Make DrugFinder Application Submit an application to DrugFinder

Joint collaboration between the NFCR and InhibOx Go to InhibOx website Go to NFCR website

free hit counters

Software ROx

DOx
 

Many recent studies have compared shape-matching to docking as virtual screening tools ([1], [4], [3]). The general consensus among many of these studies is that docking tools do not address, in adequate detail, the affinity of molecules when compared to a query molecule or a pharmacaphore. The use of shape-based, ligand-oriented methods was therefore justified as an alternative method to determine this functionality. Most high-throughput shape-based screening platforms are based on the premise that molecules have similar shape if their volumes overlay well, and that a volume mismatch is more a indication of shape dissimilarity.


ROx is InhibOx’s in-house molecule shape comparison platform. ROx has been implemented in an efficient manner to enable the screening of many millions of molecules, represented in 3-D conformational databases, in a reasonable amount of time. ROx searches for molecules with similar shapes by comparing volume overlaps having aligned them onto a common coordinate frame.


ROx uses a customised simplex optimiser based method to align database molecules against the query molecule and then assigns scores for their similarity [5] using the Tanimoto(Eq. (1 )) and Carbo (Eq. (2 )) measures. A good review of similarity measures currently in use can be found in the paper by Raymond and Willett [2].

 

       -------C2Q,M--------
TQ,M  = C2Q,Q +C2M,M - C2Q,M
(1)

 

           C2Q,M
χQ,M =  ∘--2---2----
         C Q,QC M,M
(2)

 

References

 

[1]   P.C.D. Hawkins, A.G. Skillman, and A. Nicholls. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 50(1):74–82, 2007.

[2]   Raymond J.W. Effectiveness of graph-based and fingerprint-based similarity measures for virtual screening of 2d chemical structure databases. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 16:59–71(13), January 2002.

[3]   Sheridan R.P., McGaughey G.B., and Cornell W.D. Multiple protein structures and multiple ligands: effects on the apparent goodness of virtual screening results. J Comput Aided Mol des., 3-4:257–65, Mar-Apr 2008.

[4]   Jennifer Venhorst, Sara NuŽn ez, Jan W. Terpstra, and Chris G. Kruse. Assessment of scaffold hopping efficiency by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. Journal of medicinal chemistry, May 2008.

[5]   P. Willett, J.M. Barnard, and G.M. Downs. Chemical similarity searching. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 38(6):983–996, 1998.