A chemoinformatic analysis of atoms, scaffolds and functional groups in natural products

References

1. Abegaz BM, Kinfe HH. Secondary metabolites, their structural diversity, bioactivity, and ecological functions: an overview. Phys Sci Rev. 2018. DOI:10.1515/psr-2018-0100.Search in Google Scholar

2. Ntie-Kang F, Svozil D. An enumeration of natural products from microbial, marine and terrestrial sources. Phys Sci Rev. 2019. DOI:10.1515/psr-2018-0121.Search in Google Scholar

3. Ribes S, Fuentes A, Talens P, Barat JM. Prevention of fungal spoilage in food products using natural compounds: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2018;58:2002–16.10.1080/10408398.2017.1295017Search in Google Scholar

4. Harvey AL. Natural products in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2008;13:894–901.10.1016/j.drudis.2008.07.004Search in Google Scholar

5. Martins A, Vieira H, Gaspar H, Santos S. Marketed marine natural products in the pharmaceutical and cosmeceutical industries: tips for success. Mar Drugs. 2014;12:1066–101.10.3390/md12021066Search in Google Scholar

6. Altmann KH. Drugs from the oceans: marine natural products as leads for drug discovery. Chimia (Aarau). 2017;71:646–52.10.2533/chimia.2017.646Search in Google Scholar

7. Koehn FE, Carter GT. The evolving role of natural products in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005;4:206–20.10.1038/nrd1657Search in Google Scholar

8. Shen B. A new golden age of natural products drug discovery. Cell. 2015;163:1297–300.10.1016/j.cell.2015.11.031Search in Google Scholar

9. Newman DJ, Cragg GM. Natural products as sources of new drugs from 1981 to 2014. J Nat Prod. 2016;79:629–61.10.1021/acs.jnatprod.5b01055Search in Google Scholar

10. Bade R, Chan HF, Reynisson J. Characteristics of known drug space. natural products, their derivatives and synthetic drugs. Eur J Med Chem. 2010;45:5646–52.10.1016/j.ejmech.2010.09.018Search in Google Scholar

11. Feher M, Schmidt JM. Property distributions: differences between drugs, natural products, and molecules from combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003;43:218–27.10.1021/ci0200467Search in Google Scholar

12. Grabowski K, Schneider G. Properties and architecture of drugs and natural products revisited. Curr Chem Biol. 2007;1:115–27.10.2174/2212796810701010115Search in Google Scholar

13. Schneider P, Schneider G. Collection of bioactive reference compounds for focused library design. QSAR Comb Sci. 2003;22:713–8.10.1002/qsar.200330825Search in Google Scholar

14. AnalytiCon Discovery GmbH. Hermannswerder Haus 17, D-14473 Potsdam, Germany. http://www.ac-discovery.com.Search in Google Scholar

15. InterBioScreen Ltd. 121019 Moscow, P.O. Box 218, Russia. http://www.ibscreen.com/.Search in Google Scholar

16. Schneider G, Lee M-L, Stahl M, Schneider P. De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drugderived building blocks. J Comput-Aided Mol Des. 2000;14:487–94.10.1023/A:1008184403558Search in Google Scholar

17. Pegg SC-, Haresco JJ, Kuntz ID. A genetic algorithm for structure-based de novo design. J Comput-Aided Mol Des. 2001;15:911–33.10.1023/A:1014389729000Search in Google Scholar

18. Lameijer E-W, Kok JN, Bäck T, IJzerman AP. The molecule evoluator. an interactive evolutionary algorithm for the design of drug-like molecules. J Chem Inf Model. 2006;46:545–52.10.1021/ci050369dSearch in Google Scholar

19. Yu MJ. Natural product-like virtual libraries: recursive atom-based enumeration. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51:541–57.10.1021/ci1002087Search in Google Scholar

20. Hedner E. Bioactive compounds in the chemical defence of marine sponges: structure-activity relationships and pharmacological targets. Uppsala: Uppsala University, Interfaculty Units, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2007:54.Search in Google Scholar

21. Faulkner DJ. Marine natural products. Nat Prod Rep. 2002;9:1–48.10.1039/np9860300001Search in Google Scholar

22. Rinehart KL. Secondary metabolites from marine organisms. Ciba Found Symp. 1992;171:236–49.10.1002/9780470514344.ch14Search in Google Scholar

23. Fenical W. Natural products chemistry in the marine environment. Science. 1982;215:923–8.10.1126/science.215.4535.923Search in Google Scholar

24. Muigg P, Rosén J, Bohlin L, Backlund A. In silico comparison of marine, terrestrial and synthetic compounds using ChemGPS-NP for navigating chemical space. Phytochem Rev. 2013;12:449–57.10.1007/s11101-012-9256-2Search in Google Scholar

25. Shang J, Hu B, Wang J, Zhu F, Kang Y, Li D, et al. Cheminformatic insight into the differences between terrestrial and marine originated natural products. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58:1182–93.10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00125Search in Google Scholar

26. Lewell XQ, Judd DB, Watson SP, Hann MM. RECAP - Retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1998;38:511–22.10.1021/ci970429iSearch in Google Scholar

27. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs 0.1. molecular frameworks. J Med Chem. 1996;39:2887–93.10.1021/jm9602928Search in Google Scholar

28. Kong D-X, Jiang -Y-Y, Zhang H-Y. Marine natural products as sources of novel scaffolds: achievement and concern. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15:884–6.10.1016/j.drudis.2010.09.002Search in Google Scholar

29. Kong D-X, Guo M-Y, Xiao Z-H, Chen -L-L, Zhang H-Y. Historical variation of structural novelty in a natural product library. Chem Biodiv. 2011;8:1968–77.10.1002/cbdv.201100156Search in Google Scholar

30. Tian S, Wang J, Li Y, Xu X, Hou T. Drug-likeness analysis of traditional Chinese medicines: prediction of drug-likeness using machine learning approaches. Mol Pharm. 2012;9:2875–86.10.1021/mp300198dSearch in Google Scholar

31. Tian S, Wang J, Li Y, Li D, Xu L, Hou T. The application of in silico drug-likeness predictions in pharmaceutical research. Adv Drug Delivery Rev. 2015;86:2–10.10.1016/j.addr.2015.01.009Search in Google Scholar

32. Wetzel S, Schuffenhauer A, Roggo S, Ertl P, Waldmann H. Cheminformatic analysis of natural products and their chemical space. Chimia. 2007;61:355–60.10.2533/chimia.2007.355Search in Google Scholar

33. Yongye AB1, Waddell J, Medina-Franco JL. Molecular scaffold analysis of natural products databases in the public domain. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2012;80:717–24.10.1111/cbdd.12011Search in Google Scholar

34. González-Medina M, Medina-Franco JL. Chemical diversity of cyanobacterial compounds: a chemoinformatics analysis. ACS Omega. 2019;4:6229–37.10.1021/acsomega.9b00532Search in Google Scholar

35. Medina-Franco JL, Martnez-Mayorga K, Bender A, Scio T. Scaffold diversity analysis of compound data sets using an entropy-based measure. QSAR Comb Sci. 2009;28:1551–60.10.1002/qsar.200960069Search in Google Scholar

36. Brahmkshatriya PP, Brahmkshatriya PS. Terpenes: chemistry, biological role, and therapeutic applications. In: Ramawat K, Mérillon JM, editors. Natural products. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2013.10.1007/978-3-642-22144-6_120Search in Google Scholar

37. Zeng T, Liu Z, Liu H, He W, Tang X, Xie L, et al. Exploring chemical and biological space of terpenoids. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59:3667–78.10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00443Search in Google Scholar

38. Lovering F, Bikker J, Humblet C. Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. J Med Chem. 2009;52:6752–6.10.1021/jm901241eSearch in Google Scholar

39. Clemons PA, Bodycombe NE, Carrinski HA, Wilson JA, Shamji AF, Wagner BK, et al. Small molecules of different origins have distinct distributions of structural complexity that correlate with protein-binding profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:18787–92.10.1073/pnas.1012741107Search in Google Scholar

40. Ertl P, Schuhmann T. A systematic cheminformatics analysis of functional groups occurring in natural products. J Nat Prod. 2019;82:1258–63.10.1021/acs.jnatprod.8b01022Search in Google Scholar

41. Dictionary of Natural Products 27.1. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.Search in Google Scholar

42. Federhen S. The NCBI taxonomy database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012; 40: D136–43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy.10.1093/nar/gkr1178Search in Google Scholar

43. Natural Product Atlas. https://www.npatlas.org/joomla/index.php. Accessed: 19 Aug 2019.Search in Google Scholar

44. Sterling T, Irwin JJ. ZINC 15−ligand discovery for everyone. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55:2324–37. http://zinc.docking.org/catalogs/uefsnp/. Accessed: 16 May 2019.10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00559Search in Google Scholar

45. Ertl P, Schuhmann T. Cheminformatics analysis of natural product scaffolds: comparison of scaffolds produced by animals, plants, fungi and bacteria. Mol Inf. 2020. DOI:10.1002/minf.202000017.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

46. Seca AM, Pinto DC. Plant secondary metabolites as anticancer agents: successes in clinical trials and therapeutic application. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:E263.10.3390/ijms19010263Search in Google Scholar

47. Fang J, Wu Z, Cai C, Wang Q, Tang Y, Cheng F. Quantitative and systems pharmacology 1. In silico prediction of drug-target interaction of natural products enables new targeted cancer therapy. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57:2657–71.10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00216Search in Google Scholar

48. Gerwick WH, Moore BS. Lessons from the past and charting the future of marine natural products drug discovery and chemical biology. Chem Biol. 2012;19:85–98.10.1016/j.chembiol.2011.12.014Search in Google Scholar

49. Ding W, Gu J, Cao L, Li N, Ding G, Wang Z, et al. Traditional Chinese herbs as chemical resource library for drug discovery of anti-infective and anti-inflammatory. J Ethnopharmacol. 2014;155:589–98.10.1016/j.jep.2014.05.066Search in Google Scholar

50. Buenz EJ, Verpoorte R, Bauer BA. The Ethnopharmacologic contribution to bioprospecting natural products. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2018;58:509–30.10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010617-052703Search in Google Scholar

51. Grisoni F, Merk D, Consonni V, Hiss JA, Tagliabue SG, Todeschini R, et al. Scaffold hopping from natural products to synthetic mimetics by holistic molecular similarity. Comm Chem. 2018;1:44.10.1038/s42004-018-0043-xSearch in Google Scholar

52. Muegge I, Mukherjee P. An overview of molecular fingerprint similarity search in virtual screening. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2016;11:137–48.10.1517/17460441.2016.1117070Search in Google Scholar

53. Saldívar-González FI, Valli M, Andricopulo AD, Bolzani VS, Medina-Franco JL. Chemical space and diversity of the NuBBE database: a chemoinformatic characterization. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59:74–85.10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00619Search in Google Scholar

54. Krier M, Bret G, Rognan D. Assessing the scaffold diversity of screening libraries. J Chem Inf Model. 2006;46:512–24.10.1021/ci050352vSearch in Google Scholar

55. Shang J, Sun H, Liu H, Chen F, Tian S, Pan P, et al. Comparative analyses of structural features and scaffold diversity for purchasable compound libraries. J Cheminform. 2017;9:25.10.1186/s13321-017-0212-4Search in Google Scholar

56. Olğaç A, Orhan IE, Banoglu E. The potential role of in silico approaches to identify novel bioactive molecules from natural resources. Future Med Chem. 2017. DOI:10.4155/fmc-2017-0124.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

57. Skinnider MA, Magarvey NA. Statistical reanalysis of natural products reveals increasing chemical diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2017;114:E6271–2.10.1073/pnas.1708560114Search in Google Scholar

58. Ho TT, Tran QT, Chai CL. The polypharmacology of natural products. Future Med Chem. 2018;10:1361–8.10.4155/fmc-2017-0294Search in Google Scholar