Combinatorial Consensus Scoring for Ligand-Based Virtual Fragment Screening: A Comparative Case Study for Serotonin 5-HT3A, Histamine H1, and Histamine H4 Receptors
暂无分享,去创建一个
Saskia Nijmeijer | Chris de Graaf | Iwan J. P. de Esch | Albert J. Kooistra | Rob Leurs | Eric E. J. Haaksma | Henry F. Vischer | Sabine Schultes | E. Haaksma | R. Leurs | H. Vischer | S. Schultes | A. Kooistra | I. D. Esch | C. Graaf | S. Nijmeijer
[1] Jürgen Bajorath,et al. Comparison of 2D Fingerprint Methods for Multiple‐Template Similarity Searching on Compound Activity Classes of Increasing Structural Diversity , 2007, ChemMedChem.
[2] I. D. de Esch,et al. Structure–Activity Relationships of Quinoxaline-Based 5-HT3A and 5-HT3AB Receptor-Selective Ligands , 2013, ChemMedChem.
[3] Michael M. Mysinger,et al. Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[4] James G. Nourse,et al. Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[5] C. Murray,et al. The rise of fragment-based drug discovery. , 2009, Nature chemistry.
[6] Rob Leurs,et al. Fragment based design of new H4 receptor-ligands with anti-inflammatory properties in vivo. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[7] R. Thurmond,et al. Histamine H4 receptor antagonism diminishes existing airway inflammation and dysfunction via modulation of Th2 cytokines , 2010, Respiratory research.
[8] J. Irwin,et al. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[9] Sereina Riniker,et al. Heterogeneous Classifier Fusion for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Or, How Decision Making by Committee Can Be a Good Thing , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[10] I. D. de Esch,et al. En route to new blockbuster anti-histamines: surveying the offspring of the expanding histamine receptor family. , 2011, Trends in pharmacological sciences.
[11] J. Bajorath,et al. Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fingerprints: true potential, black magic, or a hopeless endeavor? Guidelines for virtual screening. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[12] Jill M. Wetter,et al. H4 receptor antagonism exhibits anti-nociceptive effects in inflammatory and neuropathic pain models in rats , 2010, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.
[13] Wendy A. Warr,et al. Fragment-based drug discovery , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[14] I. D. de Esch,et al. Design, Synthesis, and Structure–Activity Relationships of Highly Potent 5-HT3 Receptor Ligands , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[15] John Bradshaw,et al. Similarity Searching Using Reduced Graphs , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[16] M. Congreve,et al. Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[17] Holger Claussen,et al. Searching Fragment Spaces with Feature Trees , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[18] Rob Leurs,et al. Transforming fragments into candidates: small becomes big in medicinal chemistry. , 2009, Drug discovery today.
[19] Márton Vass,et al. Virtual fragment screening on GPCRs: a case study on dopamine D3 and histamine H4 receptors. , 2014, European journal of medicinal chemistry.
[20] T. O'Brien,et al. Fragment-based drug discovery. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[21] Jürgen Bajorath,et al. Growth of Ligand-Target Interaction Data in ChEMBL Is Associated with Increasing and Activity Measurement-Dependent Compound Promiscuity , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[22] Jens Meiler,et al. Benchmarking Ligand-Based Virtual High-Throughput Screening with the PubChem Database , 2013, Molecules.
[23] Christoph A. Sotriffer,et al. Applications and Success Stories in Virtual Screening , 2011 .
[24] Andreas Bender,et al. How Diverse Are Diversity Assessment Methods? A Comparative Analysis and Benchmarking of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[25] Andreas Bender,et al. Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[26] Bernd Wellenzohn,et al. Ligand‐Based Virtual Screening , 2011 .
[27] Erwin W. Gelfand,et al. The role of histamine H1 and H4 receptors in allergic inflammation: the search for new antihistamines , 2008, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.
[28] Pekka Tiikkainen,et al. Critical Comparison of Virtual Screening Methods against the MUV Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[29] R. Solé,et al. Data completeness—the Achilles heel of drug-target networks , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.
[30] N. Blomberg,et al. An integrated approach to fragment-based lead generation: philosophy, strategy and case studies from AstraZeneca's drug discovery programmes. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.
[31] John P. Overington,et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..
[32] Stefano Costanzi,et al. On the applicability of GPCR homology models to computer-aided drug discovery: a comparison between in silico and crystal structures of the beta2-adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[33] Jean-Louis Reymond,et al. Virtual Exploration of the Chemical Universe up to 11 Atoms of C, N, O, F: Assembly of 26.4 Million Structures (110.9 Million Stereoisomers) and Analysis for New Ring Systems, Stereochemistry, Physicochemical Properties, Compound Classes, and Drug Discovery , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[34] Anthony Nicholls,et al. What do we know and when do we know it? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[35] Tudor I. Oprea,et al. Cross-pharmacology analysis of G protein-coupled receptors. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.
