Software and resources for computational medicinal chemistry

Bibliography

• 1  Talele TT, Khedkar SA, Rigby AC. Successful applications of computer aided drug discovery: moving drugs from concept to the clinic. Curr. Top. Med. Chem.10(1),127–141 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2  Clark DE. What has computer-aided molecular design ever done for drug discovery? Expert Opin. Drug Discov.1(2),103–110 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3  Ferreira RS, Simeonov A, Jadhav A et al. Complementarity between a docking and a high-throughput screen in discovering new cruzain inhibitors. J. Med. Chem.53(13),4891–4905 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 4  Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Peltason L, Bajorath J. Quo Vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. J. Med. Chem.53(24),8461–8467 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 5  Peach ML, Nicklaus MC. Combining docking with pharmacophore filtering for improved virtual screening. J. Cheminform.1(1),6 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6  Liao C, Nicklaus MC. Computer tools in the discovery of HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. Future Med. Chem.2(7),1123–1140 (2010).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 7  Brooijmans N, Kuntz ID. Molecular recognition and docking algorithms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct.32,335–373 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 8  Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov.3(11),935–949 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9  Warren GL, Andrews CW, Capelli AM et al. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem.49(20),5912–5931 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 10  Moitessier N, Englebienne P, Lee D, Lawandi J, Corbeil CR. Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. Br. J. Pharmacol.153(Suppl. 1),S7–S26 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 11  Kroemer RT. Structure-based drug design: docking and scoring. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci.8(4),312–328 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 12  Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS et al. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem.19(14),1639–1662 (1998).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 13  Lang PT, Brozell SR, Mukherjee S et al. DOCK 6: combining techniques to model RNA-small molecule complexes. RNA15(6),1219–1230 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 14  Kramer B, Rarey M, Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein–ligand docking. Proteins37(2),228–241 (1999).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15  Mcgann MR, Almond HR, Nicholls A, Grant JA, Brown FK. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers68(1),76–90 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 16  Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB et al. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem.47(7),1739–1749 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17  Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Taylor RD. Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins52(4),609–623 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 18  Totrov M, Abagyan R. Flexible protein–ligand docking by global energy optimization in internal coordinates. Proteins Suppl. 1,215–220 (1997).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19  Jain AN. Surflex-Dock 2.1: robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.21(5),281–306 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 20  Bursulaya BD, Totrov M, Abagyan R, Brooks CL 3rd. Comparative study of several algorithms for flexible ligand docking. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.17(11),755–763 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 21  Onodera K, Satou K, Hirota H. Evaluations of molecular docking programs for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model.47(4),1609–1618 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22  Cross JB, Thompson DC, Rai BK et al. Comparison of several molecular docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J. Chem. Inf. Model.49(6),1455–1474 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 23  Zhou Z, Felts AK, Friesner RA, Levy RM. Comparative performance of several flexible docking programs and scoring functions: enrichment studies for a diverse set of pharmaceutically relevant targets. J. Chem. Inf. Model.47(4),1599–1608 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 24  Li X, Li Y, Cheng T, Liu Z, Wang R. Evaluation of the performance of four molecular docking programs on a diverse set of protein–ligand complexes. J. Comput. Chem.31(11),2109–2125 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25  Plewczynski D, Lazniewski M, Augustyniak R, Ginalski K. Can we trust docking results? Evaluation of seven commonly used programs on PDBbind database. J. Comput. Chem.32(4),742–755 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 26  Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, Liu Z, Wang R. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model.49(4),1079–1093 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27  Wang R, Lu Y, Fang X, Wang S. An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein–ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.44(6),2114–2125 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 28  Davis AM, St-Gallay SA, Kleywegt GJ. Limitations and lessons in the use of X-ray structural information in drug design. Drug Discov. Today13(19–20),831–841 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 29  Basse N, Montes M, Marechal X et al. Novel organic proteasome inhibitors identified by virtual and in vitro screening. J. Med. Chem.53(1),509–513 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 30  Zhong S, Zhang Y, Xiu Z. Rescoring ligand docking poses. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel.13(3),326–334 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 31  Congreve M, Chessari G, Tisi D, Woodhead AJ. Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. J. Med. Chem.51(13),3661–3680 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 32  Murray CW, Carr MG, Callaghan O et al. Fragment-based drug discovery applied to Hsp90. Discovery of two lead series with high ligand efficiency. J. Med. Chem.53(16),5942–5955 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 33  Vangrevelinghe E, Rudisser S. Computational approaches for fragment optimization. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des.3(1),69–83 (2007).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 34  Cozzini P, Kellogg GE, Spyrakis F et al. Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. J. Med. Chem.51(20),6237–6255 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 35  Liao C, Park JE, Bang JK, Nicklaus MC, Lee KS. Probing binding modes of small molecule inhibitors to the Polo-box domain of human Polo-like kinase 1. ACS Med. Chem. Lett.1(3),110–114 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 36  Barril X, Morley SD. Unveiling the full potential of flexible receptor docking using multiple crystallographic structures. J. Med. Chem.48(13),4432–4443 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37  Damm KL, Carlson HA. Exploring experimental sources of multiple protein conformations in structure-based drug design. J. Am. Chem. Soc.129(26),8225–8235 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 38  Huang SY, Zou X. Ensemble docking of multiple protein structures: considering protein structural variations in molecular docking. Proteins66(2),399–421 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 39  Ekonomiuk D, Su XC, Ozawa K et al. Flaviviral protease inhibitors identified by fragment-based library docking into a structure generated by molecular dynamics. J. Med. Chem.52(15),4860–4868 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 40  Amaro RE, Baron R, Mccammon JA. An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.22(9),693–705 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 41  Wermuth G, Ganellin CR, Lindberg P, Mitscher LA. Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (IUPAC Recommendations 1998). Pure Appl. Chem.70(5),1129–1143 (1998).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 42  Leach AR, Gillet VJ, Lewis RA, Taylor R. Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. J. Med. Chem.53(2),539–558 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 43  Yang SY. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov. Today15(11–12),444–450 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 44  Gao Q, Yang L, Zhu Y. Pharmacophore based drug design approach as a practical process in drug discovery. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des.6(1),37–49 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 45  Wolber G, Seidel T, Bendix F, Langer T. Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discov. Today13(1–2),23–29 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 46  Sun H. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Curr. Med. Chem.15(10),1018–1024 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 47  Wolber G, Langer T. LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model.45(1),160–169 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 48  Wolber G, Dornhofer A, Langer T. Efficient overlay of small organic molecules using 3D pharmacophores. J. Comp. Aided Mol. Des.20(12),773–788 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 49  Schneidman-Duhovny D, Dror O, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. PharmaGist: a webserver for ligand-based pharmacophore detection. Nucleic Acids Res.36(Web Server issue),W223–W228 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 50  Chaudhaery SS, Roy KK, Shakya N et al. Novel carbamates as orally active acetylcholinesterase inhibitors found to improve scopolamine-induced cognition impairment: pharmacophore-based virtual screening, synthesis, and pharmacology. J. Med. Chem.53(17),6490–6505 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 51  Zampieri D, Mamolo MG, Laurini E et al. Synthesis, biological evaluation, and three-dimensional in silico pharmacophore model for sigma(1) receptor ligands based on a series of substituted benzo[d]oxazol-2(3H)-one derivatives. J. Med. Chem.52(17),5380–5393 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 52  Onnis V, Kinsella GK, Carta G et al. Virtual screening for the identification of novel nonsteroidal glucocorticoid modulators. J. Med. Chem.53(8),3065–3074 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 53  Markt P, Feldmann C, Rollinger JM et al. Discovery of novel CB2 receptor ligands by a pharmacophore-based virtual screening workflow. J. Med. Chem.52(2),369–378 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 54  Neves MA, Dinis TC, Colombo G, Sá e Melo ML. Fast three dimensional pharmacophore virtual screening of new potent non-steroid aromatase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem.52(1),143–150 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 55  Ismail MA, Barker S, Abou El-Ella DA, Abouzid KA, Toubar RA, Todd MH. Design and synthesis of new tetrazolyl- and carboxy-biphenylylmethyl-quinazolin-4-one derivatives as angiotensin II AT1 receptor antagonists. J. Med. Chem.49(5),1526–1535 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 56  Wang H, Duffy RA, Boykow GC, Chackalamannil S, Madison VS. Identification of novel cannabinoid CB1 receptor antagonists by using virtual screening with a pharmacophore model. J. Med. Chem.51(8),2439–2446 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 57  Sprous DG, Palmer RK, Swanson JT, Lawless M. QSAR in the pharmaceutical research setting: QSAR models for broad, large problems. Curr. Top. Med. Chem.10(6),619–637 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 58  Hong H, Xie Q, Ge W et al. Mold², molecular descriptors from 2D structures for chemoinformatics and toxicoinformatics. J. Chem. Inf. Model.48(7),1337–1344 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 59  Clark RD. Prospective ligand- and target-based 3D QSAR: state of the art 2008. Curr. Top. Med. Chem.9(9),791–810 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 60  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 (2002).
  Google Scholar
• 61  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).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 62  Salama I, Hocke C, Utz W et al. Structure-selectivity investigations of D2-like receptor ligands by CoMFA and CoMSIA guiding the discovery of D3 selective PET radioligands. J. Med. Chem.50(3),489–500 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 63  Sheng C, Zhang W, Ji H et al. Structure-based optimization of azole antifungal agents by CoMFA, CoMSIA, and molecular docking. J. Med. Chem.49(8),2512–2525 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 64  Patil R, Das S, Stanley A, Yadav L, Sudhakar A, Varma AK. Optimized hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bonding at the target-ligand interface leads the pathways of drug-designing. Plos One5(8),e12029 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 65  Liu J, Zhao M, Cui G, Zhang X, Wang J, Peng S. Methyl (11aS)-1,2,3,5,11,11a-hexahydro-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxo-6H-imidazo-[3’,4’:1,2]p yridin[3,4-b]indol-2-substituted acetates: synthesis and three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship investigation as a class of novel vasodilators. J. Med. Chem.51(15),4715–4723 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 66  Tropsha A, Golbraikh A. Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. Curr. Pharm. Des.13(34),3494–3504 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 67  Tang H, Wang XS, Huang XP et al. Novel inhibitors of human histone deacetylase (HDAC) identified by QSAR modeling of known inhibitors, virtual screening, and experimental validation. J. Chem. Inf. Model.49(2),461–476 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 68  Peterson YK, Wang XS, Casey PJ, Tropsha A. Discovery of geranylgeranyltransferase-I inhibitors with novel scaffolds by the means of quantitative structure–activity relationship modeling, virtual screening, and experimental validation. J. Med. Chem.52(14),4210–4220 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 69  Cavasotto CN, Phatak SS. Homology modeling in drug discovery: current trends and applications. Drug Discov. Today14(13–14),676–683 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 70  Kairys V, Gilson MK, Fernandes MX. Using protein homology models for structure-based studies: approaches to model refinement. ScientificWorldJournal6,1542–1554 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 71  Kopp J, Schwede T. Automated protein structure homology modeling: a progress report. Pharmacogenomics5(4),405–416 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 72  Marti-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sanchez R, Melo F, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct.29,291–325 (2000).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 73  Baker D, Sali A. Protein structure prediction and structural genomics. Science294(5540),93–96 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 74  Moult J, Pedersen JT, Judson R, Fidelis K. A large-scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods. Proteins23(3),ii-v (1995).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 75  Mobarec JC, Sanchez R, Filizola M. Modern homology modeling of G-protein coupled receptors: which structural template to use? J. Med. Chem.52(16),5207–5216 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 76  Sitzmann M, Ihlenfeldt WD, Nicklaus MC. Tautomerism in large databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.24(6–7),521–551 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 77  Ihlenfeldt WD, Voigt JH, Bienfait B, Oellien F, Nicklaus MC. Enhanced CACTVS browser of the Open NCI Database. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.42(1),46–57 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 78  Wang Y, Bolton E, Dracheva S et al. An overview of the PubChem BioAssay resource. Nucleic Acids Res.38(Database issue),D255–D266 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 79  Liu T, Lin Y, Wen X, Jorissen RN, Gilson MK. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein–ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res.35(Database issue),D198–D201 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 80  Hendlich M, Bergner A, Gunther J, Klebe G. Relibase: design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein–ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol.326(2),607–620 (2003).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 81  Overington J. ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A Warr. