Literature DB >> 31435894

Evaluation of different virtual screening strategies on the basis of compound sets with characteristic core distributions and dissimilarity relationships.

Tomoyuki Miyao1, Swarit Jasial2, Jürgen Bajorath2, Kimito Funatsu3,4.   

Abstract

In this work, computational compound screening strategies on the basis of two- and three-dimensional (2D and 3D) molecular representations were investigated including similarity searching and support vector machine (SVM) ranking. Calculations based on topological fingerprints and molecular shape queries and features were compared. A unique aspect of the analysis setting apart from previous comparisons of 2D and 3D virtual screening approaches has been the design of compound reference, training, and test data sets with controlled incremental increases in intra-set structural diversity and different categories of structural relationships between reference/training and test sets. The use of these data sets made it possible to assess the relative performance of 2D and 3D screening strategies under increasingly challenging conditions ultimately leading to the use of training and test sets with essentially unrelated structures. The results showed that 3D similarity searching had little advantage over 2D searching in identifying active compounds with remote structural relationships. However, 3D SVM models trained on the basis of shape features were superior to other approaches (including 2D SVM) when the detection of structure-activity relationships became increasingly challenging. Such 3D SVM methods has thus far only been little investigated in virtual screening, proving a wealth of opportunities for further analyses.

Keywords:  2D vs. 3D methods; Bioactive compounds; Chemoinformatics; Compound diversity distributions; Data set design; Machine learning; Similarity searching; Virtual screening

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31435894     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-019-00218-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  23 in total

1.  Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins.

Authors:  R D Cramer; D E Patterson; J D Bunce
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  1988-08-01       Impact factor: 15.419

2.  LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters.

Authors:  Gerhard Wolber; Thierry Langer
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2005 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Graph kernels for chemical informatics.

Authors:  Liva Ralaivola; Sanjay J Swamidass; Hiroto Saigo; Pierre Baldi
Journal:  Neural Netw       Date:  2005-09-12

4.  Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools.

Authors:  Paul C D Hawkins; A Geoffrey Skillman; Anthony Nicholls
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 5.  Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches.

Authors:  Hanna Eckert; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2007-02-07       Impact factor: 7.851

6.  Exploring ensembles of bioactive or virtual analogs of X-ray ligands for shape similarity searching.

Authors:  Tomoyuki Miyao; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-07-02       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Three-Dimensional Biologically Relevant Spectrum (BRS-3D): Shape Similarity Profile Based on PDB Ligands as Molecular Descriptors.

Authors:  Ben Hu; Zheng-Kun Kuang; Shi-Yu Feng; Dong Wang; Song-Bing He; De-Xin Kong
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2016-11-17       Impact factor: 4.411

8.  Systematic Extraction of Analogue Series from Large Compound Collections Using a New Computational Compound-Core Relationship Method.

Authors:  J Jesús Naveja; Martin Vogt; Dagmar Stumpfe; José L Medina-Franco; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2019-01-14

9.  ZINC: a free tool to discover chemistry for biology.

Authors:  John J Irwin; Teague Sterling; Michael M Mysinger; Erin S Bolstad; Ryan G Coleman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-06-15       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update.

Authors:  A Patrícia Bento; Anna Gaulton; Anne Hersey; Louisa J Bellis; Jon Chambers; Mark Davies; Felix A Krüger; Yvonne Light; Lora Mak; Shaun McGlinchey; Michal Nowotka; George Papadatos; Rita Santos; John P Overington
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 16.971

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.