Exploring the chemogenomic knowledge space with annotated chemical libraries.

The recent human genome initiatives have led to the discovery of a multitude of genes that are potentially associated with various pathologic conditions and, thus, have opened new horizons in drug discovery. Simultaneously, annotated chemical libraries have emerged as information-rich databases to integrate biological and chemical data. They can be useful for the discovery of new pharmaceutical leads, the validation of new biotargets and the determination of the structural basis of ligand selectivity within target families. Annotated libraries provide a strong information basis for computational design of target-directed combinatorial libraries, which are a key component of modern drug discovery. Today, the rational design of chemical libraries enhanced with chemogenomics data is a new area of progressive research.

[1]  Herbert Waldmann,et al.  Protein Structure Similarity as Guiding Principle for Combinatorial Library Design , 2003, Biological chemistry.

[2]  Olesen Ph,et al.  The use of bioisosteric groups in lead optimization. , 2001 .

[3]  G. S. Johnson,et al.  An Information-Intensive Approach to the Molecular Pharmacology of Cancer , 1997, Science.

[4]  S. Frye.  Structure-activity relationship homology (SARAH): a conceptual framework for drug discovery in the genomic era. , 1999, Chemistry & biology.

[5]  Robert P Bywater,et al.  Recognition of privileged structures by G-protein coupled receptors. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  P. Olesen,et al.  The use of bioisosteric groups in lead optimization. , 2001, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[7]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Neighborhood Behavior of in Silico Structural Spaces with Respect to in Vitro Activity Spaces-A Novel Understanding of the Molecular Similarity Principle in the Context of Multiple Receptor Binding Profiles , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[8]  B. Stockwell,et al.  Biological mechanism profiling using an annotated compound library. , 2003, Chemistry & biology.

[9]  Principles and methods of docking and ligand design. , 2003, Methods of biochemical analysis.

[10]  E. Wintner,et al.  A reagent-based strategy for the design of large combinatorial libraries: A preliminary experimental validation , 2004, Molecular Diversity.

[11]  A. Stevens,et al.  Computational design strategies for combinatorial libraries. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[12]  Richard M Weinshilboum,et al.  Pharmacogenomics and reducing the frequency of adverse drug events. , 2003, Pharmacogenomics.

[13]  F. Salemme,et al.  Chemical genomics as an emerging paradigm for postgenomic drug discovery. , 2003, Pharmacogenomics.

[14]  M. Vieth,et al.  Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[15]  John H. Van Drie,et al.  Pharmacophore Discovery - Lessons Learned , 2003 .

[16]  Ruedi Stoop,et al.  An Ontology for Pharmaceutical Ligands and Its Application for in Silico Screening and Library Design , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  G. Müller,et al.  Medicinal chemistry of target family-directed masterkeys. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[18]  Christophe Cleva,et al.  Chemical substructures in drug discovery. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[19]  Christopher Hulme,et al.  Knowledge-based approaches in the design and selection of compound libraries for drug discovery. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[20]  Eric A Jamois,et al.  Reagent-based and product-based computational approaches in library design. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[21]  D. Agrafiotis,et al.  Combinatorial informatics in the post-genomics era , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[22]  Jordi Mestres,et al.  Guided docking approaches to structure-based design and screening. , 2004, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Tudor I. Oprea.  Current trends in lead discovery: Are we looking for the appropriate properties? , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  Thomas P. Stockfisch,et al.  Partially Unified Multiple Property Recursive Partitioning (PUMP-RP): A New Method for Predicting and Understanding Drug Selectivity , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Pierre Acklin,et al.  Similarity Metrics for Ligands Reflecting the Similarity of the Target Proteins , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[26]  M. Vieth,et al.  COMBINING MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY WITH CHEMOGENOMIC AND COMPUTER-AIDED STRUCTURE-BASED DESIGN IN DEVELOPMENT OF NOVEL KINASE INHIBITORS , 2003 .

[27]  E. Sausville,et al.  Mining the National Cancer Institute's tumor-screening database: identification of compounds with similar cellular activities. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  R. Cramer,et al.  Dbtop: topomer similarity searching of conventional structure databases. , 2002, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[29]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Virtual Screening in Lead Discovery: A Viewpoint† , 2002, Molecules : A Journal of Synthetic Chemistry and Natural Product Chemistry.

[30]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Mini-fingerprints for virtual screening: Design principles and generation of novel prototypes based on information theory , 2003, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[31]  J. Weinstein,et al.  Pharmacogenomic analysis: correlating molecular substructure classes with microarray gene expression data , 2002, The Pharmacogenomics Journal.

[32]  A. Gołębiowski,et al.  Lead compounds discovered from libraries: part 2. , 2003, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[33]  Irwin D Kuntz,et al.  Small molecule affinity fingerprinting. A tool for enzyme family subclassification, target identification, and inhibitor design. , 2002, Chemistry & biology.

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

[36]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Ligand-based combinatorial design of selective purinergic receptor (A2A) antagonists using self-organizing maps. , 2003, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[37]  Gabriele Cruciani,et al.  Surface descriptors for protein-ligand affinity prediction. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Novel technologies for virtual screening. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[39]  Anders Wallqvist,et al.  Establishing connections between microarray expression data and chemotherapeutic cancer pharmacology. , 2002, Molecular cancer therapeutics.

[40]  R. Dolle.  Comprehensive survey of combinatorial library synthesis: 2000. , 2001, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[41]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Chemogenomics knowledge-based strategies in drug discovery. , 2003, Drug news & perspectives.

[42]  Igor V. Pletnev,et al.  Drug Discovery Using Support Vector Machines. The Case Studies of Drug-likeness, Agrochemical-likeness, and Enzyme Inhibition Predictions , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[43]  D. Manallack,et al.  Selecting Screening Candidates for Kinase and G Protein‐Coupled Receptor Targets Using Neural Networks. , 2002 .

[44]  G. Bemis,et al.  Kinase chemogenomics: targeting the human kinome for target validation and drug discovery. , 2004, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[45]  R. Strausberg,et al.  From Knowing to Controlling: A Path from Genomics to Drugs Using Small Molecule Probes , 2003, Science.