2006
DOI: 10.1021/ci060074f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Explicit Diversity Index (EDI):  A Novel Measure for Assessing the Diversity of Compound Databases

Abstract: A novel diversity assessment method, the Explicit Diversity Index (EDI), is introduced for druglike molecules. EDI combines structural and synthesis-related dissimilarity values and expresses them as a single number. As an easily interpretable measure, it facilitates the decision making in the design of combinatorial libraries, and it might assist in the comparison of compound sets provided by different manufacturers. Because of its rapid calculation algorithm, EDI enables the diversity assessment of in-house … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A library of 199,082 compounds of >85% purity at >5 mg amount (available at AMRI Inc., Hungary) was virtually filtered through a set of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, and toxicity (ADME-Tox) filters and ranked according to drug likeness index (Xu and Stevenson, 2000). The selected set of 54,000 compounds was further reduced by applying diversity criteria (Papp et al, 2006), and the resulting library of 18,400 compounds was then screened at 5 μM concentration in a cell-based high-throughput assay with a luciferase readout in cells expressing GFRα1 and RET (Sidorova et al, 2010). Forty-three compounds that induced luciferase response by at least three times above the baseline were then tested in luciferase assay in triplicates in 5 μM concentration to confirm their biological activity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A library of 199,082 compounds of >85% purity at >5 mg amount (available at AMRI Inc., Hungary) was virtually filtered through a set of absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, and toxicity (ADME-Tox) filters and ranked according to drug likeness index (Xu and Stevenson, 2000). The selected set of 54,000 compounds was further reduced by applying diversity criteria (Papp et al, 2006), and the resulting library of 18,400 compounds was then screened at 5 μM concentration in a cell-based high-throughput assay with a luciferase readout in cells expressing GFRα1 and RET (Sidorova et al, 2010). Forty-three compounds that induced luciferase response by at least three times above the baseline were then tested in luciferase assay in triplicates in 5 μM concentration to confirm their biological activity.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clustering is usually based on the Maximum Common Substructure search [65] algorithm. Scaffold analysis could also be combined with the simple chemical diversity selection and a combined index could reflect both (EDI, Explicit Diversity Index) [66]. For better and more efficient performance the 2D/3D similarity selection methods can be combined.…”
Section: Filtering the Initial 2d Similarity Search Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This relatively vast, diverse and unique chemical space was complemented with a focused set of 1,500 compounds synthesized at the University of Bari. To adjust the number of compounds to our screening capacity, an optimal diversity selection was performed [55]. The final screening collection was limited to a diverse selection of 30,000 compounds, a number that was fitting optimally our capacity for cytotoxicity screening.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%