Continuous molecular fields and the concept of molecular co-fields in structure–activity studies

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest; •• of considerable interest

References

• 1. Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J. Med. Chem. 57(12), 4977–5010 (2015).•• Comprehensive review of the latest trends in quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling.
  Google Scholar
• 2. Varnek A, Baskin I. Machine learning methods for property prediction in chemoinformatics: quo vadis? J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 52(6), 1413–1437 (2012).• Comprehensive review on the use of machine learning methods in chemoinformatics.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Ramsay JO, Silverman BW. Functional Data Analysis (2nd Edition). Springer, NY, USA (2005).
  Google Scholar
• 4. Carbo-Dorca R, Robert D, Amat L, Girones X, Besalu E. Molecular Quantum Similarity in QSAR and Drug Design. Springer, NY, USA (2000). • Foundations of the molecular quantum similarity principle.
  Google Scholar
• 5. Totrov M. Atomic property fields: generalized 3D pharmacophoric potential for automated ligand superposition, pharmacophore elucidation and 3D QSAR. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 71(1), 15–27 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 6. Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110(18), 5959–5967 (1988).•• The most significant article that laid the foundation for a whole scientific field – 3D-QSAR. Description of the classical CoMFA method in 3D-QSAR analysis.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 7. Mannhold R, Kubinyi H, Folkers G et al. Molecular Interaction Fields; Application to Drug Discovery and ADME Prediction. Cruciani G. (Ed.). Wiley-VCH, Weinheim,Germany (2006).
  Google Scholar
• 8. Güssregen S, Matter H, Hessler G, Lionta E, Heil J, Kast SM. Thermodynamic characterization of hydration sites from integral equation-derived free energy densities: application to protein binding sites and ligand series. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 57(7), 1652–1666 (2017).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Martin YC. 3D QSAR: current state, scope, and limitations In: 3D QSAR in Drug Design – Recent Advances, Martin YCKubinyi HFolkers G (Eds). Kluwer Academic Publishers, NY, USA, 3–23 (1998).
  Google Scholar
• 10. Akamatsu M. Current state and perspectives of 3D-QSAR. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2(12), 1381–1394 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11. Verma J, Khedkar VM, Coutinho EC. 3D-QSAR in drug design – a review. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 10(1), 95–115 (2010).• The latest important review concerning the use of 3D-QSAR in drug discovery.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12. Fradera X, Amat L, Besalu E, Carbo-Dorca R. Application of molecular quantum similarity to QSAR. Quant. Struct.–Act. Rel. 16(1), 25–32 (1997).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13. Carbó R, Leyda L, Arnau M. How similar is a molecule to another? An electron density measure of similarity between two molecular structures. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 17(6), 1185–1189 (1980).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 14. Kearsley SK, Smith GM. An alternative method for the alignment of molecular structures: maximizing electrostatic and steric overlap. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 3(6), 615–633 (1990).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Cheeseright T, MacKey M, Rose S, Vinter A. Molecular field extrema as descriptors of biological activity: definition and validation. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 46(2), 665–676 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16. Rush TS, Grant JA, Mosyak L, Nicholls A. A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein−protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 48(5), 1489–1495 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. Zhokhova NI, Baskin II, Bakhronov DK, Palyulin VA, Zefirov NS. Method of continuous molecular fields in the search for quantitative structure–activity relationships. Dokl. Chem. 429(1), 273–276 (2009).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 18. Baskin II, Zhokhova NI. The continuous molecular fields approach to building 3D-QSAR models. J. Comput.–Aided Mol. Des. 27(5), 427–442 (2013).•• The most important article containing detailed description of the continuous molecular fields approach.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 19. Baskin II, Zhokhova NI. Continuous molecular fields approach applied to structure–activity modeling. In: Application of Computational Techniques in Pharmacy and Medicine. Gorb LKuz’min VMuratov E (Eds). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 433–459 (2014).
  Google Scholar
• 20. Sitnikov GV, Zhokhova NI, Ustynyuk YA, Varnek A, Baskin II. Continuous indicator fields: a novel universal type of molecular fields. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 29(3), 233–247 (2015).• Description of the continuous indicator fields approach.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21. Böhm M, Stüјrzebecher J, Klebe G. Three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship analyses using comparative molecular field analysis and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis to elucidate selectivity differences of inhibitors binding to trypsin, thrombin, and factor Xa. J. Med. Chem. 42(3), 458–477 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T. Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J. Med. Chem. 37(24), 4130–4146 (1994).• Description of the classical CoMSIA method in D-QSAR modeling.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23. Tikhonova IG, Baskin II, Palyulin VA, Zefirov NS. CoMFA and homology-based models of the glycine binding site of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor. J. Med. Chem. 46(9), 1609–1616 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Baskin II, Tikhonova IG, Palyulin VA, Zefirov NS. Selectivity fields: comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) of the glycine/NMDA and AMPA receptors. J. Med. Chem. 46(19), 4063–4069 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 25. Hansen K, Baehrens D, Schroeter T, Rupp M, Müller KR. Visual interpretation of kernel-based prediction models. Mol. Inf. 30(9), 817–826 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26. Baskin I, Varnek A. Building a chemical space based on fragment descriptors. Comb. Chem. High T. Scr. 11(8), 661–668 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Baskin I. Fragment descriptors in SAR/QSAR/QSPR studies, molecular similarity analysis and in virtual screening. In: Chemoinformatics Approaches to Virtual Screening. Tropsha AVarnek A (Eds). RSC Publisher, Cambridge, USA, 1–43 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 28. Hofmann T, Schölkopf B, Smola AJ. Kernel methods in machine learning. Ann. Stat. 36(3), 1171–1220 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 29. Karpov PV, Baskin II, Zhokhova NI, Zefirov NS. Method of continuous molecular fields in the one-class classification task. Dokl. Chem. 440(2), 263–265 (2011).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Karpov PV, Baskin II, Zhokhova NI et al. One-class approach: models for virtual screening of non-nucleoside HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitors based on the concept of continuous molecular fields. Russ. Chem. Bull. 60(11), 2418–2424 (2011).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 31. Markou M, Singh S. Novelty detection: a review – part 1: statistical approaches. Signal Process 83(12), 2481–2497 (2003).
  Google Scholar
• 32. Markou M, Singh S. Novelty detection: a review – part 2: neural network based approaches. Signal Process 83(12), 2499–2521 (2003).
  Google Scholar
• 33. Baskin II, Kireeva N, Varnek A. The one-class classification approach to data description and to models applicability domain. Mol. Inf. 29(8–9), 581–587 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 34. Karpov PV, Baskin II, Palyulin VA, Zefirov NS. Virtual screening based on one-class classification. Dokl. Chem. 437(2), 107–111 (2011).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 35. Karpov PV, Osolodkin DI, Baskin II, Palyulin VA, Zefirov NS. One-class classification as a novel method of ligand-based virtual screening: the case of glycogen synthase kinase 3OI inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 21(22), 6728–6731 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36. Zhokhova NI, Baskin II. Energy-based neural networks as a tool for harmony-based virtual screening. Mol. Inf. 36(11), 1700054 (2017).
  Google Scholar
• 37. Schölkopf B, Platt JC, Shawe-Taylor J, Smola AJ, Williamson RC. Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution. Neural Comput. 13(7), 1443–1471 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38. Wild DJ, Willett P. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures. Alignment of molecular electrostatic potential fields with a genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36(2), 159–167 (1996).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 39. Langer T, Hoffmann RMD. On the use of chemical function-based alignments as input for 3D-QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38(2), 325–330 (1998).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 40. Lemmen C, Lengauer T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput.–Aided Mol. Des. 14(3), 215–232 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41. Labute P, Williams C, Feher M, Sourial E, Schmidt JM. Flexible alignment of small molecules. J. Med. Chem. 44(10), 1483–1490 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 42. Jewell NE, Turner DB, Willett P, Sexton GJ. Automatic generation of alignments for 3D QSAR analyses. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 20(2), 111–121 (2001).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 43. Klabunde T, Giegerich C, Evers A. MARS: computing three-dimensional alignments for multiple ligands using pairwise similarities. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 52(8), 2022–2030 (2012).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 44. Cramer RD. Topomer CoMFA: a design methodology for rapid lead optimization. J. Med. Chem. 46(3), 374–388 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45. Cramer RD. Rethinking 3D-QSAR. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 25(3), 197–201 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46. Rasmussen CE, Williams CKI. Gaussian Processes in Machine Learning. The MIT Press, MA, USA (2006).
  Google Scholar