Novel technologies for virtual screening.

There are several methods for virtual screening of databases of small organic compounds to find tight binders to a given protein target. Recent reviews in Drug Discovery Today have concentrated on screening by docking and by pharmacophore searching. Here, we complement these reviews by focusing on virtual screening methods that are based on analyzing ligand similarity on a structural level. Specifically, we concentrate on methods that exploit structural properties of the complete ligand molecules, as opposed to using just partial structural templates, such as pharmacophores. The in silico procedure of virtual screening (VS) and its relationship to the experimental procedure, HTS, is discussed, new developments in the field are summarized and perspectives on future research are offered.

[1]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Multiple molecular superpositioning as an effective tool for virtual database screening , 2000 .

[2]  G. Maggiora,et al.  A molecular field-based similarity approach to pharmacophoric pattern recognition. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[3]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Virtual screening and fast automated docking methods. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[4]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Similarity searching in large combinatorial chemistry spaces , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  A. Good,et al.  High-throughput and virtual screening: core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. , 2000, Drug discovery today.

[6]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Fragment-Based Screening of Ligand Databases , 2000 .

[7]  U. Lessel,et al.  In vitro and in silico affinity fingerprints: Finding similarities beyond structural classes , 2000 .

[8]  Christian Lemmen,et al.  A Novel Shape-Feature Based Approach to Virtual Library Screening , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Ruth Nussinov,et al.  Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions , 2002, Proteins.

[10]  Yu Chen,et al.  Evaluation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Methods for Large-Scale Prediction of Chemicals Binding to the Estrogen Receptor , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Feature trees: A new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Files of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures. Alignment of Molecular Electrostatic Potential Fields with a Genetic Algorithm , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[13]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  Investigating the extension of pairwise distance pharmacophore measures to triplet-based descriptors , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[15]  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.

[16]  Michael F. Lynch,et al.  Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents, 1. Introduction and general strategy , 1981, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  J. Mason,et al.  New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Ramon Carbo,et al.  How similar is a molecule to another? An electron density measure of similarity between two molecular structures , 1980 .

[19]  Andreas Krämer,et al.  Fast 3D molecular superposition and similarity search in databases of flexible molecules , 2003, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[20]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  Utilization of Gaussian functions for the rapid evaluation of molecular similarity , 1992, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[21]  Johannes H. Voigt,et al.  Comparison of the NCI Open Database with Seven Large Chemical Structural Databases , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[22]  Natasja Brooijmans,et al.  Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. , 2003, Annual review of biophysics and biomolecular structure.

[23]  David M. Rocke,et al.  Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[24]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Chemical Similarity Using Geometric Atom Pair Descriptors , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[25]  R Abagyan,et al.  High-throughput docking for lead generation. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[26]  Robert Stanton,et al.  A Novel Subshape Molecular Descriptor , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[27]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[28]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  Christian Lemmen,et al.  Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[31]  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..

[32]  Glenn J. Myatt,et al.  LeadScope: Software for Exploring Large Sets of Screening Data , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[33]  A. C. Good,et al.  The utilization of gaussian functions for the rapid evaluation of molecular similarity , 1993 .

[34]  John Bradshaw,et al.  Similarity Searching Using Reduced Graphs , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[35]  Heather S. Gruver,et al.  Data analysis of high-throughput screening results: application of multidomain clustering to the NCI anti-HIV data set. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  Gareth Jones,et al.  A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay and pharmacophore elucidation , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[37]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. , 2001, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[38]  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 .

[39]  Michael F. Lynch,et al.  Computer storage and retrieval of generic chemical structures in patents. 13. Reduced graph generation , 1991, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[40]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Use of Structure-Activity Data To Compare Structure-Based Clustering Methods and Descriptors for Use in Compound Selection , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[41]  Wolfgang Huber,et al.  FLASHFLOOD: A 3D Field-based similarity search and alignment method for flexible molecules , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[42]  Mark Waltham,et al.  Mining and Visualizing Large Anticancer Drug Discovery Databases. , 2000 .

[43]  Xin Chen,et al.  Performance of Similarity Measures in 2D Fragment-Based Similarity Searching: Comparison of Structural Descriptors and Similarity Coefficients , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[44]  Valerie J. Gillet,et al.  Further Development of Reduced Graphs for Identifying Bioactive Compounds. , 2003 .

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

[46]  M Pastor,et al.  VolSurf: a new tool for the pharmacokinetic optimization of lead compounds. , 2000, European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences.

[47]  Petra Schneider,et al.  De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drug-derived building blocks , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[48]  Christos A. Nicolaou,et al.  Analysis of Large Screening Data Sets via Adaptively Grown Phylogenetic-Like Trees , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[49]  Gabriele Cruciani,et al.  Suitability of molecular descriptors for database mining. A comparative analysis. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  Mathew Hahn,et al.  Three-Dimensional Shape-Based Searching of Conformationally Flexible Compounds , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[51]  Paul D Lyne,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[52]  Rudi Verbeeck,et al.  CerBeruS: A System Supporting the Sequential Screening Process , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[54]  P. Goodford.  A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. , 1985, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[55]  G Klopman,et al.  Diversity analysis of 14 156 molecules tested by the National Cancer Institute for anti-HIV activity using the quantitative structure-activity relational expert system MCASE. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[56]  C. Lemmen,et al.  FLEXS: a method for fast flexible ligand superposition. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[57]  R. Cramer,et al.  Toward general methods of targeted library design: topomer shape similarity searching with diverse structures as queries. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[59]  Jonathan W. Essex,et al.  A review of protein-small molecule docking methods , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[60]  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.

[61]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Design and Diversity Analysis of Compound Libraries for Lead Discovery , 1999 .