Virtual screening applications: a study of ligand-based methods and different structure representations in four different scenarios

Four different ligand-based virtual screening scenarios are studied: (1) prioritizing compounds for subsequent high-throughput screening (HTS); (2) selecting a predefined (small) number of potentially active compounds from a large chemical database; (3) assessing the probability that a given structure will exhibit a given activity; (4) selecting the most active structure(s) for a biological assay. Each of the four scenarios is exemplified by performing retrospective ligand-based virtual screening for eight different biological targets using two large databases—MDDR and WOMBAT. A comparison between the chemical spaces covered by these two databases is presented. The performance of two techniques for ligand-based virtual screening—similarity search with subsequent data fusion (SSDF) and novelty detection with Self-Organizing Maps (ndSOM) is investigated. Three different structure representations—2,048-dimensional Daylight fingerprints, topological autocorrelation weighted by atomic physicochemical properties (sigma electronegativity, polarizability, partial charge, and identity) and radial distribution functions weighted by the same atomic physicochemical properties—are compared. Both methods were found applicable in scenario one. The similarity search was found to perform slightly better in scenario two while the SOM novelty detection is preferred in scenario three. No method/descriptor combination achieved significant success in scenario four.

[1]  John W. Sammon,et al.  A Nonlinear Mapping for Data Structure Analysis , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[2]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  ITERATIVE PARTIAL EQUALIZATION OF ORBITAL ELECTRONEGATIVITY – A RAPID ACCESS TO ATOMIC CHARGES , 1980 .

[3]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[4]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[5]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  New empirical models of substituent polarisability and their application to stabilisation effects in positively charged species , 1983 .

[6]  M. G. Hutchings,et al.  Residual electronegativity - an empirical quantification of polar influences and its application to the proton affinity of amines , 1983 .

[7]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  FROM ATOMS AND BONDS TO THREE-DIMENSIONAL ATOMIC COORDINATES : AUTOMATIC MODEL BUILDERS , 1993 .

[8]  Teuvo Kohonen,et al.  Self-Organizing Maps , 2010 .

[9]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Simulation Analysis of Experimental Design Strategies for Screening Random Compounds as Potential New Drugs and Agrochemicals , 1995, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Yiyu Yao.  Measuring retrieval effectiveness based on user preference of documents , 1995 .

[11]  Andreas Zell,et al.  Locating Biologically Active Compounds in Medium-Sized Heterogeneous Datasets by Topological Autocorrelation Vectors: Dopamine and Benzodiazepine Agonists , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[12]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Chemical Similarity Using Physiochemical Property Descriptors , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  The Information Content of 2D and 3D Structural Descriptors Relevant to Ligand-Receptor Binding , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[14]  H. Matter,et al.  Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. , 1997, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  John M. Barnard,et al.  Chemical Similarity Searching , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[16]  Mark A. Murcko,et al.  Virtual screening : an overview , 1998 .

[17]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  Deriving the 3D structure of organic molecules from their infrared spectra , 1999 .

[18]  Darko Butina,et al.  Unsupervised Data Base Clustering Based on Daylight's Fingerprint and Tanimoto Similarity: A Fast and Automated Way To Cluster Small and Large Data Sets , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[19]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd Edition , 1999 .

[20]  P. Willett,et al.  Effectiveness of retrieval in similarity searches of chemical databases: a review of performance measures. , 2000, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[21]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Selected Concepts and Investigations in Compound Classification, Molecular Descriptor Analysis, and Virtual Screening , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Robert P Sheridan,et al.  Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[23]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[24]  Y. Martin,et al.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[26]  Sameer Singh,et al.  Novelty detection: a review - part 1: statistical approaches , 2003, Signal Process..

[27]  Petra Schneider,et al.  Comparison of correlation vector methods for ligand-based similarity searching , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[28]  Boris Hollas,et al.  An Analysis of the Autocorrelation Descriptor for Molecules , 2003 .

[29]  Sameer Singh,et al.  Novelty detection: a review - part 2: : neural network based approaches , 2003, Signal Process..

[30]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  Mining High-Throughput Screening Data of Combinatorial Libraries: Development of a Filter to Distinguish Hits from Nonhits , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Peter Willett,et al.  Enhancing the Effectiveness of Virtual Screening by Fusing Nearest Neighbor Lists: A Comparison of Similarity Coefficients , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[32]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  Comparison of Different Classification Methods Applied to a Mode of Toxic Action Data Set , 2004 .

[33]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[34]  P. Willett,et al.  Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[35]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Integrating virtual screening in lead discovery. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[36]  Jérôme Hert,et al.  Comparison of Fingerprint-Based Methods for Virtual Screening Using Multiple Bioactive Reference Structures , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  J. Pin,et al.  Virtual screening workflow development guided by the "receiver operating characteristic" curve approach. Application to high-throughput docking on metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 4. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  Use of Structure Descriptors To Discriminate between Modes of Toxic Action of Phenols , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  P. Willett,et al.  Enhancing the effectiveness of similarity-based virtual screening using nearest-neighbor information. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Virtual and biomolecular screening converge on a selective agonist for GPR30 , 2006, Nature chemical biology.

[41]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Robust ligand-based modeling of the biological targets of known drugs. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[42]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[43]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  Impact of Conformational Flexibility on Three-Dimensional Similarity Searching Using Correlation Vectors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Yvonne Connolly Martin.  What Works and What Does Not: Lessons From Experience in a Pharmaceutical Company , 2006 .

[45]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[46]  Andreas Bender,et al.  "Bayes Affinity Fingerprints" Improve Retrieval Rates in Virtual Screening and Define Orthogonal Bioactivity Space: When Are Multitarget Drugs a Feasible Concept? , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[47]  George Papadatos,et al.  Evaluation of machine-learning methods for ligand-based virtual screening , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[48]  Christopher I. Bayly,et al.  Evaluating Virtual Screening Methods: Good and Bad Metrics for the "Early Recognition" Problem , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Ligand-Based Virtual Screening by Novelty Detection with Self-Organizing Maps , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..