Quantitative analysis of aggregation-solubility relationship by in-silico solubility prediction

References

• Jadhav A, Ferreira RS, Klumpp C, et al. Quantitative analysis of aggregation, autofluorescence, and reactivity artifacts in a screen for inhibitors of a thiol protease. J Med Chem. 2010;53:37–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shoichet BK. Screening in a spirit haunted world. Drug Discov Today. 2006;11:607–615.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feng BY, Simeonov A, Jadhav A, et al. A high-throughput screen for aggregation-based inhibition in a large compound library. J Med Chem. 2007;50:2385–2390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ryan AJ, Gray NM, Lowe PN, et al. Effect of detergent on “promiscuous” inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2003;46:3448–3451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGovern SL, Helfand BT, Feng B, et al. A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. J Med Chem. 2003;46:4265–4272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche O, Schneider P, Zuegge J, et al. Development of a virtual screening method for identification of “frequent hitters” in compound libraries. J Med Chem. 2002;45:137–142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crisman TJ, Parker CN, Jenkins JL, et al. Understanding false positives in reporter gene assays: in silico chemogenomics approaches to prioritize cell-based HTS data. J Med Chem. 2007;47:1319–1327.
   Google Scholar
• Seidler J, McGovern SL, Doman TN, et al. Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. J Med Chem. 2003;46:4477–4486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rao H, Li Z, Li X, et al. Identification of small molecule aggregators from large compound libraries by support vector machines. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:752–763.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes LD, Palmer DS, Nigsch F, et al. Why are some properties more difficult to predict than others? A study of QSPR models of solubility. melting point, and LogP. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2008;48:220–232.
   Google Scholar
• Llinas A, Glen RC, Goodman JM. Solubility challenge: Can you predict solubilities of 32 molecules using a database of 100 reliable measurements? J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2008;48:1289–1303.
   Google Scholar
• Hopfinger AJ, Esposito EX, Llinas A, et al. Findings of the challenge to predict aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2009;48:1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Wakita K, Yoshimoto M, Miyamoto S, et al. A method for calculation of the aqueous solubility of organic compounds by using new fragmental solubility constants. Chem Pharm Bull. 1986;34:4663–4681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suzuki T. Development of an automatic estimation system for both the partition coefficient and aqueous solubility. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 1991;5:149–166.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhne R, Ebert RU, Kleint F, et al. Group contribution methods to estimate water solubility of organic chemicals. Chemosphere. 1995;30:2061–2077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen WL, Duffy EM. Prediction of drug solubility from Monte Carlo simulations. BioorgMedicinal Chem Lett. 2000;10:1155–1158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ran Y, Yalkowsky SH. Prediction of drug solubility by the general solubility equation (GSE). J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001 ;41:354–357.
   Google Scholar
• Yan A, Gasteiger J. Prediction of aqueous solubility of organic compounds based on a 3D structure representation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:429–434.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sum H. A universal molecular descriptor system for prediction of LogP, LogS, LogBB, and absorption. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2004;44:748–757.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrom CAS, Wassvik CM, Norinder U, et al. Global and local computational models for aqueous solubility prediction of drug-like molecules. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2004;44:1477–1488.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Huuskonen J, Salo M, Taskinen J. Aqueous solubility prediction of drugs based on molecular topology and neural network modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1998;38:450–456.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang J, Krudy G, Hou T, et al. Development of reliable aqueous solubility models and their application in druglike analysis. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2007;47:1395–1404.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer DD, O’Boyle NM, Glen RC, et al. Random forest models to predict aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2007;47:150–158.
   Google Scholar
• Schwaighofer A, Schroeter T, Mika S, et al. Accurate solubility prediction with error bars for electrolytes: a machine learning approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2007;47:407–424.
   Google Scholar
• Obrezanova O, Gola JM, Champness EJ, et al. Automatic QSAR modeling of ADME properties: blood-brain barrier penetration and aqueous solubility. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2008;22:431–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilal SH, Saravanaraj AN, Whiteside T, et al. Calculating physical properties of organic compounds for environmental modeling from molecular structure. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2007;21:693–708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan A, Gasteiger J, Krug M, et al. Linear and nonlinear functions on modeling of aqueous solubility of organic compounds by two structure representation method. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2004;18:75–87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zupan J, Gasteiger J. Neural networks in chemistry and drug design 2nd edition; Wiley-VCH; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Joback KG, Reid RC. Estimation of pure-component properties from group-contributions. Chem Eng Comm. 1987;57:233–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajima S et al. Computed property data base: CPDB – development of an integrated software tool for molecular design: MolWorks. J Comput Chem Jpn. 2006;5:23–28.
   Google Scholar
• Still WC, Tempczyk A, Hawley RC, et al. Semianalytical treatment of solvation for molecular mechanics and dynamics. J Am Chem Soc. 1990;112:6127–6129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins DG, Cramer JC, Truhlar GD. Parametrized models of aqueous free energies of solvation based on pairwise descreening of solute atomic charges from a dielectric medium. J Phys Chem. 1996;100:19824–19839.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huuskonen J. Estimation of aqueous solubility for a diverse set of organic compounds based on molecular topology. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2000;40:773–777.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fukunishi Y, Mikami Y, Nakamura H. The filling potential method: A method for estimating the free energy surface for protein-ligand docking. J Phys Chem B. 2003;107:13201–13210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Wolf RM, Caldwell JW, et al. Development and testing of a general amber force field. J Compt Chem. 2004;25:1157–1174.
   Google Scholar
• Hou TJ, Xia K, Zhang W, et al. ADME Evaluation in drug discovery. 4 Prediction of aqueous solubility based on atom contribution approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2004;44:266–275.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tetko I, Tanchuk YV, Kasheva T, Villa A. Estimation of aqueous solubility of chemical compounds using E-state indices. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2001;41:1488–1493.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jacobsson M, Liden P, Stjernschantz E, Bostrom H, Norinder U. Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J Med Chem. 2003;46:5781–5789.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fukunishi Y, Sugihara Y, Mikami Y, Sakai K, Kusudo H, Nakamura H. Advanced in-silico drug screening to achieve high hit ratio-development of 3D-compound database. Synthesiology. 2009;2:60–68.
   Google Scholar
• Fukunishi Y, Mikami Y, Kubota S, Nakamura H. Multiple target screening method for robust and accurate in silico screening. J Mol Graph Model. 2005;25:61–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar