Cited by 257Computational Drug Discovery MethodsSynthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic CompoundsChemical Synthesis and Analysis

DOGS: Reaction-Driven de novo Design of Bioactive Compounds

Open access
Hartenfeller, Markus, Zettl, Heiko, Walter, Miriam, Rupp, Matthias, Reisen, Felix, Proschak, Ewgenij, Weggen, Sascha, Stark, Holger +1 more·2012·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

We present a computational method for the reaction-based de novo design of drug-like molecules. The software DOGS (Design of Genuine Structures) features a ligand-based strategy for automated 'in silico' assembly of potentially novel bioactive compounds. The quality of the designed compounds is assessed by a graph kernel method measuring their similarity to known bioactive reference ligands in terms of structural and pharmacophoric features. We implemented a deterministic compound construction procedure that explicitly considers compound synthesizability, based on a compilation of 25'144 readily available synthetic building blocks and 58 established reaction principles. This enables the software to suggest a synthesis route for each designed compound. Two prospective case studies are presented together with details on the algorithm and its implementation. De novo designed ligand candidates for the human histamine H₄ receptor and γ-secretase were synthesized as suggested by the software. The computational approach proved to be suitable for scaffold-hopping from known ligands to novel chemotypes, and for generating bioactive molecules with drug-like properties.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002380

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DOGS applies 58 well-established chemical transformation rules to a set of 25144 readily available synthetic blocks from the Sigma-Aldrich catalog.

    “This algorithm applies 58 well-established chemical transformation rules to a set of 25144 readily available synthetic blocks from the Sigma-Aldrich catalog.”

    From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [154]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [36]Celanire S Lebon F Stark H 2009 Drug discovery: from hits to vlinical vandidates. Vohora D The Third Histamine Receptor: Selective Ligands as Potential Therapeutic Agents in CNS Disorders Boca Raton CRC Press 103 165

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartenfeller, M., Zettl, H., Walter, M., Rupp, M., Reisen, F., Proschak, E., Weggen, S., Stark, H., & Schneider, G.
Affiliations
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
Corresponding author
Schneider, Gisbert
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2012-02-16
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
e1002380
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W2052933929
Cited by
251
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 6
FWCI
15.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository for Publications and Research Data (ETH Zurich) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • ETH Zürich Research Collection (cc-by)
Funders
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BM0806)
  • Ministry of Education, India
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic Compounds
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chemical Synthesis and Analysis
Keywords
de novo drug design, ligand-based drug design, synthetic building blocks, scaffold hopping, histamine H4 receptor, gamma-secretase, bioactive compounds, drug-likeness
MeSH terms
Receptors, Histamine H4, Algorithms, Automation, Computers, Humans, Ligands, Models, Chemical, Receptors, Histamine, Software, Technology, Pharmaceutical, Drug Design, Models, Statistical, Molecular Structure, Computational Biology, Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled, Amyloid Precursor Protein Secretases

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