A Comparison of Field-Based Similarity Searching Methods: CatShape, FBSS, and ROCS

Three field-based similarity methods are compared in retrospective virtual screening experiments. The methods are the CatShape module of CATALYST, ROCS, and an in-house program developed at the University of Sheffield called FBSS. The programs are used in both rigid and flexible searches carried out in the MDL Drug Data Report. UNITY 2D fingerprints are also used to provide a comparison with a more traditional approach to similarity searching, and similarity based on simple whole-molecule properties is used to provide a baseline for the more sophisticated searches. Overall, UNITY 2D fingerprints and ROCS with the chemical force field option gave comparable performance and were superior to the shape-only 3D methods. When the flexible methods were compared with the rigid methods, it was generally found that the flexible methods gave slightly better results than their respective rigid methods; however, the increased performance did not justify the additional computational cost required.

[1]  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.

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

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

[4]  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..

[5]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  Yong-Jin Xu,et al.  Using Molecular Equivalence Numbers to Visually Explore Structural Features that Distinguish Chemical Libraries. , 2002 .

[7]  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..

[8]  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..

[9]  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.

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

[11]  Peter Willett,et al.  Implementation of nearest-neighbor searching in an online chemical structure search system , 1986, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[13]  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..

[14]  Stefan Wetzel,et al.  The Scaffold Tree - Visualization of the Scaffold Universe by Hierarchical Scaffold Classification , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[16]  R. Venkataraghavan,et al.  Atom pairs as molecular features in structure-activity studies: definition and applications , 1985, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Peter Willett,et al.  Scaffold Searching: Automated Identification of Similar Ring Systems for the Design of Combinatorial Libraries , 2002 .

[18]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Files of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures: Analysis of the BIOSTER Database Using Two-Dimensional Fingerprints and Molecular Field Descriptors , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[19]  W. G. Richards,et al.  Rapid evaluation of shape similarity using Gaussian functions , 1993, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[20]  Andreas Bender,et al.  A Discussion of Measures of Enrichment in Virtual Screening: Comparing the Information Content of Descriptors with Increasing Levels of Sophistication , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Robert D. Clark,et al.  Efficient Generation, Storage, and Manipulation of Fully Flexible Pharmacophore Multiplets and Their Use in 3-D Similarity Searching , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

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

[24]  Schmid,et al.  "Scaffold-Hopping" by Topological Pharmacophore Search: A Contribution to Virtual Screening. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.

[25]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Chemical Similarity Using Physiochemical Property Descriptors , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[26]  R. D. Iii Cramer,et al.  Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA). Part 1. Effect of Shape on Binding of Steroids to Carrier Proteins. , 1988 .

[27]  Peter Willett,et al.  RASCAL: Calculation of Graph Similarity using Maximum Common Edge Subgraphs , 2002, Comput. J..

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

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

[30]  D I Stuart,et al.  Models which explain the inhibition of reverse transcriptase by HIV-1-specific (thio)carboxanilide derivatives. , 1997, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

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

[32]  B. Masek,et al.  Molecular skins: A new concept for quantitative shape matching of a protein with its small molecule mimics , 1993, Proteins.

[33]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening. , 2007 .

[34]  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.

[35]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Files of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures: Flexible Field-Based Searching of Molecular Electrostatic Potentials , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[36]  M. Stahl,et al.  Scaffold hopping. , 2004, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[37]  G. Bemis,et al.  The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: Representation and searching of molecular electrostatic potentials using field-graphs , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..