Unifying Bioinformatics and Chemoinformatics for Drug Design

Until relatively recently, the field of drug design and development was disconnected from advances in computing and informatics. Without even considering the concept of computing, previous generations of scientists and clinicians had great motivation to examine the symptoms of ill or injured patients, infer from sufficient observation data about the causes of their symptoms, and search for chemical remedies that could cure or somewhat allieviate a person’s ailment. Today, remedies come from sources such as herbal medicines, a high-quality nutritional diet, or human-designed medicines developed in research laboratories. However, there are a great number of afflictions where existing natural remedies are insufficient, and intervention using computation can be beneficial. Around the same time the central dogma of molecular biology was proposed in the 1950s, computing technology was being born in vacuum tubes. For the next 10 years, molecular biology and computing each advanced in their own spectacular ways, yet applying computing to problems in molecular biology was still a novelty. By the end of the 1960s, computing had reached a stage mature enough to be applicable to biochemical problems of limited scope, and the first generation of bioinformatics and chemoinformatics was born. Continuing into the next decade, evolutionary trees were one bioinformatics topic (Waterman et al., 1977), and chemoinformatics topics such as the efficient representation of chemicals for searchable databases were explored (Wipke & Dyott, 1974). Computing technology was slowly becoming a useful tool to explore the theoretical underpinnings of the information representing the mechanisms of life. Both bioinformatics and chemoinformatics have emerged independently in parallel (Jacoby, 2011), much like computing and molecular biology did at first. Their synergy was largely ignored, not for lack of interest, but rather because the computing power necessary to examine and solve large chemical biology problems that impact drug design was still insufficient. (Note the difference between biochemistry, which is biology-centric and focuses on molecule function, versus chemical biology, which focuses on chemical compounds and their biological effects.) Furthermore, from the perspective of pharmaceutical companies, why would they need to consider changing the laboratory techniques which founded their industry in the first place? Fast forward from the 1970s to the present. Over the past decade computing technology has and continues to become cheaper, to the point where it is now possible to 5

[1]  Darrell R. Abernethy,et al.  International Union of Pharmacology: Approaches to the Nomenclature of Voltage-Gated Ion Channels , 2003, Pharmacological Reviews.

[2]  Jean-Philippe Vert,et al.  Graph kernels based on tree patterns for molecules , 2006, Machine Learning.

[3]  H. Yabuuchi,et al.  Analysis of multiple compound–protein interactions reveals novel bioactive molecules , 2011, Molecular systems biology.

[4]  Nello Cristianini,et al.  An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods , 2000 .

[5]  Gregory D. Schuler,et al.  Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information: update , 2004, Nucleic acids research.

[6]  PatrickY.-S. Lam,et al.  Rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors. , 1994, Science.

[7]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  ChemDB: a public database of small molecules and related chemoinformatics resources , 2005, Bioinform..

[8]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[9]  C. Dobson Chemical space and biology , 2004, Nature.

[10]  G. Schneider,et al.  Voyages to the (un)known: adaptive design of bioactive compounds. , 2009, Trends in biotechnology.

[11]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[12]  T. Akutsu,et al.  Compound analysis via graph kernels incorporating chirality. , 2010, Journal of bioinformatics and computational biology.

[13]  W. T. Wipke,et al.  SIMULATION AND EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL SYNTHESIS, COMPUTER REPRESENTATION AND MANIPULATION OF STEREOCHEMISTRY , 1974 .

[14]  Nello Cristianini,et al.  Kernel Methods for Pattern Analysis , 2003, ICTAI.

[15]  W. A. Beyer,et al.  Additive evolutionary trees. , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[16]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  William H. Hunter Introduction to the Principles of Drug Design , 1983 .

[18]  M. Kanehisa,et al.  Development of a chemical structure comparison method for integrated analysis of chemical and genomic information in the metabolic pathways. , 2003, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[19]  Satoshi Niijima,et al.  GLIDA: GPCR—ligand database for chemical genomics drug discovery—database and tools update , 2007, Nucleic Acids Res..

[20]  Richard R. Neubig,et al.  International Union of Pharmacology. XLVI. G Protein-Coupled Receptor List , 2005, Pharmacological Reviews.

[21]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Virtual screening: an endless staircase? , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[22]  Bryan L Roth,et al.  Screening the receptorome to discover the molecular targets for plant-derived psychoactive compounds: a novel approach for CNS drug discovery. , 2004, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[23]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Michael M. Hann,et al.  RECAP-Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure: A Powerful New Technique for Identifying Privileged Molecular Fragments with Useful Applications in Combinatorial Chemistry , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..