Streamlining lead discovery by aligning in silico and high-throughput screening.

Lead discovery in the pharmaceutical environment is largely an industrial-scale process in which it is typical to screen 1-5 million compounds in a matter of weeks using High Throughput Screening (HTS). This process is a very costly endeavor. Typically a HTS campaign of 1 million compounds will cost anywhere from $500000 to $1000000. There is consequently a great deal of pressure to maximize the return on investment by finding fast and more effective ways to screen. A panacea that has emerged over the past few years to help address this issue is in silico screening. In silico screening is now incorporated in all areas of lead discovery; from target identification and library design, to hit analysis and compound profiling. However, as lead discovery has evolved over the past few years, so has the role of in silico screening.

[1]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[2]  Mark C. Fishman,et al.  Pharmaceuticals: A new grammar for drug discovery , 2005, Nature.

[3]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  An Empirical Process for the Design of High-Throughput Screening Deck Filters , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  P. Arya,et al.  Natural product-like chemical space: search for chemical dissectors of macromolecular interactions. , 2005, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[5]  Frank K Brown,et al.  Practical Approaches to Efficient Screening: Information-Rich Screening Protocol , 2004, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[6]  Xiaoyang Xia,et al.  Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Vladimir Vapnik,et al.  Statistical learning theory , 1998 .

[8]  G. Maggiora,et al.  Hit-directed nearest-neighbor searching. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Matthew P. Repasky,et al.  Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Meir Glick,et al.  Enrichment of Extremely Noisy High-Throughput Screening Data Using a Naïve Bayes Classifier , 2004, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[11]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[12]  W. Patrick Walters,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[13]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Structure-based development of target-specific compound libraries. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[14]  S Stanley Young,et al.  Initial compound selection for sequential screening. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[15]  D N Chin,et al.  Integration of virtual screening into the drug discovery process. , 2004, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[16]  Zhan Deng,et al.  Knowledge-based design of target-focused libraries using protein-ligand interaction constraints. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  G. Harper,et al.  The reduced graph descriptor in virtual screening and data-driven clustering of high-throughput screening data. , 2004, Journal of chemical information and computer sciences.

[18]  Peter Willett,et al.  Scaffold Hopping Using Clique Detection Applied to Reduced Graphs , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[20]  Z. Deng,et al.  Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  R. A. George,et al.  A ligand-centric analysis of the diversity and evolution of protein-ligand relationships in E.coli. , 2005, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  Shaomeng Wang,et al.  How Does Consensus Scoring Work for Virtual Library Screening? An Idealized Computer Experiment , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[23]  Ramaswamy Nilakantan,et al.  A novel approach to combinatorial library design. , 2002, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[24]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. , 2005, Angewandte Chemie.

[25]  L. Weber.  Current Status of Virtual Combinatorial Library Design , 2005 .

[26]  Derek S. Tan,et al.  Current progress in natural product-like libraries for discovery screening. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[27]  U Schopfer,et al.  Molecular diversity management strategies for building and enhancement of diverse and focused lead discovery compound screening collections. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[28]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  Christophe G. Lambert,et al.  Analysis of a Large Structure/Biological Activity Data Set Using Recursive Partitioning , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[30]  Peter Ertl,et al.  Relationships between Molecular Complexity, Biological Activity, and Structural Diversity , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Scott Boyer,et al.  Chemical and biological profiling of an annotated compound library directed to the nuclear receptor family. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[32]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  ErG: 2D Pharmacophore Descriptions for Scaffold Hopping , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

[35]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Calculating Similarities between Biological Activities in the MDL Drug Data Report Database , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[36]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.

[37]  Jérôme Hert,et al.  New Methods for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Use of Data Fusion and Machine Learning to Enhance the Effectiveness of Similarity Searching , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[39]  G. Schneider,et al.  Fuzzy pharmacophore models from molecular alignments for correlation-vector-based virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  G. S. Gill,et al.  Molecular surface point environments for virtual screening and the elucidation of binding patterns (MOLPRINT) , 2004 .

[41]  Robert J. Jilek,et al.  Topomers: A Validated Protocol for Their Self-Consistent Generation , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Darren V. S. Green,et al.  Computational Chemistry, Molecular Complexity and Screening Set Design , 2005 .

[43]  Jin Li,et al.  On Evaluating Molecular-Docking Methods for Pose Prediction and Enrichment Factors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Meir Glick,et al.  Prediction of Biological Targets for Compounds Using Multiple-Category Bayesian Models Trained on Chemogenomics Databases , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  G. Schneider,et al.  Scaffold‐Hopping Potential of Ligand‐Based Similarity Concepts , 2006, ChemMedChem.

[46]  Irwin D. Kuntz,et al.  Automated flexible ligand docking method and its application for database search , 1997 .

[47]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Computational chemistry-driven decision making in lead generation. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[48]  Anthony E. Klon,et al.  Finding more needles in the haystack: A simple and efficient method for improving high-throughput docking results. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  Molecular Complexity and Its Impact on the Probability of Finding Leads for Drug Discovery , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[50]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  Measuring CAMD technique performance: A virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[51]  Meir Glick,et al.  Application of Machine Learning To Improve the Results of High-Throughput Docking Against the HIV-1 Protease , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[52]  M F Engels,et al.  Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. , 2001, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[53]  Ruili Huang,et al.  Drugs aimed at targeting characteristic karyotypic phenotypes of cancer cells , 2005, Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.

[54]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Library design for fragment based screening. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[55]  J. G. Vinter,et al.  Scaffold hopping with molecular field points: identification of a cholecystokinin-2 (CCK2) receptor pharmacophore and its use in the design of a prototypical series of pyrrole- and imidazole-based CCK2 antagonists. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[56]  Christopher T. Walsh,et al.  Lessons from natural molecules , 2004, Nature.

[57]  Patrick Jimonet,et al.  Strategies for designing GPCR-focused libraries and screening sets. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[58]  Gerhard Hessler,et al.  Fast similarity searching and screening hit analysis. , 2004, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[59]  D. Rogers,et al.  Using Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints with Laplacian-Modified Bayesian Analysis in High-Throughput Screening Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[60]  A. Schuffenhauer,et al.  Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[61]  Stuart L Schreiber,et al.  A planning strategy for diversity-oriented synthesis. , 2004, Angewandte Chemie.

[62]  K. Wanner,et al.  Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry , 2007 .

[63]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine , 2004, Nature.

[64]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  Small Molecule Shape-Fingerprints , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[65]  R. Desimone,et al.  Privileged structures: applications in drug discovery. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[66]  Daniel C. Weaver.  Applying data mining techniques to library design, lead generation and lead optimization. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

[68]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings , 1997 .

[69]  J. Jenkins,et al.  A 3D similarity method for scaffold hopping from known drugs or natural ligands to new chemotypes. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[70]  Anthony E. Klon,et al.  Combination of a naive Bayes classifier with consensus scoring improves enrichment of high-throughput docking results. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[71]  Stuart L Schreiber,et al.  Generating Diverse Skeletons of Small Molecules Combinatorially , 2003, Science.

[72]  Meir Glick,et al.  Enrichment of High-Throughput Screening Data with Increasing Levels of Noise Using Support Vector Machines, Recursive Partitioning, and Laplacian-Modified Naive Bayesian Classifiers , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[73]  A. Fliri,et al.  Biological spectra analysis: Linking biological activity profiles to molecular structure. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[74]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[75]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  ICM—A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation , 1994, J. Comput. Chem..

[76]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Similarity Searching of Chemical Databases Using Atom Environment Descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): Evaluation of Performance , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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