The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scaffold Hopping through Virtual Screening Using 2D and 3D Similarity Descriptors: Ranking, Voting, and Consensus Scoring
Abstract
The ability to find novel bioactive scaffolds in compound similarity-based virtual screening experiments has been studied comparing Tanimoto-based, ranking-based, voting, and consensus scoring protocols. Ligand sets for seven well-known drug targets (CDK2, COX2, estrogen receptor, neuraminidase, HIV-1 protease, p38 MAP kinase, thrombin) have been assembled such that each ligand represents its own unique chemotype, thus ensuring that each similarity recognition event between ligands constitutes a scaffold hopping event. In a series of virtual screening studies involving 9969 MDDR compounds as negative controls it has been found that atom pair descriptors and 3D pharmacophore fingerprints combined with ranking, voting, and consensus scoring strategies perform well in finding novel bioactive scaffolds. In addition, often superior performance has been observed for similarity-based virtual screening compared to structure-based methods. This finding suggests that information about a target obtained from known bioactive ligands is as valuable as knowledge of the target structures for identifying novel bioactive scaffolds through virtual screening.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Charifson, P. S., Corkery, J. J., Murcko, M. A., & Walters, W. P. (1999) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm990352k · Cited by 698
Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods?
Sheridan, R. (2002) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(02)02411-x · Cited by 412
Cited by
Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints
Willett, P. (2006) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2006.10.005 · Cited by 849
Comparison of Topological, Shape, and Docking Methods in Virtual Screening
McGaughey, G. B., Sheridan, R. P., Bayly, C. I., Culberson, J. C., Kreatsoulas, C., Lindsley, S., Maiorov, V., Truchon, J.-F., & Cornell, W. D. (2007) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci700052x · Cited by 417
Classification of scaffold-hopping approaches
Sun, H., Tawa, G., & Wallqvist, A. (2012) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2011.10.024 · Cited by 375
Molecular Shape and Medicinal Chemistry: A Perspective
Nicholls, A., McGaughey, G. B., Sheridan, R. P., Good, A. C., Warren, G., Mathieu, M., Muchmore, S. W., Brown, S. P., Grant, J. A., Haigh, J. A., et al. (2010) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm900818s · Cited by 310
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Q., & Muegge, I.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-02-04
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1536-1548
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W1974240614
- Cited by
- 182
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 20.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.