Abstract
Last year marked the completion of the sequencing effort on the human genome. Advances in the fields of genomics and bioinformatics are widely expected to bring forth a large number of new biochemical targets for drug design by linking specific diseases to single genes or collections thereof. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology sector is now likely to become one of the most active industrial fields in the new century. A dramatic increase in the number of pharmaceutical targets in the near future would create a bottleneck of sorts at the stage of pharmaceutical drug discovery. Historically, this field has used a serial process, screening and optimizing compounds one at a time. However, the advent of combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening has significantly altered the face of drug discovery. Rapid generation and screening of combinatorial libraries has become commonplace in both industry and academia; with the ever-growing offering of organic reagents along with the vast palette of organic reactions, the chemical space accessible to combinatorial chemists has dramatically expanded. The application of combinatorial technology, however, is not without a potential caveat—even as the cost of synthesis and testing of a single chemical entity has fallen, it skyrockets when multiplied by the thousands or millions of combinatorial library members. Some of the potential solutions include (i) use of the three-dimensional target structure information in the design process; (ii) application of pharmacophore and quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methods to focus on libraries that most closely resemble screening hits; and (iii) reduction in the scale on which both medicinal chemistry and screening are currently performed. These solutions imply a need for a rational approach to reducing library size, custom izing the library for a given target, and more efficient in silico screening of a library (or, potentially, multiple libraries) of compounds against a large number of targets of interest. The challenge in accomplishing these goals is in being able to reduce the library while increasing the potential hit rate of individual library members.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Martin E. and Wong A. (2000) Sensitivity analysis and other improvements to tailored combinatorial library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 215–220.
Gorse D. and Lahana R. (2000) Functional diversity of compound libraries. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 4, 287–294
Martin E. J. and Critchlow R. E. (1999) Beyond mere diversity: tailoring combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J. Comb. Chem. 1, 32–45.
Lipinski C. A., Lombardo F., Dominy B. W., and Feeney P. J. (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 23, 3–25.
Ghose A. K., Viswanadhan V. N., and Wendoloski J. J. (1999) A knowledgebased approach in designing combinatorial or medicinal chemistry libraries for drug discovery. 1. A qualitative and quantitative characterization of known drug databases. J. Comb. Chem. 1, 55–68.
Bemis G. W. and Murcko M. A. (1996) The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39, 2887–2893.
Fejzo J., Lepre C. A., Peng J. W., et al. (1999) The SHAPES strategy: an NMRbased approach for lead generation in drug discovery. Chem. Biol. 6, 755–769.
MacGregor M. J. and Muskal S. M. (2000) Pharmacophore fingerprinting. 2. Application to primary library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 117–125.
Ajay, Walters W. P. and Murcko M. A. (1998) Can we learn to distinguish between “drug-like” and “nondrug-like” molecules? J. Med. Chem. 41, 3314–3324.
Pearlman R. S. and Smith K. M. (1999) Metric validation and the receptorrelevant subspace concept. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 28–35.
Boehm H.-J. and Stahl M. (2000) Structure-based library design: molecular modeling merges with combinatorial chemistry. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 4, 283–286.
Ewing T. J. A. and Kuntz I. D. (1997) Critical evaluation of search algorithms for automated molecular docking and database screening. J. Comput. Chem. 18, 1175–1189.
Goodsell D. S., Morris G. M., and Olson A. J. (1996) Automated docking of flexible ligands: application of AUTODOCK. J. Mol. Recognit. 9, 1–5.
Rarey M., Wefing S., and Lengauer T. (1996) Placement of medium-sized molecular fragments into active sites of proteins. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 10, 41–54.
McMartin C. and Bohacek R. S. (1997) QXP: powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 11, 333–344.
Boehm H.-J. (1992) The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 6, 61–78.
Wang R., Liu L., Lai L., and Tang Y. (1998) SCORE: a new empirical method for estimating the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J. Mol. Model. 4, 379–394.
Eldridge M. D., Murray C. W., Auton T. R., Paolini G. V., and Mee R. P. (1997) Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 11, 425–445.
Gehlhaar D. K., Verkhivker G. M., Rejto P. A., Sherman C. J., Fogel D. B., and Freer S. T. (1995) Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 protease—Conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 2, 317–324.
Halgren T. A. (1996) Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94. J. Comput. Chem. 17, 490–519.
Miller M. D., Kearsley S. K., Underwood D. J., and Sheridan R. P. (1994) FLOG—A system to select quasi-flexible ligands complementary to a receptor of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 8, 153–174.
Charifson P. S., Corkery J. J., Murcko M. A., and Walters W. P. (1999) Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J. Med. Chem. 42, 5100–5109.
Pearlman D. A. and Charifson P. S. (2001) Improved scoring of ligand-protein interaction using OWFEG free energy grids. J. Med. Chem. 44, 502–511.
Jamois E. A., Hassan M., and Waldman M. (2000) Evaluation of reagent-based and product-based strategies in the design of combinatorial library subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 63–70.
Stanton R. V., Mount J., and Miller J. L. (2000) Combinatorial library design: maximizing model-fitting compound within matrix synthesis constraints. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 701–705.
Knegtel R. M. A., Kuntz I. D., and Oshiro C. M. (1997) Molecular docking to ensembles of protein structures. J. Mol. Biol. 266, 424–440.
Kauvar L M., Villar H. O., Sportsman J. R., Higgins D. L., and Schmidt D. E. Jr. (1998) Protein affinity map of chemical space. J. Chromatogr. B 715, 93–102.
Briem H. and Kuntz I. D. (1996) Molecular similarity based on DOCK-generated fingerprints. J. Med. Chem. 39, 3401–3408.
Andrews K. H. and Cramer R. D. (2000) Toward general methods of targeted library design: topomer shape similarity searching with diverse structures as queries. J. Med. Chem. 43, 1723–1740.
Weber L. (2000) High-diversity combinatorial libraries. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 4, 295–302.
Kauvar L M., Higgins D. L., Villar H. O., et al. (1995) Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. Chem. Biol. 2, 107–118.
Lamb M. L., Burdick K. W., Toba S., et al. (2001) Design, docking, and evaluation of multiple libraries against multiple targets. PROTEINS: structure, function, and genetics 42, 296–318.
Aronov A. M., Munagala N. R., Kuntz I. D., and Wang C. C. (2001) Virtual screening of combinatorial libraries across a gene family. In search of inhibitors of Giardia lamblia guanine phosphoribosyltransferase. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., 45, 2571–2576.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2002 Humana Press Inc.
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Aronov, A.M. (2002). Design of Virtual Combinatorial Libraries. In: English, L.B. (eds) Combinatorial Library. Methods in Molecular Biology™, vol 201. Springer, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-285-6:267
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-285-6:267
Publisher Name: Springer, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-0-89603-980-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-285-2
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols