Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery

The goal of screening small molecules for drug discovery is to deliver new hit compounds to medicinal chemists that can act as starting points for the development of drug candidates. Computational chemistry and molecular modeling provide tools that are commonly used to direct and increase the efficiency of laboratory screening by selecting or designing compounds to be tested (Bajorath, 2002; Jorgensen, 2004; Walters and Namchuk, 2003). This is driven by the fact that the number of compounds available for screening usually far exceeds the number that will actually go into the screen. Similar methods are then applied in the hit or lead optimization process; however, this review will mainly focus on the methodologies that are applied to computer-based, in silico, or ‘‘virtual’’ screening in the early stages of drug discovery. Theprecisedefinitionofa‘‘hit’’or‘‘lead’’moleculevaries fromoneorganization to another. At Serono, a compound from screening is regarded as a hit if it has favorable properties in thefollowingrespects: (i)potencyinabiologicalorbiochemicalassay, (ii) novelty with regard to intellectual property, (iii) selectivity for the intended target, and (iv) tractability in terms of ease of synthesis. A lead has the properties of a hit plus a

[1]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Christophe Cleva,et al.  Chemical substructures in drug discovery. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[3]  L. Tong,et al.  A highly specific inhibitor of human p38 MAP kinase binds in the ATP pocket , 1997, Nature Structural Biology.

[4]  John A. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  The estradiol pharmacophore: Ligand structure-estrogen receptor binding affinity relationships and a model for the receptor binding site , 1997, Steroids.

[5]  T. Klabunde,et al.  Structure-based drug discovery using GPCR homology modeling: successful virtual screening for antagonists of the alpha1A adrenergic receptor. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Marco Macchia,et al.  Novel estrogen receptor ligands based on an anthranylaldoxime structure: role of the phenol-type pseudocycle in the binding process. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  E. Bradley,et al.  Performance of 3D-database molecular docking studies into homology models. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  K. Luthman,et al.  Correlation of drug absorption with molecular surface properties. , 1996, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[9]  L. Toledo,et al.  The structure-based design of ATP-site directed protein kinase inhibitors. , 1999, Current medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Singh,et al.  Quantitative structure-property relationships in pharmaceutical research - Part 1. , 2000, Pharmaceutical science & technology today.

[11]  G. Klopman Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies. Computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules , 1985 .

[12]  D. E. Clark,et al.  Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 2. Prediction of blood-brain barrier penetration. , 1999, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[13]  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.

[14]  Sergei V. Trepalin,et al.  New Diversity Calculations Algorithms Used for Compound Selection , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[15]  John D. Walker,et al.  Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict health effects of chemical substances. , 2003, Environmental health perspectives.

[16]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[17]  P. Selzer,et al.  Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  S Stanley Young,et al.  Design of diversity and focused combinatorial libraries in drug discovery. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[19]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Lessons in molecular recognition: the effects of ligand and protein flexibility on molecular docking accuracy. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Gerard J Kleywegt,et al.  Application and limitations of X-ray crystallographic data in structure-based ligand and drug design. , 2003, Angewandte Chemie.

[21]  Pravin Chaturvedi,et al.  Design principles for orally bioavailable drugs , 1996 .

[22]  W. Pardridge Transport of small molecules through the blood-brain barrier: biology and methodology. , 1995, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[23]  R. Huber,et al.  Phosphotransferase and substrate binding mechanism of the cAMP‐dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit from porcine heart as deduced from the 2.0 A structure of the complex with Mn2+ adenylyl imidodiphosphate and inhibitor peptide PKI(5‐24). , 1993, The EMBO journal.

[24]  Paul Watson,et al.  Virtual Screening Using Protein-Ligand Docking: Avoiding Artificial Enrichment , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  A. Ortiz,et al.  Evaluation of docking functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  G M Pearl,et al.  Integration of computational analysis as a sentinel tool in toxicological assessments. , 2001, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Fingerprint Scaling Increases the Probability of Identifying Molecules with Similar Activity in Virtual Screening Calculations , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[28]  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.

[29]  Robin Taylor,et al.  Simulation Analysis of Experimental Design Strategies for Screening Random Compounds as Potential New Drugs and Agrochemicals , 1995, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[30]  S. Venkatesh,et al.  Role of the development scientist in compound lead selection and optimization. , 2000, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[31]  Todd J. A. Ewing,et al.  DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[32]  V. Ananthanarayanan,et al.  Homology model of dihydropyridine receptor: implications for L-type Ca(2+) channel modulation by agonists and antagonists. , 2001, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[33]  Malcolm J. McGregor,et al.  Pharmacophore Fingerprinting. 1. Application to QSAR and Focused Library Design , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[34]  Lemont B. Kier,et al.  Differential Molecular Connectivity in Data-Base Fragment Searching , 2004, Pharmaceutical Research.

[35]  G. Klebe,et al.  Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. , 2000, Journal of molecular biology.

[36]  P. Jurs,et al.  Computer-assisted structure-activity studies of chemical carcinogens. Aromatic amines. , 1981, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  George W. A. Milne,et al.  An Interactive Substructure Search System , 1977, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[38]  G. Müller,et al.  Medicinal chemistry of target family-directed masterkeys. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[39]  T. Langer,et al.  Pharmacophore definition and 3D searches. , 2004, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[40]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Protein flexibility in ligand docking and virtual screening to protein kinases. , 2004, Journal of molecular biology.

[41]  Yi Li,et al.  Analysis and optimization of structure-based virtual screening protocols. 2. Examination of docked ligand orientation sampling methodology: mapping a pharmacophore for success. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[42]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[43]  R Abagyan,et al.  Soft docking an L and a D peptide to an anticholera toxin antibody using internal coordinate mechanics. , 1999, Structure.

[44]  Andrew Smellie,et al.  Identification of Common Functional Configurations Among Molecules , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[45]  S. Ekins In silico approaches to predicting drug metabolism, toxicology and beyond. , 2003, Biochemical Society transactions.

[46]  James F Blake,et al.  Integrating cheminformatic analysis in combinatorial chemistry. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[47]  Robert P Bywater,et al.  Recognition of privileged structures by G-protein coupled receptors. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[49]  Louis Hodes,et al.  Selection of molecular fragment features for structure-activity studies in antitumor screening , 1981, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[50]  Malcolm J. McGregor,et al.  Pharmacophore Fingerprinting. 2. Application to Primary Library Design , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[51]  G. Rishton Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[52]  David Weininger,et al.  Stigmata: An Algorithm To Determine Structural Commonalities in Diverse Datasets , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[53]  Xin Chen,et al.  Recursive Partitioning Analysis of a Large Structure-Activity Data Set Using Three-Dimensional Descriptors1 , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[54]  J. Wendoloski,et al.  Identification of compounds with nanomolar binding affinity for checkpoint kinase-1 using knowledge-based virtual screening. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[55]  Daniel Domine,et al.  Fragment analysis in small molecule discovery. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[56]  P. Sprague Automated chemical hypothesis generation and database searching with Catalyst , 1995 .

[57]  P. Charifson,et al.  Conformational analysis of drug-like molecules bound to proteins: an extensive study of ligand reorganization upon binding. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[58]  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.

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

[60]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998 .

[61]  P. N. Craig,et al.  Carcinogenesis: a predictive structure-activity model. , 1982, Journal of toxicology and environmental health.

[62]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[64]  H. Kubinyi Drug research: myths, hype and reality , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[65]  A. Good,et al.  3-D pharmacophores in drug discovery. , 2001, Current pharmaceutical design.

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

[67]  D. Diller,et al.  Kinases, homology models, and high throughput docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[68]  Maria Kontoyianni,et al.  Evaluation of docking performance: comparative data on docking algorithms. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[69]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[70]  Stephen R. Heller,et al.  An Application of Interactive Graphics - The Nested Retrieval of Chemical Structures. , 1972 .

[71]  Nick A. Farmer,et al.  An Interactive Computer Graphics System for Processing Chemical Structure Diagrams , 1977, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[72]  I. Muegge,et al.  Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[73]  Grover,et al.  Quantitative structure-property relationships in pharmaceutical research - Part 2. , 2000, Pharmaceutical science & technology today.

