Drug Discovery Paradigms: Target-Based Drug Discovery

• Abraham A, Nedjah N, de Macedo ML. Evolutionary computation: from genetic algorithms to genetic programming. In: Genetic systems programming. Springer; 2006. p. 1–20.

  Google Scholar 

• Adcock SA, McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics: survey of methods for simulating the activity of proteins. Chem Rev. 2006;106:1589–615.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Alfe D. Ab initio molecular dynamics, a simple algorithm for charge extrapolation. Comput Phys Commun. 1999;118:31–3.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Armon A, Graur D, Ben-Tal N. ConSurf: an algorithmic tool for the identification of functional regions in proteins by surface mapping of phylogenetic information. J Mol Biol. 2001;307:447–63.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Bagal SK, Brown AD, Cox PJ, Omoto K, Owen RM, Pryde DC, Sidders B, Stevens SSE, EB, Storer RI. Ion channels as therapeutic targets: a drug discovery perspective. J Med Chem. 2013;56:593–624.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Batool M, Ahmad B, Choi S. A structure-based drug discovery paradigm. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:2783.

  Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE. The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28:235–42.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Born J, Manica M, Oskooei A, Cadow J, Markert G, Martínez MR. PaccMannRL: De novo generation of hit-like anticancer molecules from transcriptomic data via reinforcement learning. Iscience. 2021;24:102269.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Chen H, Engkvist O, Wang Y, Olivecrona M, Blaschke T. The rise of deep learning in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23:1241–50.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Clark DE. What has computer-aided molecular design ever done for drug discovery? Exp Opin Drug Discov. 2006;1:103–10.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Coleman RG, Carchia M, Sterling T, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Ligand pose and orientational sampling in molecular docking. PLoS One. 2013;8:e75992.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Crespo A, Rodriguez-Granillo A, Lim VT. Quantum-mechanics methodologies in drug discovery: applications of docking and scoring in lead optimization. Curr Top Med Chem. 2017;17:2663–80.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Davis AM, Teague SJ, Kleywegt GJ. Application and limitations of X-ray crystallographic data in structure-based ligand and drug design. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2003;42:2718–36.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Dias R, de Azevedo J, Walter F. Molecular docking algorithms. Curr Drug Targets. 2008;9:1040–7.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Ferrara P, Gohlke H, Price DJ, Klebe G, Brooks CL. Assessing scoring functions for protein− ligand interactions. J Med Chem. 2004;47:3032–47.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Ferreira LG, Dos Santos RN, Oliva G, Andricopulo AD. Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules. 2015;20:13384–421.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Foloppe N, Hubbard R. Towards predictive ligand design with free-energy based computational methods? Curr Med Chem. 2006;13:3583–608.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Gabel J, Desaphy J, Rognan D. Beware of machine learning-based scoring functions on the danger of developing black boxes. J Chem Inform Model. 2014;54:2807–15.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• González MA. Force fields and molecular dynamics simulations. École thématique de la Société Française de la Neutronique. 2011;12:169–200.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Guedes IA, de Magalhães CS, Dardenne LE. Receptor–ligand molecular docking. Biophys Rev. 2014;6:75–87.

  Google Scholar 

• Guedes IA, Pereira FSS, Dardenne LE. Empirical scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening: applications, critical aspects, and challenges. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1089.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Guvench O, MacKerell AD. Comparison of protein force fields for molecular dynamics simulations. Mol Model Proteins. 2008:63–88.

  Google Scholar 

• Harigua-Souiai E, Cortes-Ciriano I, Desdouits N, Malliavin TE, Guizani I, Nilges M, Blondel A, Bouvier G. Identification of binding sites and favorable ligand binding moieties by virtual screening and self-organizing map analysis. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16:1–15.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Hartenfeller M, Schneider G. De novo drug design. Chemoinform Comput Chem Biol. 2010:299–323.

  Google Scholar 

• Hollingsworth SA, Dror RO. Molecular dynamics simulation for all. Neuron. 2018;99:1129–43.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Huang B. MetaPocket: a meta approach to improve protein ligand binding site prediction. OMICS A J Integr Biol. 2009;13:325–30.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Huang S-Y, Zou X. Advances and challenges in protein-ligand docking. Int J Mol Sci. 2010;11:3016–34.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Huang S-Y, Grinter SZ, Zou X. Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein–ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2010;12:12899–908.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Jain AN. Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr Protein Peptide Sci. 2006;7:407–20.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Kawai K, Nagata N, Takahashi Y. De novo design of drug-like molecules by a fragment-based molecular evolutionary approach. J Chem Inform Model. 2014;54:49–56.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Koradi R, Billeter M, Güntert P. Point-centered domain decomposition for parallel molecular dynamics simulation. Comput Phys Commun. 2000;124:139–47.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Krishnan SR, Bung N, Bulusu G, Roy A. Accelerating de novo drug design against novel proteins using deep learning. J Chem Inform Model. 2021;61:621–30.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Lappano R, Maggiolini M. G protein-coupled receptors: novel targets for drug discovery in cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:47–60.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Laskowski RA. SURFNET: a program for visualizing molecular surfaces, cavities, and intermolecular interactions. J Mol Graph. 1995;13:323–30.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Laurie ATR, Jackson RM. Q-SiteFinder: an energy-based method for the prediction of protein–ligand binding sites. Bioinformatics. 2005;21:1908–16.

  Google Scholar 

• Leimkuhler B, Matthews C. Molecular dynamics. Springer; 2016.

  Google Scholar 

• Li Y, Yang J. Structural and sequence similarity makes a significant impact on machine-learning-based scoring functions for protein–ligand interactions. J Chem Inform Model. 2017;57:1007–12.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Li J, Fu A, Zhang L. An overview of scoring functions used for protein–ligand interactions in molecular docking. Interdiscip Sci: Comput Life Sci. 2019;11:320–8.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Lionta E, Spyrou G, Vassilatis K, D, Cournia Z. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: principles, applications and recent advances. Curr Top Med Chem. 2014;14:1923–38.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Liu J, Wang R. Classification of current scoring functions. J Chem Inform Model. 2015;55:475–82.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Liu X, Ijzerman AP, van Westen GJP. Computational approaches for de novo drug design: past, present, and future. In: Artificial neural networks. Springer; 2021. p. 139–65.

  Google Scholar 

• Lounnas V, Ritschel T, Kelder J, McGuire R, Bywater RP, Foloppe N. Current progress in structure-based rational drug design marks a new mindset in drug discovery. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2013;5:e201302011.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Maia MS, Nunes TAL, Sousa JMS, Rodrigues GCS, Monteiro AFM, Tavares JF, Rodrigues KAF, Mendonça-Junior FJB, Scotti L, Scotti MT. Virtual screening and the in vitro assessment of the antileishmanial activity of lignans. Molecules. 2020;25:2281.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Martín-García F, Papaleo E, Gomez-Puertas P, Boomsma W, Lindorff-Larsen K. Comparing molecular dynamics force fields in the essential subspace. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0121114.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Meng X-Y, Zhang H-X, Mezei M, Cui M. Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr Comput-Aid Drug Des. 2011;7:146–57.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Meyers J, Fabian B, Brown N. De novo molecular design and generative models. Drug Discov Today. 2021;26(11):2707–15.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Monticelli L, Tieleman DP. Force fields for classical molecular dynamics. Biomol Simul. 2013:197–213.

  Google Scholar 

• Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, Sanner MF, Belew RK, Goodsell DS, Olson AJ. AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009;30:2785–91.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Mouchlis VD, Afantitis A, Serra A, Fratello M, Papadiamantis AG, Aidinis V, Lynch I, Greco D, Melagraki G. Advances in de novo drug design: from conventional to machine learning methods. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:1676.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Ng MCK, Fong S, Siu SWI. PSOVina: The hybrid particle swarm optimization algorithm for protein–ligand docking. J Bioinforma Comput Biol. 2015;13:1541007.

  Google Scholar 

• Nussinov R, Tsai C-J. The different ways through which specificity works in orthosteric and allosteric drugs. Curr Pharm Des. 2012;18:1311–6.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Oda A. Development and validation of programs for ligand-binding-pocket search. Yakugaku zasshi: J Pharm Soc Japan. 2011;131:1429–35.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Oliveira SHP, Ferraz FAN, Honorato RV, Xavier-Neto J, Sobreira TJP, de Oliveira PSL. KVFinder: steered identification of protein cavities as a PyMOL plugin. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:1–8.

  Google Scholar 

• Paquet E, Viktor HL. Computational methods for Ab initio molecular dynamics. Adv Chem. 2018;2018:9839641.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Platania CBM, Bucolo C. Molecular dynamics simulation techniques as tools in drug discovery and pharmacology: a focus on allosteric drugs. In: Allostery. Springer; 2021. p. 245–54.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Ponder JW, Case DA. Force fields for protein simulations. Adv Protein Chem. 2003;66:27–85.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Popova M, Isayev O, Tropsha A. Deep reinforcement learning for de novo drug design. Science Adv. 2018;4:eaap7885.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Potapov V, Cohen M, Inbar Y, Schreiber G. Protein structure modelling and evaluation based on a 4-distance description of side-chain interactions. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:1–17.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Putin E, Asadulaev A, Ivanenkov Y, Aladinskiy V, Sanchez-Lengeling B, Aspuru-Guzik A, Zhavoronkov A. Reinforced adversarial neural computer for de novo molecular design. J Chem Inform Model. 2018;58:1194–204.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Rahman A. Correlations in the motion of atoms in liquid argon. Phys Rev. 1964;136:A405.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ramesh S, Vallinayagam S, Rajendran K, Rajendran S, Rathinam V, Ramesh S. Computer-aided drug designing–modality of diagnostic system. In: Biomedical signal processing for healthcare applications. CRC Press; 2021. p. 195–218.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Ricci CG, de Andrade ASC, Mottin M, Netz PA. Molecular dynamics of DNA: comparison of force fields and terminal nucleotide definitions. J Phys Chem B. 2010;114:9882–93.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Sagui C, Darden TA. Molecular dynamics simulations of biomolecules: long-range electrostatic effects. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct. 1999;28:155–79.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Sahu A, Patra PK, Yadav MK, Varma M. Identification and characterization of ErbB4 kinase inhibitors for effective breast cancer therapy. J Receptors Signal Transduct. 2017;37:470–80.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Salmaso V, Moro S. Bridging molecular docking to molecular dynamics in exploring ligand-protein recognition process: an overview. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:923.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Salo-Ahen OMH, Alanko I, Bhadane R, Bonvin AMJJ, Honorato RV, Hossain S, Juffer AH, Kabedev A, Lahtela-Kakkonen M, Larsen AS. Molecular dynamics simulations in drug discovery and pharmaceutical development. PRO. 2021;9:71.

  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Schissel CK, Mohapatra S, Wolfe JM, Fadzen CM, Bellovoda K, Wu CL, Wood JA, Malmberg AB, Loas A, Gómez-Bombarelli R. Interpretable deep learning for de novo design of cell-penetrating abiotic polymers. bioRxiv; 2020.

  Google Scholar 

• Schmidtke P, Bidon-Chanal A, Luque FJ, Barril X. MDpocket: open-source cavity detection and characterization on molecular dynamics trajectories. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:3276–85.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Schneider G, Baringhaus KH. De novo design: from models to molecules. De Novo Mol Des. 2013:1–55.

  Google Scholar 

• Schneider G, Fechner U. Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:649–63.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Shen C, Ding J, Wang Z, Cao D, Ding X, Hou T. From machine learning to deep learning: advances in scoring functions for protein–ligand docking. Wiley Interdiscip Rev: Comput Mol Sci. 2020;10:e1429.

  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Shen C, Hu Y, Wang Z, Zhang X, Pang J, Wang G, Zhong H, Xu L, Cao D, Hou T. Beware of the generic machine learning-based scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22:bbaa070.

  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Simões T, Lopes D, Dias S, Fernandes F, Pereira J, Jorge J, Bajaj C, Gomes A. Geometric detection algorithms for cavities on protein surfaces in molecular graphics: a survey, vol. 36. Wiley Online Library; 2017. p. 643–83.

  Google Scholar 

• Sorokina M, Merseburger P, Rajan K, Yirik MA, Steinbeck C. Coconut online: collection of Open Natural Products database. J Cheminform. 2021;13:1–13.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ståhl N, Falkman G, Karlsson A, Mathiason G, Bostrom J. Deep reinforcement learning for multiparameter optimization in de novo drug design. J Chem Inform Model. 2019;59:3166–76.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Stank A, Horn KDB, M, Sizikova E, Neil R, Panecka, J, Richter S, Wade RC. TRAPP webserver: predicting protein binding site flexibility and detecting transient binding pockets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:W325–30.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Sun J, Chen K. NSiteMatch: prediction of binding sites of nucleotides by identifying the structure similarity of local surface patches. Comput Math Methods Med 2017; 2017.

  Google Scholar 

• Surabhi S, Singh BK. Computer aided drug design: an overview. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2018;8:504–9.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Tan KP, Nguyen TB, Patel S, Varadarajan R, Madhusudhan MS. Depth: a web server to compute depth, cavity sizes, detect potential small-molecule ligand-binding cavities and predict the pKa of ionizable residues in proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:W314–21.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2002;16:151–66.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• The Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2013. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2013/advanced-information/ (June 22th, 2021).

• Tripathi A, Bankaitis VA. Molecular docking: from lock and key to combination lock. J Mol Med Clin Appl. 2017;2(1) https://doi.org/10.16966/2575-0305.106.

• Valeur E, Guéret SM, Adihou H, Gopalakrishnan R, Lemurell M, Waldmann H, Grossmann TN, Plowright AT. New modalities for challenging targets in drug discovery. Angew Chem Int Ed. 2017;56:10294–323.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Van Montfort RLM, Workman P. Structure-based drug design: aiming for a perfect fit. Essays Biochem. 2017;61:431–7.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Verlet L. Computer “experiments” on classical fluids. I. Thermodynamical properties of Lennard-Jones molecules. Phys Rev. 1967;159:98.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Volkamer A, Kuhn D, Rippmann F, Rarey M. DoGSiteScorer: a web server for automatic binding site prediction, analysis and druggability assessment. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2074–5.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Wagner JR, Sørensen J, Hensley N, Wong C, Zhu C, Perison T, Amaro RE. POVME 3.0: software for mapping binding pocket flexibility. J Chem Theory Comput. 2017;13:4584–92.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Wang W. Applications of biophysical methods in small-molecule modulators targeting protein function. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen; 2021.

  Google Scholar 

• Wang R, Lu Y, Wang S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2003;46:2287–303.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Wang DB, Hsiao FB, Chuang CH, Lee YC. Algorithm optimization in molecular dynamics simulation. Comput Phys Commun. 2007;177:551–9.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Wang T, Wu M-B, Zhang R-H, Chen Z-J, Hua C, Lin J-P, Yang L-R. Advances in computational structure-based drug design and application in drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem. 2016a;16:901–16.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Wang Z, Sun H, Yao X, Li D, Xu L, Li Y, Tian S, Hou T. Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein–ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2016b;18:12964–75.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Xie Z-R, Liu C-K, Hsiao F-C, Yao A, Hwang M-J. LISE: a server using ligand-interacting and site-enriched protein triangles for prediction of ligand-binding sites. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:W292–6.

  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

• Yu J, Zhou Y, Tanaka I, Yao M. Roll: a new algorithm for the detection of protein pockets and cavities with a rolling probe sphere. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:46–52.

  Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Yuriev E, Ramsland PA. Latest developments in molecular docking: 2010–2011 in review. J Mol Recogn. 2013;26:215–39.

  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

• Zhu H, Pisabarro MT. MSPocket: an orientation-independent algorithm for the detection of ligand binding pockets. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:351–8.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

• Zhu F, Shi Z, Qin C, Tao L, Liu X, Xu F, Zhang L, Song Y, Liu X, Zhang J. Therapeutic target database update 2012: a resource for facilitating target-oriented drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D1128–36.

  Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references