Abstract
The recent emphasis in combinatorial library design has shifted from the design of very large diverse libraries to the design of smaller more focused libraries. Typically the aim is to incorporate as much knowledge into the design as possible. This knowledge may relate to the target protein itself or may be derived from known active and inactive compounds. Other factors should also be taken into account, such as the cost of the library and the physicochemical properties of the compounds that are contained within the library. Thus, library design is a multiobjective optimization problem. Most approaches to optimizing multiple objectives are based on aggregation methods whereby the objectives are assigned relative weights and are combined into a single fitness function. A more recent approach involves the use of a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm in which the individual objectives are handled independently without the need to assign weights. The result is a family of solutions each of which represents a different compromise in the objectives. Thus, the library designer is able to make an informed choice on an appropriate compromise solution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Wolcke, J. and Ullmann, D. (2001) Miniaturized HTS technologies—HTS. Drug Discov. Today 6, 637–646.
Valler, M. J. and Green, D. (2000) Diversity screening versus focussed screening in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 5, 286–293.
Rose, S. and Stevens, A. (2003) Computational design strategies for combinatorial libraries. Current Opin. Chem. Biol. 7, 331–339.
Martin, E. J. and Critchlow, R. E. (1999) Beyond mere diversity: tailoring combinatorial libraries for drug discovery. J. Comb. Chem. 1, 32–45.
Beavers, M. B. and Chen, X. (2002) Structure-based combinatorial library design: methodologies and applications. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20, 463–468.
Leach, A. R., Bryce, R. A. and Robinson, A. J. (2000) Synergy between combinatorial chemistry and de novo design. J. Mol. Graphics Model. 18, 358–367.
Kubinyi, H. (2002) From narcosis to hyperspace: the history of QSAR. Quantit. Struct.-Act. Relat. 21, 348–356.
Barnard, J. M., Downs, G. M., and Willett, P. (1998) Chemical similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 983–996.
van de Waterbeemd, H. and Gifford, E. (2002) ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2, 192–204.
Gillet, V. J. and Willett, P. (2001) Dissimilarity-based compound selection for library design. In Combinatorial library design and evaluation. Principles, software tools and applications in drug discovery, Ghose, A. K. and Viswanadhan, A. N. (eds.), Marcel Dekker, New York, pp. 379–398.
Gillet, V. J., Willett, P., and Bradshaw, J. (1997) The effectiveness of reactant pools for generating structurally diverse combinatorial libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 37, 731–740.
Jamois, E. A., Hassan, M., and Waldman, M. (2000) Evaluation of reactant-based and product-based strategies in the design of combinatorial library subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 40, 63–70.
ACD. Available Chemicals Directory, MDL Information Systems, Inc. 14600 Catalina Street, San Leandro, CA 94577. http://www.mdli.com.
Leach, A. R., Bradshaw, J., Green, D. V. S., Hann, M. M., and Delany III, J. J. (1999) Implementation of a system for reagent selection and library enumeration, profiling and design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 1161–1172.
Brown, R. D. (1997) Descriptors for diversity analysis. Perspect. Drug Discov. Design 7/8, 31–49.
Bajorath, J. (2001) Selected concepts and investigations in compound classification, molecular descriptor analysis, and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 233–245.
Pickett, S. D., Mason, J. S., and McLay, I. M. (1996) Diversity profiling and design using 3D pharmacophores: Pharmacophore-derived queries (PDQ). J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36, 1214–1223.
Waldman, M., Li, H., and Hassan, M. (2000) Novel algorithms for the optimization of molecular diversity of combinatorial libraries. J. Mol. Graphics Model 18, 412–426.
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., and Feeney, P. J. (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. 23, 3–25.
Clark, D. E. and Pickett, S. D. (2000) Computational methods for the prediction of “drug-likeness.” Drug Discov. Today 5, 49–58.
Hann, M. M., Leach, A. R., and Harper, G. (2001) Molecular complexity and its impact on the probability of finding leads for drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 856–864
Oprea, T. I. (2000) Property distributions of drug-related chemical databases. J. Comput-Aided Mol. Des. 14, 251–264.
Gillet, V. J., Willett, P., and Bradshaw, J. (1999) Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimise diversity and physical properties. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 167–177.
WDI: The World Drug Index is available from Derwent Information, 14 Great Queen St., London W2 5DF, UK.
Lewis, R. A., Pickett, S. D., and Clark, D. E. (2000) Computer-aided molecular diversity analysis and combinatorial library design. In Reviews in computational chemistry, Lipkowitz, K. B. and Boyd, D.B. (eds.), VCH Publishers, New York, Vol. 16, pp. 1–51.
Mason, J. S. and Beno, B. R. (2000) Library design using BCUT chemistry-space descriptors and multiple four-point pharmacophore fingerprints: simultaneous optimisation and structure-based diversity. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 18, 438–451.
Agrafiotis, D. K. (2002) Multiobjective optimisation of combinatorial libraries. J. Comput.-Aid. Mol. Design 5/6, 335–356.
Zheng, W., Hung, S. T., Saunders, J. T., and Seibel, G. L. (2000) PICCOLO: a tool for combinatorial library design via multicriterion optimization. In Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing 2000, Atlman, R. B., Dunkar, A. K., Hunter, L., Lauderdale, K., and Klein, T. E. (eds.), World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 588–599.
Brown, J. D., Hassan, M., and Waldman, M. (2000) Combinatorial library design for diversity, cost efficiency, and drug-like character. J. Mol Graph. Model. 18, 427–437.
Coello, C. A., van Veldhuizen, D. A., and Lamont, G.B. (2002) Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York.
Fonseca, C. M. and Fleming, P. J. (1995) An overview of evolutionary algorithms in multiobjective optimization. In Evolutionary computation, De Jong, K. (ed.), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 1–16.
Gillet, V. J., Khatib, W., Willett, P., Fleming, P., and Green, D. V. S. (2002) Combinatorial library design using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 375–385.
Gillet, V. J., Willett, P., Fleming P., and Green, D. V. S. (2002) Designing focused libraries using MoSELECT. J. Mol Graph. Model. 20, 491–498.
Wright, T., Gillet, V. J., Green, D. V. S., and Pickett, S. D. (2003) Optimising the size and configuration of combinatorial libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 381–390.
Cerius2 is available from Accelrys Inc., 9685 Scranton Road, San Diego, CA 92121.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Humana Press Inc.
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Gillet, V.J. (2004). Designing Combinatorial Libraries Optimized on Multiple Objectives. In: Bajorath, J. (eds) Chemoinformatics. Methods in Molecular Biology™, vol 275. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-802-1:335
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-802-1:335
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-261-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-59259-802-1
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols