Computer-aided drug design: time to play with novel chemical matter

Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2017, Pages 977-980

  Barril, Xavier ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b INSTITUCIÓ CATALANA DE RECERCA I ESTUDIS AVANÇATS ICREA   (Spain)

Author keywords

chemical space; computational chemistry; drug discovery; Virtual screening; virtual synthetic chemistry

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; DRUG DESIGN; EDITORIAL; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 85026890626     PISSN: 17460441     EISSN: 1746045X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17460441.2017.1362386     Document Type: Editorial

References (30)

1. Danziger DJ, Dean PM., Automated site-directed drug design:a general algorithm for knowledge acquisition about hydrogen-bonding regions at protein surfaces. Proc R Soc London Ser B Biol Sci. 1989;236:101–113.
2. Schneider G, Fechner U., Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:649–663.
3. Barril X, Hubbard REE, Morley SDD. Virtual screening in structure-based drug discovery. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2004;4:779–791.• Good read for those aiming to understand how docking works and its many limitations.
4. Chen Y. Beware of docking! Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2015;36:78–95.
5. Gupta A, Gupta AK, Seshadri K. Structural models in the assessment of protein druggability based on HTS data. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2009;23:583–592.
6. Horvath D. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Methods Mol Biol. 2011;672:261–298.
7. Sterling T, Irwin JJ. ZINC 15–ligand discovery for everyone. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55:2324–2337.
8. Salomon-Ferrer R, Götz AW, Poole D, et al. Routine microsecond molecular dynamics simulations with AMBER on GPUs. 2. Explicit solvent particle mesh ewald. J Chem Theory Comput. 2013;9:3878–3888.
9. Buch I, Giorgino T, De Fabritiis G. Complete reconstruction of an enzyme-inhibitor binding process by molecular dynamics simulations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:10184–10189.
10. De Vivo M, Masetti M, Bottegoni G, et al. Role of molecular dynamics and related methods in drug discovery. J Med Chem. 2016;59:4035–4061.•• Extensive review on the recent progress of molecular dynamics-based methods for drug discovery.
11. Goh GB, Hodas NO, Vishnu A. Deep learning for computational chemistry. J Comput Chem. 2017;6:1291–1307.
12. Khafizov K, Madrid-Aliste C, Almo SC, et al. Trends in structural coverage of the protein universe and the impact of the protein structure initiative. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:3733–3738.
13. Van den Bedem H, Fraser JS. Integrative, dynamic structural biology at atomic resolution—it’s about time. Nat Methods. 2015;12:307–318.• Useful article to understand the importance and possible ways of incorporating dynamic information in structural biology.
14. Pearce NM, Krojer T, Bradley AR, et al. A multi-crystal method for extracting obscured crystallographic states from conventionally uninterpretable electron density. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15123.
15. Frank J. Advances in the field of single-particle cryo-electron microscopy over the last decade. Nat Protoc. 2017;12:209–212.
16. Gilson MK, Liu T, Baitaluk M, et al. BindingDB in 2015:a public database for medicinal chemistry, computational chemistry and systems pharmacology. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44:D1045–D1053.
17. Gaulton A, Hersey A, Nowotka M, et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D945–D954.
18. Gathiaka S, Liu S, Chiu M, et al. D3R grand challenge 2015:evaluation of protein-ligand pose and affinity predictions. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2016;30:651–668.
19. Tetko IV. The perspectives of computational chemistry modeling. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2012;26:135–136.
20. Seco J, Luque FJ, Barril X. Binding site detection and druggability index from first principles. J Med Chem. 2009;52:2363–2371.• First reported use of cosolvents for structure-based drug discovery.
21. Guvench O, MacKerell AD. Computational fragment-based binding site identification by ligand competitive saturation. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009;5:e1000435.
22. Ghanakota P, Carlson HA. Driving structure-based drug discovery through cosolvent molecular dynamics. J Med Chem. 2016;59:10383–10399.• First and extensive review on the use of cosolvents to guide structure-based drug discovery.
23. Ichihara O, Shimada Y, Yoshidome D. The importance of hydration thermodynamics in fragment-to-lead optimization. Chem Med Chem. 2014;5:1–11.
24. Ruiz-Carmona S, Schmidtke P, Luque FJ, et al. Dynamic undocking and the quasi-bound state as tools for drug discovery. Nat Chem. 2017;9:201–206.•• New perspective on protein–ligand complexes with important consequences for virtual screening.
25. Polishchuk PG, Madzhidov TI, Varnek A. Estimation of the size of drug-like chemical space based on GDB-17 data. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2013;27:675–679.
26. Visini R, Awale M, Reymond J-L. Fragment database FDB-17. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57:700–709.• Latest article by this group, exploring again the limits of the chemical space for drug discovery.
27. Goodnow RA, Dumelin CE, Keefe AD. DNA-encoded chemistry:enabling the deeper sampling of chemical space. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017;16:131–147.
28. Chevillard F, Kolb P. SCUBIDOO:a large yet screenable and easily searchable database of computationally created chemical compounds optimized toward high likelihood of synthetic tractability. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55:1824–1835.• Description and analysis of a pragmatic approximation to the exploration of chemical space.
29. Erlanson DA, Fesik SW, Hubbard RE, et al. Twenty years on:the impact of fragments on drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15:605–619.•• Excellent review on the status of fragment-based drug discovery.
30. Reynolds CH, Tounge BA, Bembenek SD. Ligand binding efficiency:trends, physical basis, and implications. J Med Chem. 2008;51:2432–2438.