Skip to main content

Absolute vs Relative Similarity and Diversity

The Partitioning Approach to relative and absolute diversity

  • Chapter
Molecular Diversity in Drug Design
  • 184 Accesses

Abstract

Similarity and diversity methods play an important role in new applications such as virtual screening, combinatorial library design and the analysis of hits from high throughput screening. This paper describes an approach that measures ‘relative’ similarity and diversity between chemical objects, in contrast to the use of the concept of a total or ‘absolute’ reference space. The approach is elucidated using the multiple potential 3D pharmacophores method (a modification to the Chem-X/ChemDiverse method), which can be used for both ligands and protein sites. The use of ‘receptor-relevant’ BCUT chemistry spaces from DiverseSolutions is also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Pickett, S.D., Mason, J.S. and McLay, I.M. Diversity Profiling and Design Using 3D Pharmacophores: Pharmacophore-Derived Queries (PDQ). J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1996, 36, 1214–1223.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashton, M.J., Jaye, M.C. and Mason, J.S. New Perspectives in Lead Generation II: Evaluating Molecular Diversity. Drug Discovery Today, 1996, 1, 71–78.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Mason, J.S. and Pickett, S.D. Partition-based selection. Perspect. Drug Disc. Des., 1997, 7/8, 85–114.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Davies, E.K. and Briant, C. Combinatorial Chemistry Library Design Using Pharmacophore Diversity. Accessible through URL: http://www.awod.com/netsci/Science/Combichem/feature05.html

    Google Scholar 

  5. Davies, K. Using pharmacophore diversity to select molecules to test from commercial catalogues.In Molecular Diversity and Combinatorial Chemistry. Libraries and Drug Discovery, Eds. Chaiken, I.M. and Janda, K.D., 1996, Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 309–316.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Mason, J.S. Pharmacophore similarity and diversity: Discovery of novel leads for cardiovascular targets.In Lead Generation and Optimization, Strategic Research Institute. New York, 1996 (March 21–22, New Orleans meeting).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Mason, J.S., Morize, I, Menard, P.R., Cheney, D.L., Hulme, C. and. Labaudiniere, R.F. A new 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: Overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. J. Med. Chem., submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chemical Design Ltd, part of OMG, Oxford Science Park, Oxford OX4 4GA, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Murrall, N.W. and Davies, E.K. Conformational freedom in 3D databases. 1. Techniques. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1990, 30, 312–316.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Evans, B.E., Rittle, K.E., Bock, M.G., DiPardo, R.M., Freidinger, R.M., Whitter, W.L., Lundell, G.F., Veber, D.F., Anderson, P.S., Chang, R.S., Lotti, V.J., Cerino D.J., Chen, T.B., Kling P.J., Kunkel, K.A., Springer, J.P. and Hirshfield J. Methods for Drug Discovery: Development of potent, selective, orally effective cholecystokinin antagonists. J. Med. Chem., 1988, 31, 2235–2246.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mason, J.S. Diversity for drug design: A multiple-technique approach. In Exploiting Molecular Diversity, Proceedings of CHI Meeting, Coronado, CA, March 2–4 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Mason, J.S. and Cheney, D.L., Absolute and relative diversity/similarity approaches using both ligand and protein-target-based information. In Chemoinformatics, Proceedings of CHI Meeting, Boston, MA, June 15–16, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Mason, J.S. and Cheney, D.L. Recent advances in pharmacophore similarity in structure-based drug design. In Book of Abstracts, 215th ACS National Meeting, Dallas, March 29–April 2, 1998, American Chemical Society, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mason, J.S. and Cheney, D.L. Ligand-receptor 3-D similarity studies using multiple 4-point pharmacophores. In Biocomputing, Proceedings of the 1998 Pacific Symposium, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 1999, pp 456–467.

    Google Scholar 

  15. DiverseSolutions was developed by R.S.Pearlman and K.M Smith at the University of Texas, Austin, TX and is distributed by Tripos Inc, St. Louis, MO

    Google Scholar 

  16. Pearlman, R.S. DiverseSolutions User’s Manual, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Pearlman, R.S. Novel Software tools for Addressing Chemical Diversity, Network Science, 1996, http://www.awod.com/netsci/Science/combichem/feature08.html

    Google Scholar 

  18. Pearlman, R.S. and Smith, K.M. Novel software tools for chemical diversity, Perspect. Drug Disc. Des., 1998, 9, 339–353.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pearlman, R.S. and Smith, K.M. Metric Validation and the receptor-relevant subspace concept. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1999, 39, 28–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mason, J.S. Experiences with Searching for Molecular Similarity in Conformationally Flexible 3D Databases. In Molecular Similarity in Drug Design, Ed. Dean, P. M., Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, 1995, pp. 138–162.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Astles, P.C., Brealey, C., Brown, T.J., Facchini, V., Handscombe, C., Harris, N.V., McCarthy, C., McLay, I.M., Porter, B., Roach, A.G., Sargent, C., Smith, C. and Walsh, R.J.A. Selective endothelin A receptor antagonists. 3. Discovery and structure-activity relationships of a series of 4-phenoxybutanoic acid derivatives. J. Med. Chem., 1998, 41, 2732–2744.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Balducci, R., McGarity, C., Rusinko III, A., Skell, J., Smith, K. and Pearlman, R.S. Laboratory for Molecular Graphics and Theoretical Modeling, College of Pharmacy, University of Texas at Austin; distributed by Tripos Inc.: 1699 S. Hanley Road, Suite 303, St. Louis, MO 6314.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Molecular Discovery Limited, West Way House, Elms Parade, Oxford OX2 9LL, England

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mills, J.E.J. and Dean, P.M. Three-dimensional hydrogen-bond geometry and probability information from a crystal survey. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des., 1996, 10, 607–622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. MDL Information Systems Inc., 14600 Catalina Street, San Leandro, CA 94577, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pearlman, R.S. and Deandra, F. Manuscript in preparation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Philip M. Dean Richard A. Lewis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mason, J.S. (2002). Absolute vs Relative Similarity and Diversity. In: Dean, P.M., Lewis, R.A. (eds) Molecular Diversity in Drug Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-46873-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-46873-5_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5980-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-306-46873-5

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics