D: a structurebased ligand matching method to identify protein targets. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:624-34.
191. Liu X, Ouyang S, Yu B, et al. PharmMapper server: a web server for potential drug target identification using pharmacophore mapping approach. Nucleic Acids Res 2010; 38:W609-14.
192. Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN, et al. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25: 197-206.
193. Gfeller D, Grosdidier A, Wirth M, et al. SwissTargetPrediction: a web server for target prediction of bioactive small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res 2014;42:W32-8.
194. Dunkel M, Günther S, Ahmed J, et al. SuperPred: drug classification and target prediction. Nucleic Acids Res 2008;36: W55-9.
195. Mazanetz MP, Marmon RJ, Reisser CBT, et al. Drug discovery applications for KNIME: an open source data mining platform. Curr Top Med Chem 2012;12:1965-79.
196. Beisken S, Meinl T, Wiswedel B, et al. KNIME-CDK: workflowdriven cheminformatics. BMC Bioinformatics 2013;14:257.
197. Oinn T, Addis M, Ferris J, et al. Taverna: a tool for the composition and enactment of bioinformatics workflows. Bioinformatics 2004;20:3045-54.
198. Lu Q, Hao P, Curcin V, et al. KDE Bioscience: platform for bioinformatics analysis workflows. J Biomed Inform 2006;39: 440-50.
199. Goecks J, Nekrutenko A, Taylor J. Galaxy: a comprehensive approach for supporting accessible, reproducible, and transparent computational research in the life sciences. Genome Biol 2010;11:R86.
200. Ludäscher B, Altintas I, Berkley C, et al. Scientific workflow management and the Kepler system. Concurr Comput Pract Exp 2006;18:1039-65.
201. Callahan SP, Freire J, Santos E, et al. VisTrails: visualization meets data management. In 2006 ACM SIGMOD International Conference Management Data, New York: ACM, 2006, 745-7.
202. Sanner MF, Stoffler D, Olson AJ. ViPEr, a visual programming environment for Python. In Proceedings 10th International Python Conference, Austin: N. p. (ISBN 1-930792-05-0), 2002, 103-15.
203. Taylor I, Shields M, Wang I, et al. The triana workflow environment: architecture and applications. Work e-Science Sci Work Grids 2007;320-39.
204. Lehtovuori PT, Nyrönen TH. SOMA-Workflow for small molecule property calculations on a multiplatform computing grid. J Chem Inf Model 2006;46:620-5.
205. Steinbeck C, Han Y, Kuhn S, et al. The Chemistry Development Kit (CDK): an open-source Java library for chemo-and bioinformatics. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43: 493-500.
206. Spjuth O, Helmus T, Willighagen EL, et al. Bioclipse: an open source workbench for chemo-and bioinformatics. BMC Bioinformatics 2007;8:59.
207. Holbeck SL. Update on NCI in vitro drug screen utilities. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:785-93.