[74]  D. E. Clark Rapid calculation of polar molecular surface area and its application to the prediction of transport phenomena. 1. Prediction of intestinal absorption. , 1999, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[75]  Steven L. Teig,et al.  Chemical Function Queries for 3D Database Search , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[76]  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..

[77]  W. L. Jorgensen The Many Roles of Computation in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

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

[79]  R Langridge,et al.  A quantitative structure-activity relationship and molecular graphics analysis of hydrophobic effects in the interactions of inhibitors with alcohol dehydrogenase. , 1986, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[81]  D R Henry,et al.  Structure-antitumor activity relationships of 9-anilinoacridines using pattern recognition. , 1982, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[82]  P Willett,et al.  Chemoinformatics - similarity and diversity in chemical libraries. , 2000, Current opinion in biotechnology.

[83]  Bruce R. Kowalski,et al.  A Flexible Interactive Graphics System for Searching Atom Connectivity Matrices , 1976, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[85]  Lemont B. Kier,et al.  An Electrotopological-State Index for Atoms in Molecules , 1990, Pharmaceutical Research.

[86]  W. Patrick Walters,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[87]  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, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[88]  R. Geoff Dromey A Structural Molecular Formula for Flexible and Efficient Substructure Searching of Large Databases , 1978, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[90]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[91]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Protein‐based virtual screening of chemical databases. II. Are homology models of g‐protein coupled receptors suitable targets? , 2002, Proteins.

[92]  D. Hawkins,et al.  Analysis of a Large Structure‐Activity Data Set Using Recursive Partitioning , 1997 .

[93]  Y. Martin,et al.  A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[95]  Malcolm J. McGregor,et al.  Clustering of Large Databases of Compounds: Using the MDL "Keys" as Structural Descriptors , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[96]  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.

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

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

[99]  S. Kim,et al.  "Soft docking": matching of molecular surface cubes. , 1991, Journal of molecular biology.

[100]  Roberto Todeschini,et al.  Handbook of Molecular Descriptors , 2002 .

[101]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Soft protein–protein docking in internal coordinates , 2002, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[102]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance , 2004, Proteins.

[103]  I. Wilson,et al.  Virtual screening of human 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleotide transformylase against the NCI diversity set by use of AutoDock to identify novel nonfolate inhibitors. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[104]  Stephen K. Durham,et al.  Predicting the Genotoxicity of Secondary and Aromatic Amines Using Data Subsetting To Generate a Model Ensemble , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[105]  J M Blaney,et al.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. , 1982, Journal of molecular biology.

[106]  Stephen D. Pickett,et al.  Diversity Profiling and Design Using 3D Pharmacophores: Pharmacophore-Derived Queries (PDQ) , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[107]  Wolfgang H. B. Sauer,et al.  Molecular Shape Diversity of Combinatorial Libraries: A Prerequisite for Broad Bioactivity , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[108]  P Willett,et al.  Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[109]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[110]  Wolfgang H. B. Sauer,et al.  Size doesn't matter: Scaffold diversity shape diversity, and biological activity of combinatorial libraries , 2003 .

[111]  P. Hajduk,et al.  Privileged molecules for protein binding identified from NMR-based screening. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[112]  Man-Ling Lee,et al.  DISE: Directed Sphere Exclusion , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[113]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[115]  T. Kennedy Managing the drug discovery/development interface , 1997 .

[116]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Profile Scaling Increases the Similarity Search Performance of Molecular Fingerprints Containing Numerical Descriptors and Structural Keys , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[117]  F. Jørgensen,et al.  A new concept for multidimensional selection of ligand conformations (MultiSelect) and multidimensional scoring (MultiScore) of protein-ligand binding affinities. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[118]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Similarity Search Profiling Reveals Effects of Fingerprint Scaling in Virtual Screening , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[119]  G. Rishton Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS , 1997 .

[120]  Zhan Deng,et al.  Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[121]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

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

[123]  Z. Deng,et al.  Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[124]  E. Jaeger,et al.  Comparison of automated docking programs as virtual screening tools. , 2005, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.