Literature DB >> 20527883

Comparative evaluation of 3D virtual ligand screening methods: impact of the molecular alignment on enrichment.

David Giganti1, Hélène Guillemain, Jean-Louis Spadoni, Michael Nilges, Jean-François Zagury, Matthieu Montes.   

Abstract

In the early stage of drug discovery programs, when the structure of a complex involving a target and a small molecule is available, structure-based virtual ligand screening methods are generally preferred. However, ligand-based strategies like shape-similarity search methods can also be applied. Shape-similarity search methods consist in exploring a pseudo-binding-site derived from the known small molecule used as a reference. Several of these methods use conformational sampling algorithms which are also shared by corresponding docking methods: for example Surflex-dock/Surflex-sim, FlexX/FlexS, ICM, and OMEGA-FRED/OMEGA-ROCS. Using 11 systems issued from the challenging "own" subsets of the Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD-own), we evaluated and compared the performance of the above-cited programs in terms of molecular alignment accuracy, enrichment in active compounds, and enrichment in different chemotypes (scaffold-hopping). Since molecular alignment is a crucial aspect of performance for the different methods, we have assessed its impact on enrichment. We have also illustrated the paradox of retrieving active compounds with good scores even if they are inaccurately positioned. Finally, we have highlighted possible positive aspects of using shape-based approaches in drug-discovery protocols when the structure of the target in complex with a small molecule is known.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20527883     DOI: 10.1021/ci900507g

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  20 in total

1.  Re-engineering aryl methylcarbamates to confer high selectivity for inhibition of Anopheles gambiae versus human acetylcholinesterase.

Authors:  Joshua A Hartsel; Dawn M Wong; James M Mutunga; Ming Ma; Troy D Anderson; Ania Wysinski; Rafique Islam; Eric A Wong; Sally L Paulson; Jianyong Li; Polo C H Lam; Maxim M Totrov; Jeffrey R Bloomquist; Paul R Carlier
Journal:  Bioorg Med Chem Lett       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Avalanche for shape and feature-based virtual screening with 3D alignment.

Authors:  David J Diller; Nancy D Connell; William J Welsh
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-10-12       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Isolation and chemopreventive evaluation of novel naphthoquinone compounds from Alkanna tinctoria.

Authors:  Nguyen Huu Tung; Guang-Jian Du; Chun-Su Yuan; Yukihiro Shoyama; Chong-Zhi Wang
Journal:  Anticancer Drugs       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.248

4.  Crystal structures of Mycobacterial MeaB and MMAA-like GTPases.

Authors:  Thomas E Edwards; Loren Baugh; Jameson Bullen; Ruth O Baydo; Pam Witte; Kaitlin Thompkins; Isabelle Q H Phan; Jan Abendroth; Matthew C Clifton; Banumathi Sankaran; Wesley C Van Voorhis; Peter J Myler; Bart L Staker; Christoph Grundner; Donald D Lorimer
Journal:  J Struct Funct Genomics       Date:  2015-04-02

5.  Hybrid receptor structure/ligand-based docking and activity prediction in ICM: development and evaluation in D3R Grand Challenge 3.

Authors:  Polo C-H Lam; Ruben Abagyan; Maxim Totrov
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Ginsenoside compound K, not Rb1, possesses potential chemopreventive activities in human colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Chong-Zhi Wang; Guang-Jian Du; Zhiyu Zhang; Xiao-Dong Wen; Tyler Calway; Zhong Zhen; Mark W Musch; Marc Bissonnette; Eugene B Chang; Chun-Su Yuan
Journal:  Int J Oncol       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 5.650

7.  mRAISE: an alternative algorithmic approach to ligand-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Mathias M von Behren; Stefan Bietz; Eva Nittinger; Matthias Rarey
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Docking to multiple pockets or ligand fields for screening, activity prediction and scaffold hopping.

Authors:  Yu-Chen Chen; Max Totrov; Ruben Abagyan
Journal:  Future Med Chem       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.808

9.  Macrocycle modeling in ICM: benchmarking and evaluation in D3R Grand Challenge 4.

Authors:  Polo C-H Lam; Ruben Abagyan; Maxim Totrov
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Ligand-based virtual screening approach using a new scoring function.

Authors:  Adel Hamza; Ning-Ning Wei; Chang-Guo Zhan
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 4.956

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.