[36] Thierry Langer,et al. Fast and Efficient in Silico 3D Screening: Toward Maximum Computational Efficiency of Pharmacophore-Based and Shape-Based Approaches , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[37] Jürgen Bajorath,et al. Introduction of Target Cliffs as a Concept To Identify and Describe Complex Molecular Selectivity Patterns , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[38] Ajay N. Jain,et al. Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[39] 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..
[40] F. Simons. Advances in H1-antihistamines. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.
[41] Robert Kiss,et al. Discovery of Novel Histamine H4 and Serotonin Transporter Ligands Using the Topological Feature Tree Descriptor , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[42] 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..
[43] Saskia Nijmeijer,et al. Structure-based virtual screening for fragment-like ligands of the G protein-coupled histamine H4 receptor , 2015 .
[44] H J Wiggers,et al. Integration of Ligand‐ and Target‐Based Virtual Screening for the Discovery of Cruzain Inhibitors , 2011, Molecular informatics.
[45] Gisbert Schneider,et al. Scaffold‐Hopping: How Far Can You Jump? , 2006 .
[46] P. Desai,et al. Histamine H4 receptor antagonists are superior to traditional antihistamines in the attenuation of experimental pruritus. , 2007, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.
[47] Jaap Heringa,et al. Electron Density Fingerprints (EDprints): Virtual Screening Using Assembled Information of Electron Density , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[48] Miklos Feher,et al. The Use of Consensus Scoring in Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[49] Naomie Salim,et al. Analysis and Display of the Size Dependence of Chemical Similarity Coefficients , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[50] Christoph Helma,et al. Classification of cytochrome p(450) activities using machine learning methods. , 2009, Molecular pharmaceutics.
[51] Saskia Nijmeijer,et al. Small and colorful stones make beautiful mosaics: fragment-based chemogenomics. , 2013, Drug Discovery Today.
[52] 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..
[53] Paolo Massimo Buscema,et al. Similarity Coefficients for Binary Chemoinformatics Data: Overview and Extended Comparison Using Simulated and Real Data Sets , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[54] D. Rognan,et al. Selective structure-based virtual screening for full and partial agonists of the beta2 adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[55] Stephen H Muggleton,et al. Assessment of a rule-based virtual screening technology (INDDEx) on a benchmark data set. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.
[56] 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.
[57] Guixia Liu,et al. Performance Evaluation of 2D Fingerprint and 3D Shape Similarity Methods in Virtual Screening , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[58] A. J. Thompson,et al. The 5-HT3 receptor as a therapeutic target , 2007, Expert opinion on therapeutic targets.
[59] B. Shoichet,et al. Molecular docking and ligand specificity in fragment-based inhibitor discovery. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.
[60] Thomas Gärtner,et al. Support-Vector-Machine-Based Ranking Significantly Improves the Effectiveness of Similarity Searching Using 2D Fingerprints and Multiple Reference Compounds , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[61] Darren R. Flower,et al. On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[62] Andreas Bender,et al. How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[63] Christopher W Murray,et al. Experiences in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2012, Trends in pharmacological sciences.
[64] R. Smits,et al. Discovery of quinazolines as histamine H4 receptor inverse agonists using a scaffold hopping approach. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[65] Jürgen Bajorath,et al. Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. , 2007, Drug discovery today.
[66] Edgar Jacoby,et al. Library design for fragment based screening. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.
[67] Y. Martin,et al. Beyond QSAR: Lead Hopping to Different Structures , 2009 .
[68] Jérôme Hert,et al. Comparison of Fingerprint-Based Methods for Virtual Screening Using Multiple Bioactive Reference Structures , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[69] I. D. de Esch,et al. Antiinflammatory and antinociceptive effects of the selective histamine H4-receptor antagonists JNJ7777120 and VUF6002 in a rat model of carrageenan-induced acute inflammation. , 2007, European journal of pharmacology.
[70] Brian K. Shoichet,et al. Increasing Chemical Space Coverage by Combining Empirical and Computational Fragment Screens , 2014, ACS chemical biology.
[71] R. Smits,et al. Fragment library screening reveals remarkable similarities between the G protein-coupled receptor histamine H4 and the ion channel serotonin 5-HT3A , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.
[72] P. Hawkins,et al. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[73] 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..
[74] H. Stark,et al. Histamine H4 receptor antagonism reduces hapten‐induced scratching behaviour but not inflammation , 2009, Experimental dermatology.
[75] Thomas Sander,et al. Comparison of Ligand- and Structure-Based Virtual Screening on the DUD Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[76] R. Smits,et al. Ligand based design of novel histamine H₄ receptor antagonists; fragment optimization and analysis of binding kinetics. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.
