Absolute vs Relative Similarity and Diversity

The Partitioning Approach to relative and absolute diversity
  • Jonathan S. Mason
Chapter

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.

Key words

diversity similarity pharmacophores chemistry space library design 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mason, J.S. and Pickett, S.D. Partition-based selection. Perspect. Drug Disc. Des., 1997, 7/8, 85–114.Google Scholar
  4. 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.htmlGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 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. 8.
    Chemical Design Ltd, part of OMG, Oxford Science Park, Oxford OX4 4GA, UK.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murrall, N.W. and Davies, E.K. Conformational freedom in 3D databases. 1. Techniques. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 1990, 30, 312–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, MOGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pearlman, R.S. DiverseSolutions User’s Manual, University of Texas, Austin, TX, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pearlman, R.S. Novel Software tools for Addressing Chemical Diversity, Network Science, 1996, http://www.awod.com/netsci/Science/combichem/feature08.htmlGoogle Scholar
  18. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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. 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.Google Scholar
  22. 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. 23.
    Molecular Discovery Limited, West Way House, Elms Parade, Oxford OX2 9LL, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MDL Information Systems Inc., 14600 Catalina Street, San Leandro, CA 94577, USA.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pearlman, R.S. and Deandra, F. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan S. Mason
    • 1
  1. 1.Bristol-Myers SquibbPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations