Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: Insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods

被引:378
作者
Duan, Jianxin [1 ]
Dixon, Steven L. [2 ]
Lowrie, Jeffrey F. [2 ]
Sherman, Woody [2 ]
机构
[1] Schrodinger GmbH, D-68161 Mannheim, Germany
[2] Schrodinger Inc, New York, NY 10036 USA
关键词
2D fingerprint; Similarity searching; Enrichment; Scaffold hopping; Ligand-based virtual screening; Virtual screening; STRUCTURAL DESCRIPTORS; MOLECULAR DESCRIPTOR; CHEMICAL-STRUCTURES; FEATURE-SELECTION; SIMILARITY; DOCKING; SHAPE; CONSTRUCTION; GENERATION; ALGORITHM;
D O I
10.1016/j.jmgm.2010.05.008
中图分类号
Q5 [生物化学];
学科分类号
070307 [化学生物学];
摘要
Virtual screening is a widely used strategy in modern drug discovery and 20 fingerprint similarity is an important tool that has been successfully applied to retrieve active compounds from large datasets. However, it is not always straightforward to select an appropriate fingerprint method and associated settings for a given problem. Here, we applied eight different fingerprint methods, as implemented in the new cheminformatics package Canvas, on a well-validated dataset covering five targets. The fingerprint methods include Linear, Dendritic, Radial, MACCS, MOLPRINT2D, Pairwise, Triplet, and Torsion. We find that most fingerprints have similar retrieval rates on average; however, each has special characteristics that distinguish its performance on different query molecules and ligand sets. For example, some fingerprints exhibit a significant ligand size dependency whereas others are more robust with respect to variations in the query or active compounds. In cases where little information is known about the active ligands, MOLPRINT2D fingerprints produce the highest average retrieval actives. When multiple queries are available, we find that a fingerprint averaged over all query molecules is generally superior to fingerprints derived from single queries. Finally, a complementarity metric is proposed to determine which fingerprint methods can be combined to improve screening results. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:157 / 170
页数:14
相关论文
共 70 条
[1]
Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? [J].
Ajay ;
Walters, WP ;
Murcko, MA .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 1998, 41 (18) :3314-3324
[2]
[Anonymous], 1984, MACCS 2
[3]
[Anonymous], 2009, ROCS VERS 3 0
[4]
The use of consensus scoring in ligand-based virtual screening [J].
Baber, JC ;
William, AS ;
Gao, YH ;
Feher, M .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2006, 46 (01) :277-288
[5]
Ballester PJ, 2007, J COMPUT CHEM, V28, P1711, DOI [10.1002/jcc.20681, 10.1002/JCC.20681]
[6]
Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): Evaluation of performance [J].
Bender, A ;
Mussa, HY ;
Glen, RC ;
Reiling, S .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 2004, 44 (05) :1708-1718
[7]
Molecular similarity searching using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naive Bayesian classifier [J].
Bender, A ;
Mussa, HY ;
Glen, RC ;
Reiling, S .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND COMPUTER SCIENCES, 2004, 44 (01) :170-178
[8]
How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space [J].
Bender, Andreas ;
Jenkins, Jeremy L. ;
Scheiber, Josef ;
Sukuru, Sai Chelan K. ;
Glick, Meir ;
Davies, John W. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2009, 49 (01) :108-119
[9]
Bohm H.J., 2000, VIRTUAL SCREENING BI
[10]
Molecular similarity based on DOCK-generated fingerprints [J].
Briem, H ;
Kuntz, ID .
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 1996, 39 (17) :3401-3408