Computational chemistry-driven decision making in lead generation.

Novel starting points for drug discovery projects are generally found either by screening large collections of compounds or smaller more-focused libraries. Ideally, hundreds or even thousands of actives are initially found, and these need to be reduced to a handful of promising lead series. In several sequential steps, many actives are dropped and only some are followed up. Computational chemistry tools are used in this context to predict properties, cluster hits, design focused libraries and search for close analogues to explore the potential of hit series. At the end of hit-to-lead, the project must commit to one, or preferably a few, lead series that will be refined during lead optimization and hopefully produce a drug candidate. Striving for the best possible decision is crucial because choosing the wrong series is a costly one-way street.

[1]  David A. Cosgrove,et al.  Lead Hopping Using SVM and 3D Pharmacophore Fingerprints , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Analysis and Display of the Size Dependence of Chemical Similarity Coefficients , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Harald Mauser,et al.  Database Clustering with a Combination of Fingerprint and Maximum Common Substructure Methods , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[4]  Phillip Gribbon,et al.  High-throughput drug discovery: what can we expect from HTS? , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[5]  M. Hutzler,et al.  Predicting drug-drug interactions in drug discovery: where are we now and where are we going? , 2005, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

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

[7]  Andrew M Davis,et al.  Components of successful lead generation. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

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

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

[10]  Markus Wagener,et al.  Potential Drugs and Nondrugs: Prediction and Identification of Important Structural Features , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[11]  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..

[12]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  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.

[14]  María José Castro Bleda,et al.  Drugs and Nondrugs: An Effective Discrimination with Topological Methods and Artificial Neural Networks , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[15]  B. Posner,et al.  High-throughput screening-driven lead discovery: meeting the challenges of finding new therapeutics. , 2005, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[16]  Harald Mauser,et al.  A robust clustering method for chemical structures. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  S. Fox,et al.  High-Throughput Screening: Searching for Higher Productivity , 2004, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[18]  Li Di,et al.  Pharmaceutical profiling in drug discovery. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

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

[20]  A. Nassar,et al.  Improving the decision-making process in the structural modification of drug candidates: enhancing metabolic stability. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[21]  Philip M Dean,et al.  Scaffold hopping in de novo design. Ligand generation in the absence of receptor information. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[23]  M G Ford,et al.  Selecting compounds for focused screening using linear discriminant analysis and artificial neural networks. , 2004, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[24]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Predicting molecular interactions in silico: I. A guide to pharmacophore identification and its applications to drug design. , 2004, Current medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Paul A. Smith,et al.  Comparison of Linear and Nonlinear Classification Algorithms for the Prediction of Drug and Chemical Metabolism by Human UDP-Glucuronosyltransferase Isoforms , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[26]  Walters Wp,et al.  Feature selection in quantitative structure-activity relationships. , 2005 .

[27]  Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.  The Problem of Overfitting , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Weida Tong,et al.  Decision Forest: Combining the Predictions of Multiple Independent Decision Tree Models , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[30]  Martyn G. Ford,et al.  Selecting Screening Candidates for Kinase and G Protein-Coupled Receptor Targets Using Neural Networks , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[31]  Robert Bywater,et al.  Improving the Odds in Discriminating "Drug-like" from "Non Drug-like" Compounds , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[32]  J. Delaney.  Predicting aqueous solubility from structure. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[33]  Matthew Segall,et al.  In silico prediction of ADME properties: are we making progress? , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[34]  Andrew I Su,et al.  HierS: hierarchical scaffold clustering using topological chemical graphs. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Variable selection and model validation of 2D and 3D molecular descriptors> , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[36]  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..

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

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

[39]  D. E. Clark,et al.  A virtual screening approach to finding novel and potent antagonists at the melanin-concentrating hormone 1 receptor. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[41]  A. Michiel van Rhee,et al.  Use of Recursion Forests in the Sequential Screening Process: Consensus Selection by Multiple Recursion Trees , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[42]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Combination of Fingerprint-Based Similarity Coefficients Using Data Fusion , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[43]  A. Nassar,et al.  Improving the decision-making process in structural modification of drug candidates: reducing toxicity. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[44]  Tom L. Blundell,et al.  Keynote review: Structural biology and drug discovery , 2005 .

[45]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[47]  Ajay,et al.  Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  Suzanne K. Schreyer,et al.  Data Shaving: A Focused Screening Approach , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Manfred Kansy,et al.  Predicting plasma protein binding of drugs--revisited. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[50]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[51]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

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

[53]  J. T. Metz,et al.  Ligand efficiency indices as guideposts for drug discovery. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[54]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[55]  Rudi Verbeeck,et al.  Outlier Mining in High Throughput Screening Experiments , 2002, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[56]  Wolfgang Guba,et al.  Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[57]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Partitioning methods for the identification of active molecules. , 2003, Current medicinal chemistry.

[58]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Ensemble Methods for Classification in Cheminformatics , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[59]  D. Winkler,et al.  Rapid prediction of chemical metabolism by human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms using quantum chemical descriptors derived with the electronegativity equalization method. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[60]  H. van de Waterbeemd,et al.  ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? , 2003, Nature reviews. Drug discovery.

[61]  Hua Tang,et al.  Studies on Repository Compound Stability in DMSO under Various Conditions , 2003, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[62]  Stephan Heyse,et al.  From targets to leads: the importance of advanced data analysis for decision support in drug discovery. , 2005, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[63]  Jens Sadowski,et al.  Comparison of Support Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Network Systems for Drug/Nondrug Classification , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[64]  A Golebiowski,et al.  Lead compounds discovered from libraries. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[65]  P. Willett,et al.  Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion , 2000 .

[66]  Y. Martin,et al.  A bioavailability score. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[67]  H. Kubinyi,et al.  A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[68]  David J Diller,et al.  Deriving knowledge through data mining high-throughput screening data. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[69]  D K Jones-Hertzog,et al.  Use of recursive partitioning in the sequential screening of G-protein-coupled receptors. , 1999, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[70]  Lasse Murtomäki,et al.  Drug permeation in biomembranes: in vitro and in silico prediction and influence of physicochemical properties. , 2004, European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences.

[71]  Gunnar Rätsch,et al.  Active Learning with Support Vector Machines in the Drug Discovery Process , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[72]  Darren R. Flower,et al.  On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..