[77] R. North,et al. 5-HT3 receptors are membrane ion channels , 1989, Nature.
[78] G. Bemis,et al. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[79] Jin Zhang,et al. Toward a Benchmarking Data Set Able to Evaluate Ligand- and Structure-based Virtual Screening Using Public HTS Data , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[80] M. Aapro. 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists , 1991, Drugs.
[81] Martin J. Scanlon,et al. Design and Evaluation of the Performance of an NMR Screening Fragment Library , 2013 .
[82] R. Leurs,et al. A structural chemogenomics analysis of aminergic GPCRs: lessons for histamine receptor ligand design , 2013, British journal of pharmacology.
[83] R. Stevens,et al. Crystal structure-based virtual screening for fragment-like ligands of the human histamine H(1) receptor. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[84] Woody Sherman,et al. Boosting Virtual Screening Enrichments with Data Fusion: Coalescing Hits from Two-Dimensional Fingerprints, Shape, and Docking , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[85] David Rogers,et al. Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[86] Yvonne C. Martin,et al. Application of Belief Theory to Similarity Data Fusion for Use in Analog Searching and Lead Hopping , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[87] Pierre Acklin,et al. Similarity Metrics for Ligands Reflecting the Similarity of the Target Proteins , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[88] Saskia Nijmeijer,et al. Virtual Fragment Screening: Discovery of Histamine H3 Receptor Ligands Using Ligand-Based and Protein-Based Molecular Fingerprints , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[89] Peter Willett,et al. Analysis of Data Fusion Methods in Virtual Screening: Similarity and Group Fusion , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[90] P. Willett,et al. Enhancing the effectiveness of similarity-based virtual screening using nearest-neighbor information. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[91] Fredrik Svensson,et al. Virtual Screening Data Fusion Using Both Structure- and Ligand-Based Methods , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[92] G. Hessler,et al. The scaffold hopping potential of pharmacophores. , 2010, Drug discovery today. Technologies.
[93] G. Schneider,et al. Scaffold‐Hopping Potential of Ligand‐Based Similarity Concepts , 2006, ChemMedChem.
[94] Knut Baumann,et al. Impact of Benchmark Data Set Topology on the Validation of Virtual Screening Methods: Exploration and Quantification by Spatial Statistics , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[95] Lars Karlsson,et al. A Potent and Selective Histamine H4 Receptor Antagonist with Anti-Inflammatory Properties , 2004, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.
[96] Adriaan P. IJzerman,et al. Complementarity between in Silico and Biophysical Screening Approaches in Fragment-Based Lead Discovery against the A2A Adenosine Receptor , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[97] George Papadatos,et al. Evaluation of machine-learning methods for ligand-based virtual screening , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[98] Sebastian G. Rohrer,et al. Maximum Unbiased Validation (MUV) Data Sets for Virtual Screening Based on PubChem Bioactivity Data , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[99] Roderick E. Hubbard,et al. Lessons for fragment library design: analysis of output from multiple screening campaigns , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[100] Peter Willett,et al. Combination of Similarity Rankings Using Data Fusion , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[101] Andreas Bender,et al. Bayesian methods in virtual screening and chemical biology. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.
[102] G. Keserű,et al. Fragment-based lead discovery on G-protein-coupled receptors , 2013, Expert opinion on drug discovery.
[103] Woody Sherman,et al. Computational approaches for fragment-based and de novo design. , 2010, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.
[104] 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..
[105] R. Smits,et al. The emerging role of the histamine H4 receptor in anti-inflammatory therapy. , 2006, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.
[106] Andreas Bender,et al. "Virtual fragment linking": an approach to identify potent binders from low affinity fragment hits. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.
[107] G. Siegal,et al. Fragment based lead discovery of small molecule inhibitors for the EPHA4 receptor tyrosine kinase. , 2012, European journal of medicinal chemistry.
[108] Gerald M. Maggiora,et al. On Outliers and Activity Cliffs-Why QSAR Often Disappoints , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[109] Mark Johnson,et al. Using Molecular Equivalence Numbers To Visually Explore Structural Features that Distinguish Chemical Libraries , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..
[110] Frank M. Boeckler,et al. DEKOIS: Demanding Evaluation Kits for Objective in Silico Screening - A Versatile Tool for Benchmarking Docking Programs and Scoring Functions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..
[111] Tudor I. Oprea,et al. Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..
[112] 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.
[113] Mathias Wawer,et al. Navigating structure-activity landscapes. , 2009, Drug discovery today.
[114] Peter Willett,et al. Combination Rules for Group Fusion in Similarity‐Based Virtual Screening , 2010, Molecular informatics.