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des.23(4),195–198 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 82  Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC et al. HMDB: a knowledgebase for the human metabolome. Nucleic Acids Res.37(Database issue),D603–D610 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 83  Kanehisa M, Goto S, Kawashima S, Okuno Y, Hattori M. The KEGG resource for deciphering the genome. Nucleic Acids Res.32(Database issue),D277–D280 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 84  De Matos P, Alcantara R, Dekker A et al. Chemical entities of biological interest: an update. Nucleic Acids Res.38(Database issue),D249–D254 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 85  Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC et al. DrugBank: a knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets. Nucleic Acids Res.36(Database issue),D901–D906 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 86  Chen X, Ji ZL, Chen YZ. TTD: Therapeutic Target Database. Nucleic Acids Res.30(1),412–415 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 87  Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. ZINC – a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model.45(1),177–182 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 88  Steinbeck C, Hoppe C, Kuhn S, Floris M, Guha R, Willighagen EL. Recent developments of the chemistry development kit (CDK) – an open-source java library for chemo- and bioinformatics. Curr. Pharm. Des.12(17),2111–2120 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 89  Ihlenfeldt WD, Takahashi Y, Abe H, Sasaki S. Computation and management of chemical-properties in Cactvs – an extensible networked approach toward modularity and compatibility. J. Chem. Inf. Comp. Sci.34(1),109–116 (1994).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 90  Filippov IV, Nicklaus MC. Optical structure recognition software to recover chemical information: OSRA, an open source solution. J. Chem. Inf. Model.49(3),740–743 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 91  Schleif R. Modeling and studying proteins with molecular dynamics. Methods Enzymol.383,28–47 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 92  Karplus M. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules. Acc. Chem. Res.35(6),321–323 (2002).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 93  Klepeis JL, Lindorff-Larsen K, Dror RO, Shaw DE. Long-timescale molecular dynamics simulations of protein structure and function. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol.19(2),120–127 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 94  Case DA, Cheatham TE 3rd, Darden T et al. The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. J. Comput. Chem.26(16),1668–1688 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 95  Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M. Charmm – a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J. Comput. Chem.4(2),187–217 (1983).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 96  Shaw DE. A fast, scalable method for the parallel evaluation of distance-limited pairwise particle interactions. J. Comput. Chem.26(13),1318–1328 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 97  Christen M, Hunenberger PH, Bakowies D et al. The GROMOS software for biomolecular simulation: GROMOS05. J. Comput. Chem.26(16),1719–1751 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 98  Phillips JC, Braun R, Wang W et al. Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. J. Comput. Chem.26(16),1781–1802 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 99  Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE. Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med. Res. Rev.26(5),531–568 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 100  Peters MB, Raha K, Merz KM Jr. Quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Curr. Opin. Drug. Discov. Devel.9(3),370–379 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 101  Raha K, Peters MB, Wang B et al. The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Drug Discov. Today12(17–18),725–731 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 102  Cavalli A, Carloni P, Recanatini M. Target-related applications of first principles quantum chemical methods in drug design. Chem. Rev.106(9),3497–3519 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 103  Liao C, Nicklaus MC. Tautomerism and magnesium chelation of HIV-1 integrase inhibitors: a theoretical study. ChemMedChem5(7),1053–1066 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 104  Cho AE, Guallar V, Berne BJ, Friesner R. Importance of accurate charges in molecular docking: quantum mechanical/molecular mechanical (QM/MM) approach. J. Comput. Chem.26(9),915–931 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 105  Zhou T, Huang D, Caflisch A. Is quantum mechanics necessary for predicting binding free energy? J. Med. Chem.51(14),4280–4288 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 106  Wang J, Hou T, Ralph AW. Chapter 5. Recent advances on in silico ADME modeling. Annu. Rep. Comput. Chem.5,101–127 (2009).
  Google Scholar
• 107  Gleeson MP, Hersey A, Hannongbua S. In-silico ADME models: a general assessment of their utility in drug discovery applications. Curr. Top. Med. Chem.11(4),358–381 (2011).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 108  Egan WJ. Chapter 29. Computational models for ADME. Annu. Rep. Med. Chem.42,449–467 (2007).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 109  Cosconati S, Marinelli L, La Motta C et al. Pursuing aldose reductase inhibitors through in situ cross-docking and similarity-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.52(18),5578–5581 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 110  Ferri N, Corsini A, Bottino P, Clerici F, Contini A. Virtual screening approach for the identification of new Rac1 inhibitors. J. Med. Chem.52(14),4087–4090 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 111  Perez-Pineiro R, Burgos A, Jones DC et al. Development of a novel virtual screening cascade protocol to identify potential trypanothione reductase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem.52(6),1670–1680 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 112  Matsuno K, Masuda Y, Uehara Y et al. Identification of a new series of STAT3 inhibitors by virtual screening. Acs. Med. Chem. Lett.1(8),371–375 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 113  Okamoto M, Takayama K, Shimizu T, Ishida K, Takahashi O, Furuya T. Identification of death-associated protein kinases inhibitors using structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.52(22),7323–7327 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 114  Ostrov DA, Magis AT, Wronski TJ et al. Identification of enoxacin as an inhibitor of osteoclast formation and bone resorption by structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.52(16),5144–5151 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 115  Miguet L, Zervosen A, Gerards T et al. Discovery of new inhibitors of resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae penicillin binding protein (PBP) 2x by structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.52(19),5926–5936 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 116  Cho Y, Ioerger TR, Sacchettini JC. Discovery of novel nitrobenzothiazole inhibitors for Mycobacterium tuberculosis ATP phosphoribosyl transferase (HisG) through virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.51(19),5984–5992 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 117  Kiss R, Kiss B, Konczol A et al. Discovery of novel human histamine H4 receptor ligands by large-scale structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.51(11),3145–3153 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 118  Knox AJ, Price T, Pawlak M et al. Integration of ligand and structure-based virtual screening for the identification of the first dual targeting agent for heat shock protein 90 (Hsp90) and tubulin. J. Med. Chem.52(8),2177–2180 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 119  Podvinec M, Lim SP, Schmidt T et al. Novel inhibitors of dengue virus methyltransferase: discovery by in vitro-driven virtual screening on a desktop computer grid. J. Med. Chem.53(4),1483–1495 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 120  Ravindranathan KP, Mandiyan V, Ekkati AR, Bae JH, Schlessinger J, Jorgensen WL. Discovery of novel fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 kinase inhibitors by structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.53(4),1662–1672 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 121  Liao C, Karki RG, Marchand C, Pommier Y, Nicklaus MC. Virtual screening application of a model of full-length HIV-1 integrase complexed with viral DNA. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.17(19),5361–5365 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 122  Dong G, Sheng C, Wang S, Miao Z, Yao J, Zhang W. Selection of evodiamine as a novel topoisomerase I inhibitor by structure-based virtual screening and hit optimization of evodiamine derivatives as antitumor agents. J. Med. Chem.53(21),7521–7531 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 123  Oyarzabal J, Zarich N, Albarran MI et al. Discovery of mitogen-activated protein kinase-interacting kinase 1 inhibitors by a comprehensive fragment-oriented virtual screening approach. J. Med. Chem.53(18),6618–6628 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 124  Peach ML, Tan N, Choyke SJ et al. Directed discovery of agents targeting the Met tyrosine kinase domain by virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.52(4),943–951 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 125  Chan DS, Lee HM, Yang F et al. Structure-based discovery of natural-product-like TNF-α inhibitors. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. Engl.49(16),2860–2864 (2010).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 126  Bisson WH, Koch DC, O’Donnell EF et al. Modeling of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain and its utility in virtual ligand screening to predict new AhR ligands. J. Med. Chem.52(18),5635–5641 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 127  Odell LR, Howan D, Gordon CP et al. The pthaladyns: GTP competitive inhibitors of dynamin I and II GTPase derived from virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.53(14),5267–5280 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 128  Khanfar MA, Hill RA, Kaddoumi A, El Sayed KA. Discovery of novel GSK-3β inhibitors with potent in vitro and in vivo activities and excellent brain permeability using combined ligand- and structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.53(24),8534–8545 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 129  Herschhorn A, Hizi A. Virtual screening, identification, and biochemical characterization of novel inhibitors of the reverse transcriptase of human immunodeficiency virus type-1. J. Med. Chem.51(18),5702–5713 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 130  Chiang YK, Kuo CC, Wu YS et al. Generation of ligand-based pharmacophore model and virtual screening for identification of novel tubulin inhibitors with potent anticancer activity. J. Med. Chem.52(14),4221–4233 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 131  Wu JS, Peng YH, Wu JM et al. Discovery of non-glycoside sodium-dependent glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors by ligand-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.53(24),8770–8774 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 132  Georgsson J, Skold C, Plouffe B et al. Angiotensin II pseudopeptides containing 1,3,5-trisubstituted benzene scaffolds with high AT2 receptor affinity. J. Med. Chem.48(21),6620–6631 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 133  Yang H, Shen Y, Chen J, Jiang Q, Leng Y, Shen J. Structure-based virtual screening for identification of novel 11β-HSD1 inhibitors. Eur. J. Med. Chem.44(3),1167–1171 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 134  Olla S, Manetti F, Crespan E et al. Indolyl-pyrrolone as a new scaffold for Pim1 inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.19(5),1512–1516 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 135  Barreca ML, De Luca L, Iraci N et al. Structure-based pharmacophore identification of new chemical scaffolds as non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Model.47(2),557–562 (2007).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 136  Abdel-Aal WS, Hassan HY, Aboul-Fadl T, Youssef AF. Pharmacophoric model building for antitubercular activity of the individual Schiff bases of small combinatorial library. Eur. J. Med. Chem.45(3),1098–1106 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 137  Lokhande TN, Viswanathan CL, Joshi A, Juvekar A. Design, synthesis and evaluation of naphthalene-2-carboxamides as reversal agents in MDR cancer. Bioorg. Med. Chem.14(17),6022–6026 (2006).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 138  Joshi AA, Narkhede SS, Viswanathan CL. Design, synthesis and evaluation of 5-substituted amino-2,4-diamino-8-chloropyrimido-[4,5-b]quinolines as novel antimalarials. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett.15(1),73–76 (2005).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 139  Hall MD, Salam NK, Hellawell JL et al. Synthesis, activity, and pharmacophore development for isatin-β-thiosemicarbazones with selective activity toward multidrug-resistant cells. J. Med. Chem.52(10),3191–3204 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 140  Kumar RJ, Chebib M, Hibbs DE et al. Novel γ-aminobutyric acid rho1 receptor antagonists; synthesis, pharmacological activity and structure–activity relationships. J. Med. Chem.51(13),3825–3840 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 141  Cavasotto CN, Orry AJ, Murgolo NJ et al. Discovery of novel chemotypes to a G-protein-coupled receptor through ligand-steered homology modeling and structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.51(3),581–588 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 142  Park H, Bahn YJ, Jung SK et al. Discovery of novel Cdc25 phosphatase inhibitors with micromolar activity based on the structure-based virtual screening. J. Med. Chem.51(18),5533–5541 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 143  Costanzi S. On the applicability of GPCR homology models to computer-aided drug discovery: a comparison between in silico and crystal structures of the β2-adrenergic receptor. J. Med. Chem.51(10),2907–2914 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 144  Hamada S, Suzuki T, Mino K et al. Design, synthesis, enzyme-inhibitory activity, and effect on human cancer cells of a novel series of jumonji domain-containing protein 2 histone demethylase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem.53(15),5629–5638 (2010).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 145  Buchholz M, Hamann A, Aust S et al. Inhibitors for human glutaminyl cyclase by structure based design and bioisosteric replacement. J. Med. Chem.52(22),7069–7080 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 146  Chen X, Wilson LJ, Malaviya R, Argentieri RL, Yang SM. Virtual screening to successfully identify novel janus kinase 3 inhibitors: a sequential focused screening approach. J. Med. Chem.51(21),7015–7019 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 147  Nowak P, Cole DC, Brooijmans N et al. Discovery of potent and selective inhibitors of the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) kinase. J. Med. Chem.52(22),7081–7089 (2009).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 148  Cavalli A, Bottegoni G, Raco C, De Vivo M, Recanatini M. A computational study of the binding of propidium to the peripheral anionic site of human acetylcholinesterase. J. Med. Chem.47(16),3991–3999 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 149  Wang J, Morin P, Wang W, Kollman PA. Use of MM-PBSA in reproducing the binding free energies to HIV-1 RT of TIBO derivatives and predicting the binding mode to HIV-1 RT of efavirenz by docking and MM-PBSA. J. Am. Chem. Soc.123(22),5221–5230 (2001).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 150  Zoete V, Meuwly M, Karplus M. Investigation of glucose binding sites on insulin. Proteins55(3),568–581 (2004).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 151  Cheng LS, Amaro RE, Xu D, Li WW, Arzberger PW, Mccammon JA. Ensemble-based virtual screening reveals potential novel antiviral compounds for avian influenza neuraminidase. J. Med. Chem.51(13),3878–3894 (2008).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 201  Molecular Discovery. www.moldiscovery.com
  Google Scholar
• 202  Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk
  Google Scholar
• 203  SimBioSys Inc. www.simbiosys.ca
  Google Scholar
• 204  MEDIT SA. http://medit-pharma.com
  Google Scholar
• 205  PharmaGist. http://bioinfo3d.cs.tau.ac.il/PharmaGist
  Google Scholar
• 206  BioEpisteme. www.prousresearch.com/spage/technology/testpage/pageid-79/epage/BioEpisteme.aspx
  Google Scholar
• 207  Semichem. Codessa. www.semichem.com/codessa/default.php
  Google Scholar
• 208  Prediction of activity spectra for substances http://195.178.207.233/PASS2008/en/index.html
  Google Scholar
• 209  Talete. Dragon software. www.talete.mi.it
  Google Scholar
• 210  University of Virginia. FASTA sequence comparison. http://fasta.bioch.virginia.edu
  Google Scholar
• 211  The National Center for Biotechnology Information. Basic Local Alignment Search Tool. http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  Google Scholar
• 212  European Bioinformatics Institute. PSI-BLAST. www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/sss/psiblast
  Google Scholar
• 213  Fold and Function Assignment. http://ffas.ljcrf.edu/ffas-cgi/cgi/ffas.pl
  Google Scholar
• 214  Protein Structure Prediction Center. http://predictioncenter.org
  Google Scholar
• 215  NCI/CADD Group. http://cactus.nci.nih.gov
  Google Scholar
• 216  PubChem. http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  Google Scholar
• 217  MetaCyc. http://metacyc.org
  Google Scholar
• 218  Swiss-Prot. http://ca.expasy.org/sprot
  Google Scholar
• 219  GenBank. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank
  Google Scholar
• 220  NCI/CADD Chemical Identifier Resolver. http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/chemical/structure
  Google Scholar
• 221  University of Konstanz. Institute for Bioinformatics and Information Mining. www.knime.org
  Google Scholar
• 222  Weka. www.cs.waikato.ac.nz/ml/weka
  Google Scholar
• 223  Statistics package R. www.r-project.org
  Google Scholar
• 224  Xemistry GmbH. http://xemistry.com
  Google Scholar
• 225  ChemIDplus. http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus
  Google Scholar
• 226  ChEBI. www.ebi.ac.uk/chebi
  Google Scholar
• 227  Open Babel. http://openbabel.org
  Google Scholar
• 228  Avogadro. http://avogadro.openmolecules.net
  Google Scholar
• 229  MySQL database extension. MyChem. http://mychem.sourceforge.net
  Google Scholar
• 230  Wikipedia. MD simulation program list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_dynamics#Major_software_for_MD_simulations
  Google Scholar
• 231  Wikipedia. QM program list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quantum_chemistry_and_solid_state_physics_software
  Google Scholar
• 232  Click2Drug. www.click2drug.org
  Google Scholar
• 233  Protein Data Bank. www.pdb.org
  Google Scholar
• 234  Ligand Expo. http://ligand-expo.rcsb.org
  Google Scholar
• 235  National Center for Biotechnology Information. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  Google Scholar
• 236  Virtual Computational Chemistry Laboratory. www.vcclab.org
  Google Scholar
• 237  EPA’s SPARC Online Calculator. http://ibmlc2.chem.uga.edu/sparc
  Google Scholar
• 238  ChemAxon. www.chemaxon.com
  Google Scholar
• 239  Chemicalize. www.chemicalize.org
  Google Scholar
• 240  Molecular Networks GmbH. www.molecular-networks.com
  Google Scholar
• 241  Accelrys Inc. http://accelrys.com
  Google Scholar
• 242  Molsoft LLC. www.molsoft.com
  Google Scholar
• 243  BioSolveIT GmbH. www.biosolveit.de
  Google Scholar
• 244  Chemical Computing Group. www.chemcomp.com
  Google Scholar
• 245  OpenEye Scientific Software Inc. www.eyesopen.com
  Google Scholar
• 246  Schrödinger Inc. www.schrodinger.com
  Google Scholar
• 247  Tripos Inc. www.tripos.com
  Google Scholar
• 248  Scripps Research Institute. http://autodock.scripps.edu
  Google Scholar
• 249  University of California, San Francisco. DOCK. http://dock.compbio.ucsf.edu
  Google Scholar
• 250  Inte:Ligand. Ligand Scout. www.inteligand.com
  Google Scholar
• 251  University of California, San Francisco. Modeller. www.salilab.org/modeller
  Google Scholar
• 252  Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. MODEL. http://swissmodel.expasy.org
  Google Scholar
• 253  Enhanced NCI database browser. http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/ncidb2
  Google Scholar
• 254  NCI discovery services. http://dtp.nci.nih.gov/webdata.html
  Google Scholar
• 255  University of Maryland. BindingDB. www.bindingdb.org
  Google Scholar
• 256  Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. Relibase. www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/free_services/relibase_free
  Google Scholar
• 257  European Bioinformatics Institute. ChEMBLdb. www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl
  Google Scholar
• 258  Royal Society of Chemistry. ChemSpider. www.chemspider.com
  Google Scholar
• 259  University of Alberta. Human Metabolome Database. www.hmdb.ca
  Google Scholar
• 260  University of Alberta. DrugBank. www.drugbank.ca
  Google Scholar
• 261  National University of Singapore. Therapeutic Target Database. http://xin.cz3.nus.edu.sg/group/ttd/ttd.asp/
  Google Scholar
• 262  University of California, San Francisco. ZINC. http://zinc.docking.org
  Google Scholar
• 263  ChemNavigator. iResearch Library. www.chemnavigator.com
  Google Scholar
• 264  GVK Biosciences Private Limited. GVKBIO databases. www.gvkbio.com
  Google Scholar
• 265  Accelrys Inc. MDDR. http://accelrys.com/products/databases/bioactivity/mddr.html
  Google Scholar
• 266  Sunset Molecular Discovery. Wombat. www.sunsetmolecular.com
  Google Scholar
• 267  Thomson Reuters World Drug Index. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/science_products/a-z/world_drug_index/
  Google Scholar
• 268  University of California, San Francisco, USA. Amber. http://ambermd.org
  Google Scholar
• 269  Harvard University. CHARMM. www.charmm.org
  Google Scholar
• 270  DE Shaw Research. www.deshawresearch.com
  Google Scholar
• 271  University of Groningen. GROMACS. www.gromacs.org
  Google Scholar
• 272  University of Illinois. NAMD. www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/namd
  Google Scholar
• 273  Iowa State University. Gamess. www.msg.chem.iastate.edu/gamess
  Google Scholar
• 274  Gaussian Inc. Gaussian www.gaussian.com
  Google Scholar
• 275  University of Kuopio. Ghemical. www.uku.fi/∼thassine/projects/ghemical
  Google Scholar
• 276  Stewart Computational Chemistry. MOPAC. http://openmopac.net
  Google Scholar
• 277  Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory. www.emsl.pnl.gov
  Google Scholar
• 278  Wavefunction, Inc. www.wavefun.com
  Google Scholar
• 279  Simulations Plus, Inc. www.simulations-plus.com
  Google Scholar
• 280  Optibrium, Ltd. StarDrop. www.optibrium.com
  Google Scholar
• 281  Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc. www.acdlabs.com
  Google Scholar
• 282  Fujitsu FQS. www.fqs.pl
  Google Scholar
• 283  Strand Life Sciences. www.strandls.com
  Google Scholar
• 284  Leadscope, Inc. www.leadscope.com
  Google Scholar
• 285  Lhasa, Ltd. www.lhasalimited.org
  Google Scholar
• 286  Russian Academy of Medical Sciences. PASS. http://pharmaexpert.ru/passonline
  Google Scholar
• 287  CompuDrug, Ltd. www.compudrug.com
  Google Scholar
• 288  Multicase, Inc. www.multicase.com
  Google Scholar
• 289  Molecular Discovery, Ltd. www.moldiscovery.com
  Google Scholar
• 290  Uppsala University, Sweden and European Bioinformatics Institute Bioclipse. www.bioclipse.net
  Google Scholar
• 291  GeneGo, Inc. www.genego.com
  Google Scholar
• 292  OASIS Lmc. http://oasis-lmc.org
  Google Scholar
• 293  University of California, San Francisco. Chimera. www.cgl.ucsf.edu/chimera
  Google Scholar
• 294  University of Notre Dame. Jmol. www.jmol.org
  Google Scholar
• 295  Schrödinger Inc. PyMOL. www.pymol.org
  Google Scholar
• 296  Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics. Swiss-PdbViewer. http://spdbv.vital-it.ch
  Google Scholar
• 297  University of Illinois VMD. www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/vmd
  Google Scholar