Selection of Molecules Based on Shape and Electrostatic Similarity: Proof of Concept of "Electroforms"

Molecular shape and electrostatic distribution play a crucial role in enzyme and receptor recognition and contribute extensively to binding affinity. Molecular similarity and bioisosterism are much-discussed topics in medicinal chemistry. Many molecular representations and similarity metrics are available to help drug discovery, and activities such as compound hit explosion and library design can be undertaken using them. The quality of the resulting compound series is highly dependent upon the molecular representation and similarity metric used. We have used a range of software to investigate whether molecules can be represented and compared effectively using measures of three-dimensional shape and electrostatic distribution ("electroforms"). We find that these descriptors allow for the assessment of molecular similarities using standard molecular visualization tools and offer a method for comparing molecules that may be considered superior to other methods.

[1]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Virtual screening in lead discovery and optimization. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[2]  P. Olesen,et al.  The use of bioisosteric groups in lead optimization. , 2001, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[3]  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..

[4]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Reproducing the conformations of protein-bound ligands: A critical evaluation of several popular conformational searching tools , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[6]  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.

[7]  R. Highton,et al.  Molecular phylogeny of plethodonine salamanders and hylid frogs: statistical analysis of protein comparisons. , 1991, Molecular biology and evolution.

[8]  Mark S. Gordon,et al.  Chapter 41 – Advances in electronic structure theory: GAMESS a decade later , 2005 .

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

[10]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  New methodologies for ligand-based virtual screening. , 2005, Current pharmaceutical design.

[11]  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..

[12]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Anatomy of Fingerprint Search Calculations on Structurally Diverse Sets of Active Compounds , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Araz Jakalian,et al.  Fast, efficient generation of high‐quality atomic charges. AM1‐BCC model: I. Method , 2000 .

[14]  J. Andrew Grant,et al.  Molecular shape and electrostatics in the encoding of relevant chemical information , 2005, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[15]  Markus Wagener,et al.  The Quest for Bioisosteric Replacements , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Mark S. Gordon,et al.  General atomic and molecular electronic structure system , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[17]  Stefan Schmitt,et al.  Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion? , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[19]  Anthony Nichollsa,et al.  Variable selection and model validation of 2 D and 3 D molecular descriptors , 2022 .