The scaffold hopping potential of pharmacophores

Leach, 2010, Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery, J. Med. Chem., 53, 539, 10.1021/jm900817u Wolber, 2008, Molecule–pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design, Drug Discov. Today, 13, 23, 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.09.007 Martin, 2007, Pharmacophore Modelling: 1 – Methods, 119 Mauser, 2008, Recent developments in de novo design and scaffold hopping, Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev., 11, 365 Böhm, 2004, Scaffold hopping, Drug Discov. Today: Technol., 1, 217, 10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.10.009 Schneider, 2006, Scaffold-hopping: How far can you jump?, QSAR Comb. Sci., 25, 1162, 10.1002/qsar.200610091 Langdon, 2010, Bioisosteric replacement and scaffold hopping in lead generation and optimization, Mol. Inf., 29, 366, 10.1002/minf.201000019 Lauri, 1994, CAVEAT: a program to facilitate the design of organic molecules, J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des., 8, 51, 10.1007/BF00124349 Maass, 2007, Recore: a fast and versatile method for scaffold hopping based on small molecule crystal structure conformations, J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47, 390, 10.1021/ci060094h Jakobi, 2008, ParaFrag – an approach for surface-based similarity comparison of molecular fragments, J. Mol. Model., 14, 547, 10.1007/s00894-008-0302-3 Bergmann, 2007, SHOP: Scaffold HOPping by GRID-based similarity searches, J. Med. Chem., 50, 2708, 10.1021/jm061259g Goodford, 1985, A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules, J. Med. Chem., 28, 849, 10.1021/jm00145a002 Lewell, 1998, RECAP-retrosynthetic combinatorial and analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful application in combinatorial chemistry, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 38, 511, 10.1021/ci970429i Brown, 2006, On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry, Mini-Rev. Med. Chem., 6, 1217, 10.2174/138955706778742768 Fechner, 2003, Comparison of correlation vector methods for ligand-based similarity searching, J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des., 17, 687, 10.1023/B:JCAM.0000017375.61558.ad Renner, 2006, Alignment-free pharmacophore patterns – a correlation-vector approach, 49 Franke, 2007, Identification of natural-product-derived inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase activity by ligand-based virtual screening, J. Med. Chem., 50, 2640, 10.1021/jm060655w Rarey, 1998, Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching, J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des., 12, 471, 10.1023/A:1008068904628 Good, 2004, Measuring CAMD technique performance: a virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments, J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des., 18, 529, 10.1007/s10822-004-4067-1 Baroni, 2007, A common reference framework for analyzing/comparing proteins and ligands. Fingerprints for ligands and proteins (FLAP): theory and application, J. Chem. Inf. Model., 47, 279, 10.1021/ci600253e Carosati, 2007, Virtual screening for novel openers of pancreatic KATP channels, J. Med. Chem., 50, 2117, 10.1021/jm061440p Whittle, 2006, Analysis of data fusion methods in virtual screening: similarity and group fusion, J. Chem. Inf. Model., 46, 2206, 10.1021/ci0496144 Muchmore, 2008, Application of belief theory to similarity data fusion for use in analog searching and lead hopping, J. Chem. Inf. Model., 48, 941, 10.1021/ci7004498 Martin, 2009, Beyond QSAR: lead hopping to different structures, QSAR Comb. Sci., 28, 797, 10.1002/qsar.200810176 Hessler, 2005, Multiple-ligand-based virtual screening: methods and applications of the MTree approach, J. Med. Chem., 48, 6575, 10.1021/jm050078w Rupp, 2010, From machine learning to natural product derivatives that selectively activate transcription factor PPARγ, ChemMedChem, 5, 191, 10.1002/cmdc.200900469 Ghose, 1986, Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional structure-directed quantitative structure–activity relationships. I. Partition coefficients as a measure of hydrophobicity, J. Comp. Chem., 7, 565, 10.1002/jcc.540070419 Ghose, 1987, Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional-structure-directed quantitative structure–activity relationships. 2. Modeling dispersive and hydrophobic interactions, J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci., 27, 21, 10.1021/ci00053a005 Ghose, 1988, Atomic physicochemical parameters for three dimensional structure directed quantitative structure–activity relationships III: modeling hydrophobic interactions, J. Comp. Chem., 9, 80, 10.1002/jcc.540090111 Viswanadhan, 1989, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 29, 163, 10.1021/ci00063a006 Ma, 2009, Comparative analysis of machine learning methods in ligand-based virtual screening of large compound libraries, Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen., 12, 344, 10.2174/138620709788167944 Nicholls, 2010, Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective, J. Med. Chem., 53, 3862, 10.1021/jm900818s Martin, 2007, Pharmacophore modelling: 2 – applications, 515 Kim, 2010, Pharmacophore-based virtual screening: a review of recent applications, Expert Opin. Drug Discov., 5, 205, 10.1517/17460441003592072 Boehm, 1992, The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors, J. Comput. Aid. Mol. Des., 6, 61, 10.1007/BF00124387 Wolber, 2005, LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters, J. Chem. Inf. Model., 45, 160, 10.1021/ci049885e Olla, 2009, Indolyl-pyrrolone as a new scaffold for Pim1 inhibitors, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 19, 1512, 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.01.005 Yang, 2009, Structure-based virtual screening for identification of novel 11β-HSD1 inhibitors, Eur. J. Med. Chem., 44, 1167, 10.1016/j.ejmech.2008.06.005 Sun, 2008, Pharmacophore-based virtual screening, Curr. Med. Chem., 15, 1018, 10.2174/092986708784049630 Markt, 2009, Discovery of novel CB2 receptor ligands by a pharmacophore-based virtual screening workflow, J. Med. Chem., 52, 369, 10.1021/jm801044g Bettati, 2010, Oxa-azaspiro derivatives: a novel class of triple re-uptake inhibitors, ChemMedChem, 5, 361, 10.1002/cmdc.200900482 Zhang, 2006, Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting and consensus scoring, J. Med. Chem., 49, 1536, 10.1021/jm050468i