Advertisement

Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1101–1109 | Cite as

Systematic assessment of scaffold distances in ChEMBL: prioritization of compound data sets for scaffold hopping analysis in virtual screening

  • Ruifang Li
  • Jürgen Bajorath
Article

Abstract

The evaluation of the scaffold hopping potential of computational methods is of high relevance for virtual screening. For benchmark calculations, classes of known active compounds are utilized. Ideally, such classes should have a well-defined content of structurally diverse scaffolds. However, in reported benchmark investigations, the choice of activity classes is often difficult to rationalize. To provide a compendium of well-characterized test cases for the assessment of scaffold hopping potential, structural distances between scaffolds were systematically calculated for compound classes available in the ChEMBL database. Nearly seven million scaffold pairs were evaluated. On the basis of the global scaffold distance distribution, a threshold value for large scaffold distances was determined. Compound data sets were ranked based on the proportion of scaffold pairs with large distances they contained, taking additional criteria into account that are relevant for virtual screening. A set of 50 activity classes is provided that represent attractive test cases for scaffold hopping analysis and benchmark calculations.

Keywords

Scaffolds Structural distances Database analysis Scaffold hopping Ligand-based virtual screening 

References

  1. 1.
    Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, Schmid G (1999) Angew Chem Int Ed 19:2894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider G, Schneider P, Renner S (2006) QSAR Comb Sci 25:1162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown N, Jacoby E (2006) Mini Rev Med Chem 6:1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hu Y, Bajorath J (2010) Med Chem Commun 1:339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vogt M, Stumpfe D, Geppert H, Bajorath J (2010) J Med Chem 53:5707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Geppert H, Vogt M, Bajorath J (2010) J Chem Inf Model 50:205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stumpfe D, Bajorath J (2011) In Sotriffer C (ed) Applied virtual screening: strategies, recommendations, and caveats. Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry. Virtual screening. Principles, challenges, and practical guidelines. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, p 73Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hu Y, Stumpfe D, Bajorath J (2011) J Chem Inf Model 51:1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li R, Stumpfe D, Vogt M, Geppert H, Bajorath J (2011) J Chem Inf Model 51:2507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, Light Y, McGlinchey S, Michalovich D, Al-Lazikani B, Overington JP (2012) Nucleic Acids Res 40:D1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Bemis GW, Murcko MA (1996) J Med Chem 39:2887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MACCS (2002) Structural keys. Symyx Software, San RamonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rogers D, Hahn M (2010) J Chem Inf Model 51:742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2005) J Chem Inf Model 51:177CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life Science Informatics, B-IT, LIMES Program Unit Chemical Biology and Medicinal ChemistryRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations