Molecular similarity analysis

Chemoinformatics for Drug Discovery

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 343-399

  Medina Franco, José L ^a   Maggiora, Gerald M ^b,c  

^a TORREY PINES INSTITUTE FOR MOLECULAR STUDIES   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^c TRANSLATIONAL GENOMICS RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

2D and 3D similarities; Activity cliffs; Activity landscapes; Asymmetric similarity; Bit vectors; Chemical graphs; Fuzzy sets; Gaussians; Molecular fingerprints; Molecular representations; Molecular similarity; Multisets; Pharmacophores; Sets; Similarity functions and coefficients; Similarity measures

Indexed keywords

DIGITAL COMPUTERS; FUZZY SETS; QUANTUM THEORY;

2D AND 3D SIMILARITIES; ASYMMETRIC SIMILARITY; BIT VECTOR; CHEMICAL GRAPHS; GAUSSIANS; MOLECULAR FINGERPRINT; MOLECULAR REPRESENTATIONS; MOLECULAR SIMILARITY; MULTI-SETS; PHARMACOPHORES; SETS; SIMILARITY FUNCTIONS; SIMILARITY MEASURE;

MOLECULES;

EID: 85016031969     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118742785.ch15     Document Type: Chapter

References (187)

1. Rouvray DH. The evolution of the concept of molecular similarity. In: Johnson MA, Maggiora GM, editors. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1990.
2. PubChem: http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Accessed 2013 Jan 6.
3. ZINC -A free database for virtual screening: http://zinc.docking.org/. Accessed 2013 Jan 6.
4. Scior JT, Bernard P, Medina-Franco JL, et al. Large compound databases for structureactivity relationships studies in drug discovery, Mini-Rev Med Chem 2007; 7:851-860.
5. Holliday JD, Salim N, Whittle M, et al. Analysis and display of the size dependence of chemical similarity coefficients. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:819-828.
6. Partington JR. The beginnings of chemistry. In: A Short History of Chemistry. London: Macmillan; 1937.
7. Rouvray DH. The changing role of the symbol in the evolution of chemical notation. Endeavor 1977;1:23-31.
8. Wikipedia (2011) Discussion of the life of John Dalton. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ John_Dalton. Accessed 2013 Jan 6.
9. Grossman RB. Van't Hoff, Le Bel, and the development of stereochemistry: A reassessment. J Chem Educ 1989;66:30-33.
10. Mendeleev D. On the relationship of the properties of the elements to their atomic weights. J Russ Phys Chem Soc 1869;1:60.
11. Meyer L. The nature of the chemical elements as a function of their atomic weights. Ann Suppl 1870;7:354.
12. Kleppner D, Jackiw R. One hundred years of quantum physics. http://www.4physics.com/ phy_demo/QM_Article/article.html. Accessed 2013 Jan 6.
13. Adamson GW, Bush JA. A method for the automatic classification of chemical structures. Inf Stor Retrieval 1973;9:561-568.
14. Adamson GW, Bush JA. A comparison of the performance of some similarity and dissimilarity measures in the automatic classification of chemical structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1975;15:55-58.
15. Willett P. A fast procedure for the calculation of similarity coefficients in automatic classification. Inf Process Manage 1981;17:53-60.
16. Harding AF, Willett P. Indexing exhaustivity and the computation of similarity matrices. J Am Soc Inf Sci 1980;31:298-300.
17. Carhart RE, Smith DH, Venkataraghavan R. Atom pairs as molecular features in structure activity studies -Definition and applications. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1985;25:64-73.
18. Willett P, Winterman V, Bawden D. Implementation of nearest-neighbor searching in an online chemical structure search system. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1986;26:36-41.
19. Willett P. Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems. Letchworth: Research Studies Press; 1987.
20. Willett P. Algorithms for the calculation of similarity in chemical structure databases. In: Johnson MA, Maggiora GM, editors. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1990, Chapter 3.
21. Bawden D. Application of two-dimensional chemical similarity measures to database analysis and querying. In: Johnson MA, Maggiora GM, editors. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1990, Chapter 4.
22. Johnson MA, Maggiora GM, editors. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1990.
23. Dean PM, editor. Molecular Similarity in Drug Design. Glasgow: Chapman & Hall; 1994.
24. Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V, Lajiness MS, et al. A practical strategy for directed compound acquisition. In: Oprea TI editor. Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA; 2004. p 317-332.
25. Willett P. Molecular diversity techniques for chemical databases. Information Research 2. http://informationr.net/ir/2-3/paper19.html. Accessed 2013 Jan 6.
26. Agrafiotis DK. Stochastic algorithms for maximizing molecular diversity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997;37:841-851.
27. Agrafiotis DK. Diversity of chemical libraries. In: von Schleyer PR, Allinger NL, Clark T, et al., editors. The Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry, Vol. 1. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons; 1998. p 742-761.
28. Clemons PA, Bodycombe NE, Carrinski HA, et al. Small molecules of different origins have distinct distributions of structural complexity that correlate with protein-binding profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2010;107:18787-18792.
29. Ghose A, Viswanadhan V. Combinatorial Library Design and Evaluation: Principles, Software, Tools, and Applications in Drug Discovery. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.; 2001.
30. Lajiness MS. Dissimilarity-based compound selection techniques. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1997;7-8:65-84.
31. Gillet VJ. Diversity selection algorithms. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci 2011;1:580-589.
32. Oprea TI, Matter H. Integrating virtual screening in lead discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2004;8:349-358.
33. Jain AN. Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening. J Med Chem 2004;47:947-961.
34. Jahn A, Hinselman G, Fechner N, et al. Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening. J Chemoinform. http://www.jcheminf.com/content/1/1/14. Accessed 2013 Jan 6.
35. Rathke F, Hansen K, Brefeld U, et al. StructRank: A new approach for ligand-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:83-92.
36. Swann SL, Brown SP, Muchmore SW, et al. A unified, probabilistic framework for structure-and ligand-based virtual screening. J Med Chem 2011;54:1223-1232.
37. Baringhaus K-H, Hessler G. Fast similarity searching and screening hit analysis. Drug Discov Today Technol 2004;1:197-202.
38. Rippenhausen P, Nisius B, Peltason L, et al. Quo Vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. J Med Chem 2010;53:8461-8467.
39. Schneider G. Virtual screening: An endless staircase? Nat Rev. Drug Discov 2010;9:273-276.
40. Cheng C, Maggiora GM, Lajiness MS, et al. Four association coefficients for relating molecular similarity measures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996;36:909-915.
41. Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V. Molecular similarity measures. In: Bajorath J, editor. Chemoinformatics and Computational Chemical Biology. New York: Humana Press/Springer; 2011. p 39-100.
42. Vosniadou S, Ortony A, editors. Similarity and Analogical Reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
43. Sloman SA, Rips LJ. Similarity as an explanatory construct. In: Sloman SA, Rips LJ, editors. Similarity and Symbols in Human Thinking. Cambridge: The MIT Press; 1998, Chapter 1.
44. Shepard RN. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrica 1962;27:25-140.
45. Tversky A. Features of similarity. Psychol Rev 1977;84:327-352.
46. Mestres J, Maggiora GM. Putting molecular similarity into context: Asymmetric indices for field-based similarity measures. J Math Chem 2005;39:107-118.
47. Gentner D, Markman AB. Structural alignment in analogy and similarity. Am Psychol 1997;52:45-560.
48. Lajiness MS, Maggiora GM, Shanmugasundaram V. Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J Med Chem 2004;47:4891-4896.
49. Accelrys, Inc., 10188 Telesis Court, Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
50. Klir GJ, Yuan B. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic -Theory and Applications. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1995.
51. Miyamoto S. Fuzzy Sets in Information Retrieval and Cluster Analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1990.
52. Bender A, Glen RC. Molecular similarity: A key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem 2004;2:3204-3218.
53. Leach AR, Gillet VJ. An Introduction to Chemoinformatics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003.
54. Willett P. Similarity searching using 2D structural fingerprints. In: Bajorath J, editor. Chemoinformatics and Computational Chemical Biology. New York: Springer Science + Business Media, New York; 2011.
55. Johnson MA. A review and examination of the mathematical spaces underlying molecular similarity analysis. J Math Chem 1989;3:117-145.
56. Todeschini R, Consonni V. Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley-VCH; 2009.
57. Bender A. How similar are those molecules after all? Use two descriptors and you will have three different answers. Expert Opin Drug Discov 2010;5:1141-1151.
58. Edgar SJ, Holliday JD, Willett P. Effectiveness of retrieval in similarity searches of chemical databases: A review of performance measures. J Mol Graphics Model 2000;18:343-357.
59. Chen B, Mueller C, Willett P. Combination rules for group fusion in similarity-based virtual screening. Mol Inf 2010;29:533-541.
60. López-Vallejo F. Nefzi A, Bender A, et al. Increased diversity of libraries from libraries: Chemoinformatic analysis of bis-diazacyclic libraries. Chem Biol Drug Des 2011;77:328-342.
61. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM. Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998;38:983-996.
62. Nilakantan R, Bauman N, Dixon JS, et al. Topological torsions: A new molecular descriptor for SAR applications. Comparison with other descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1987;27:82-85.
63. Rogers D, Hahn M. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50: 742-754.
64. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): Evaluation of performance. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004;44:1708-1718.
65. Sastry M, Lowrie JF, Dixon SL, et al. Large-scale systematic analysis of 2D fingerprint methods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:771-784.
66. Pickett SD, Mason JS, McLay IM. Diversity profiling and design using 3D pharmacophores: Pharmacophore-derived queries (PDQ). J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996;36: 1214-1223.
67. Mason JS, Morize I, Menard PR, et al. New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: Overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J Med Chem 1999;42:3251-3264.
68. Kanera P. Sparse Distributed Memory. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1990. p 26-27.
69. Miyamoto S. Two generalizations of multisets. In: Inuiguchi M, Hirano S, Tsumoto S, editors. Rough Set Theory and Granular Computing. New York: Springer; 2003. p 59-68.
70. Xue L, Godden JW, Bajorath J. Database searching for compounds with similar biological activity using short bit string representations of molecules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1999;39:881-886.
71. Trinajstic N. Chemical Graph Theory. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1992.
72. Raymond JW, Willett P. Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2002;16:521-533.
73. Kvasnicka V, Posppichal J. Chemical and reaction metrics for graph-theoretical model of organic chemistry. J Mol Struct Theochem 1991;227:17-42.
74. Pearlman RS, Smith KM. Novel software tools for chemical diversity. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1998;9-11:339-353.
75. Stanton DT. Evaluation and use of BCUT descriptors in QSAR and QSPR studies. J Chem Inf Model 1999;39:11-20.
76. Gower JC. Measures of similarity, dissimilarity, and distance. In: Kotz S, Johnson NL, Read CB, editors. Encyclopedia of Statistics. New York: Wiley; 1982. p 397-405.
77. Good AC, Richards WG. Explicit calculation of 3D molecular similarity. Perspect Drug Discov Des 1998;9-11:321-338.
78. Mestres J, Rohrer DC, Maggiora GM. MIMIC: A molecular field matching program. Exploiting applicability of molecular similarity approaches. J Comput Chem 1997;18:934-954.
79. Grant JA, Gallardo GA, Pickup JT. A fast method of molecular shape descriptors. A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape. J Comput Chem 1996;17: 1653-1666.
80. Kearsley SK, Smith GM. An alternative method for the alignment of molecular structures: Maximizing electrostatic and steric overlap. Tetrahedron Comput Methods 1990;3:615-633.
81. Labute P, Williams C, Feher M, et al. Flexible alignment of small molecules. J Med Chem 2001;44:1483-1490.
82. Willett P, Winterman V. A comparison of some measurements for the determination of inter-molecular structural similarity measures of inter-molecular structural similarity. Quant Struct Act Relat 1986;5:18-25.
83. Arif SM, Holiday JD, Willett P. Analysis and use of fragment-occurrence data in similarity-based virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2009;23:6655-668.
84. Wang Y, Bajorath J. Development of a compound class-directed similarity coefficient that accounts for molecular complexity effects in fingerprint searching. Chem Inf Model 2009;49:1369-1376.
85. Heritage TW, Lowis DR. Molecular hologram QSAR. Rational Drug Design, ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 719. Washington, DC; 1999. p 212-225.
86. Fechner U, Paetz J, Schneider G. Comparison of three holographic fingerprint descriptors and their binary counterparts. QSAR Comb Sci 2005;24:961-967.
87. Swamidass SJ, Baldi P. Bounds and algorithms for fast exact searches of chemical fingerprints in linear and sublinear time. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:302-317.
88. 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;42:1407-1414.
89. Kosko B. Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.; 1992.
90. Beliakov G, Pradera A, Calvo T. Aggregation Functions: A Guide for Practioners. New York: Springer; 2010.
91. Maggiora GM, Petke JD, Mestres J. A general analysis of field-based molecular similarity indices. J Math Chem 2002;31:251-270.
92. Dixon SL, Koehler RT. The hidden component of size in two-dimensional fragment descriptors: Side effects of sampling in bioactive libraries. J Med Chem 1999;42:2887-2900.
93. Godden JW, Xue L, Bajorath J. Combinatorial preferences affect molecular similarity/ diversity calculations using binary fingerprints and Tanimoto coefficients. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000;40:163-166.
94. Fligner MA, Verducci JS, Blower PE. A modification of the Jacard-Tanimoto similarity index for diverse selection of chemical compounds using binary strings. Technometrics 2002;44:110-119.
95. Flower DR. On the properties of bit string based measures of chemical similarity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1988;38:379-386.
96. Wang Y, Eckert H, Bajorath J. Apparent asymmetry in fingerprint similarity searching is a direct consequence of differences in bit densities and molecular size. ChemMedChem 2007;2:1-7.
97. Wang Y, Bajorath J. Balancing the influence of molecular complexity on fingerprint similarity searching. Chem Inf Model 2008;48:75-84.
98. McGregor J, Willett P. Use of a maximum common subgraph algorithm in the automatic identification of the ostensible bond changes occurring in chemical reactions. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998;21:137-140.
99. Maggiora GM, Petke JD, Mestres J. A general analysis of field-based molecular similarity indices. J Math Chem 2002;31:251-270.
100. Ballester PJ, Richards WG. Ultrafast shape recognition for similarity search in molecular databases. Proc R Soc A 2007;463:1307-1321.
101. Mestres J, Rohrer DC, Maggiora GM. A molecular-field-based similarity study of nonnucleoside HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1999; 13:79-93.
102. Blinn JR, Rohrer DC, Maggiora GM. Field-based similarity forcing in energy minimization and molecular matching. In Altman RB, et al., editors. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing '99. Singapore: World Scientific; 1998. p 415-424.
103. Hagadone TR. Molecular substructure similarity searching; Efficient retrieval in twodimensional structure databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1992;32:515-521.
104. Bradshaw J. Introduction to Tversky similarity measure. Eleventh Daylight User Group Meeting, 1997. http://www.daylight.com. Accessed 2013 Jan 6 (To find the link choose "Archives" in the box at the upper right corner of the webpage, and click on MU'97: Tversky Similarity, John Bradshaw on page 15).
105. Maggiora GM, Mestres J, Hagadone TR, et al. Asymmetric similarity and molecular diversity. In: 213th ACS national meeting; 1997 Apr 13-17; San Francisco.
106. Blankley CJ, Wild DJ. Asymmetric similarity in action. In: 221st ACS National Meeting; 2001 Apr 1-5; San Diego.
107. MacCuish JD, MacCuish NE. Asymmetric clustering of chemical datasets: An investigation. In: 224th ACS national meeting; 2002 Aug 18-22; Boston.
108. Chen X, Brown FK. Asymmetry of chemical similarity. ChemMedChem 2007;2: 180-182.
109. Senger S. Using Tversky similarity searches for core hopping: Finding the needles in the haystack. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:1514-1524.
110. Lemmen C, Lengauer T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2000;14:215-232.
111. Yongye AB, Bender A, Martinez-Mayorga K. Dynamic clustering threshold reduces conformer ensemble size while maintaining a biologically relevant ensemble. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2010;24:675-686.
112. Nettles JH, Jenkins JL, Bender A, et al. Bridging chemical and biological space: "Target Fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. J Med Chem 2006:49:6802-6810.
113. Oellien F, Cramer J, Beyer C, et al. The impact of tautomer forms on pharmacophorebased virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2006;46:2342-2354.
114. Martin YC. Quantitative Drug Design: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2010.
115. Brown RD, Martin YC. The information content of 2D and 3D structural descriptors relevant to ligand-receptor binding. J Chem Inf Model 1997;37:1-9.
116. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov Today 2002;7:903-911.
117. McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, et al. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:1504-1519.
118. Ebalunode JO, Zheng W. Unconventional 2D shape similarity method affords comparable enrichment as a 3D shape method in virtual screening experiments. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:1313-1320.
119. Matter H. Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: A validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J Med Chem 1997;40:1219-1229.
120. Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, et al. Scaffold-hopping by topological pharmacophore search: A contribution to virtual screening. Angew Chem Int Ed Engl 1999;38:2894-2896.
121. Renner S, Schneider G. Scaffold-hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. ChemMedChem 2006;1:181-185.
122. Brown N, Jacoby E. On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. MinRev Med Chem 2006;6:1217-1229.
123. Zhang Q, Muegge I. Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: Ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. J Med Chem 2006;49: 1536-1548.
124. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Scheiber J, et al. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal component analysis of molecular descriptor space. J Chem Inf Model 2009; 49:108-119.
125. Ginn CMR, Willett P, Bradshaw J. Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion. Perspect Drug Discov Des 2000;20:1-16.
126. Salim N, Holliday J, Willett P. Combination of fingerprint-based similarity coefficients using data fusion. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:435-442.
127. Willett P. Enhancing the effectiveness of ligand-based virtual screening using data fusion. QSAR Comb Sci 2006;25:1143-1152.
128. Feher M. Consensus scoring for protein-ligand interactions. Drug Discov Today 2006; 11:421-428.
129. Holliday JD, Kanoulas E, Malim N, et al. Multiple search methods for similarity-based virtual screening: An analysis of search overlap and precision. J Cheminform 2011; 3:29-43.
130. Fechner U, Schneider G. Evaluation of distance metrics for ligand-based similarity searching. ChemBioChem 2004;5:538-540.
131. Shanmugasundaram V, Maggiora GM, Lajiness MS. Hit-directed nearest neighbor searching. J Med Chem 2005;48:240-248.
132. Hall DL, McMullen SAH. Mathematical Techniques in Multisensory Data Fusion. 2nd ed. Boston: Artech House; 2004.
133. Klein LA. Sensor and Data Fusion. Bellingham: SPIE Press; 2004.
134. Kearsley SK, Sallamack S, Fluder EM, et al. Chemical similarity using physiochemical property descriptors. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1996;36:118-127.
135. Ginn CMR, Turner DB, Willett P, et al. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: Evaluation of the eva descriptor and combination of rankings using data fusion. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1997;37:23-37.
136. Torra V, Narukawa Y. Modeling Decisions-Information Fusion and Aggregation Operators. New York: Springer; 2007.
137. Chen J, Holliday J, Bradshaw J. A machine learning approach to weighting schemes in the data fusion of similarity coefficients. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:185-194.
138. Willett P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discov Today 2006;11:1046-1053.
139. Medina-Franco JL, Maggiora GM, Giulianotti MA, et al. A similarity-based data-fusion approach to the visual characterization and comparison of compound databases. Chem Biol Drug Des 2007;70:393-412.
140. Martínez-Mayorga K, Medina-Franco JL, Giulianotti MA, et al. Conformation-opioid activity relationships of bicyclic guanidines from 3D similarity analysis. Bioorg Med Chem 2008;16:5932-5938.
141. Gerard B, Duval JR, Lowe JT, et al. Synthesis of a stereochemically diverse library of medium-sized lactams and sultams via S(N)Ar cycloetherification. ACS Comb Sci 2011;13:365-374.
142. Singh N, Guha R, Giulianotti MA, et al. Chemoinformatic analysis of combinatorial libraries, drugs, natural products, and molecular libraries small molecule repository. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49;1010-1024.
143. Medina-Franco JL, Martínez-Mayorga K, Bender A, et al. Characterization of activity landscapes using 2D and 3D similarity methods: Consensus activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model 2009;49:477-491.
144. Pérez-Villanueva J, Santos R, Hernández-Campos A, et al. Towards a systematic characterization of the antiprotozoal activity landscape of benzimidazole derivatives. Bioorg Med Chem 2010;18:7380-7391.
145. Yongye A, Byler K, Santos R, et al. Consensus models of activity landscapes with multiple chemical, conformer and property representations. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:1259-1270.
146. Critchlow DE. Metric Methods for Analyzing Partially-Ranked Data. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1985.
147. Mantel N. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res 1967;27:209-220.
148. Manly BFJ. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. 2nd ed. London: Chapman-Hall; 1997.
149. Legendre P, Legendre L. Numerical Ecology. 2nd ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1998.
150. Willett P. Evaluation of molecular similarity and molecular diversity using biological activity data. In: Bajorath J, editor. Chemoinformatics: Concepts, Methods, and Tools for Drug Discovery. Totowa: Humana Press; 2004. p 51-63.
151. Truchon J-F, Bayly CI. Evaluating virtual screening methods: Good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:488-508.
152. Guha R, Van Drie JH. Structure-activity landscape index: Identifying and quantifying activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model 2008;48:646-658.
153. Guha R. The ups and downs of structure-activity landscapes. In: Bajorath J, editor. Chemoinformatics and Computational Chemical Biology. New York: Humana Press/ Springer; 2011. p 101-117.
154. Peltason L, Bajorath J. Computational aspects of activity and selectivity cliffs. In: Bajorath J, editor. Chemoinformatics and Computational Chemical Biology. New York: Humana Press/Springer; 2011. p 119-132.
155. Maggiora GM. On outliers and activity cliffs-Why QSAR often disappoints (Editorial). J Chem Inf Model 2006;46:1535.
156. Bajorath J, Peltason L, Wawer M, et al. Navigating structure-activity landscapes. Drug Discov Today 2009;14:698-705.
157. Stahura FL, Bajorath J. Bio-and chemo-informatics beyond data management: Crucial challenges and future opportunities. Drug Discov Today 2002;7:S41-S47.
158. Raghavendra AS, Maggiora GM. Molecular basis sets-A general similarity-based approach for representing chemical paces. J Chem Inf Model 2007;47:1328-1340.
159. Rupp M, Schneider P, Schneider G. Distance phenomena in high-dimensional chemical descriptor spaces: Consequences for similarity-based approaches. J Comput Chem 2009;30:2285-2296.
160. Agrafiotis DK, Xu H. A self-organizing principle for learning non-linear manifolds. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2002;99:15869-15872.
161. Agrafiotis DK. Stochastic proximity embedding. J Comput Chem 2003;24: 1215-1221.
162. Agrafiotis DK, Xu H. A geodesic framework for analyzing molecular similarities. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003;43:475-484.
163. Araujo RP, Liotta LA, Petricoin EF. Proteins, drug targets and the mechanisms they control: The simple truth about complex networks. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6: 871-880.
164. Yildirim MA, Goh K-I, Cusick ME, et al. Drug-target network. Nat Biotech 2007;25: 1119-1126.
165. Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, et al. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol 2006;24:805-815.
166. Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN, et al. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol 2007;25:197-206.
167. Tominaga Y. Data structure comparison using box counting analysis. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1998;38:867-875.
168. Agrafiotis DK, Rassokhin DN. A fractal approach for selecting an appropriate bin size for cell-based diversity estimation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2002;42:117-122.
169. Cohen R, Havlin S. Scaling properties of complex networks and spanning trees. In: Bollobas B, Kozma R, Miklos D, editors. Handbook of Large-Scale Random Networks. New York: Springer; 2009. p 143-169.
170. MOE (Molecular Operating Environment), Chemical Computing Group, 1010 Sherbrooke St. W, Suite 910, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2R7 (http:/www.chemcomp. com. Accessed 2011 Dec 24).
171. Wassermann AM, Wawer M, Bajorath J. Activity landscape representations for structureactivity relationship analysis. J Med Chem 2010;53:8209-8223.
172. Doweyko AM. QSAR: Dead or alive? J Comput Aided Mol Des 2008;22:81-89.
173. Johnson S. The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J Chem Inf Model 2008;48:25-26.
174. Guha R, Van Drie JH. Assessing how well a modeling protocol captures a structureactivity landscape. J Chem Inf Model 2008;48:1716-1728.
175. Peltason L, Bajorath J. SAR index: Quantifying the nature of structure-activity relationships. J Med Chem 2007;50:5571-5578.
176. Peltason L, Hu Y, Bajorath J. From structure-activity to structure-selectivity relationships: Quantitative assessment, selectivity cliffs, and key compounds. ChemMedChem 2009;4:1864-1873.
177. Kenny PW, Sadowski J. Structure modification in chemical databases. In: Oprea TI, editor. Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2004. p 271-285.
178. Hussain J, Rea C. Computationally efficient algorithm to identify matched molecular pairs (MMPs) in large datasets. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:339-348.
179. Hu Y, Bajorath J. Molecular scaffolds with high propensity to form multi-target activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50:500-510.
180. Wassermann AM, Bajorath J. Chemical substitutions that introduce activity cliffs across different compound classes and biological targets. J Chem Inf Model 2010;50: 1248-1256.
181. Martínez-Mayorga K, Medina-Franco JL. Chemoinformatics -Applications in food chemistry. In: Taylor S, editor. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, Vol. 58. Burlington: Academic Press; 2009. p 33-56.
182. Martínez-Mayorga K, Peppard TL, Yongye AB, et al. Characterization of a comprehensive flavor database. J Chemomet 2011;25:550-560.
183. Shanmugasundaram V, Maggiora GM. Characterizing activity landscapes using an information-theoretic approach. In: 222nd ACS National Meeting; 2001 Aug 26-30; Chicago.
184. Medina-Franco JL, Yongye AB, Pérez-Villanueva J, et al. Multitarget structure-activity relationships characterized by activity-difference maps and consensus similarity measure. J Chem Inf Model 2011;51:2427-2439.
185. Patterson DE, Cramer RD, Ferguson AM, et al. Neighborhood behavior: A useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. J Med Chem 1996;39: 3049-3059.
186. Pérez-Villanueva J, Santos R, Hernández-Campos A, et al. Structure-activity relationships of benzimidazole derivatives as antiparasitic agents: Dual activity-difference (DAD) maps. Med Chem Commun 2011;2:44-49.
187. Waddell J, Medina-Franco JL. Bioactivity landscape modeling: Chemoinformatic characterization of structure-activity relationships of compounds tested across multiple targets. Bioorg Med Chem 2012;20:5443-5452.