VIRTUAL SCREENING STATEGIES IN DRUG DISCOVERY – A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15625/2525-2518/59/4/16003

Keywords:

virtual screening, drug discovery, molecular docking, drug-likeness, ADME

Abstract

Computer-aided drug design has now become a compulsory tool in the drug discovery and development process which uses computational approaches to discover potential compounds with expected biological activities. Firstly, this review provides a comprehensive introduction of the virtual screening technique, knowledge and advances in both SBVS and LBVS strategies also presented. Secondly, recent database of compounds provided worldwide and drug-like parameters which are helpful in supporting the VS process will be discussed. These information will provides a good platform to estimate the advance of applying these techniques in the new drug-lead identification and optimization.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Quan Minh PHAM, Institute of Natural Products Chemistry, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology

Biochemistry

Long Quoc PHAM, Institute of Natural Products Chemistry, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology

Biochemistry

References

Do Tat, L. and D. Nguyen Xuan, Native drugs of Vietnam: which traditional and scientific approaches? Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 1991. 32(1-3): p. 51-56.

Dias, D.A., S. Urban, and U. Roessner, A Historical Overview of Natural Products in Drug Discovery. Metabolites, 2012. 2(2): p. 303-336.

Newman, D.J., G.M. Cragg, and K.M. Snader, Natural Products as Sources of New Drugs over the Period 1981−2002. Journal of Natural Products, 2003. 66(7): p. 1022-1037.

Pan, S.-Y., et al., New Perspectives on How to Discover Drugs from Herbal Medicines: CAM's Outstanding Contribution to Modern Therapeutics. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2013. 2013: p. 1-25.

Sliwoski, G., et al., Computational Methods in Drug Discovery. Pharmacological Reviews, 2013. 66(1): p. 334-395.

Réda, C., E. Kaufmann, and A. Delahaye-Duriez, Machine learning applications in drug development. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 2020. 18: p. 241-252.

Ooms, F., Molecular Modeling and Computer Aided Drug Design. Examples of their Applications in Medicinal Chemistry. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2000. 7(2): p. 141-158.

Gasteiger, J., Chemoinformatics: a new field with a long tradition. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2005. 384(1): p. 57-64.

Downs, G.M. and J.M. Barnard, Clustering Methods and Their Uses in Computational Chemistry, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Volume 18. 2002. p. 1-40.

Song, C.M., S.J. Lim, and J.C. Tong, Recent advances in computer-aided drug design. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 2009. 10(5): p. 579-591.

Yu, W. and A.D. MacKerell, Computer-Aided Drug Design Methods, in Antibiotics. 2017. p. 85-106.

Singh, B.K. and S. Surabhi, Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview. Journal of Drug Delivery and Therapeutics, 2018. 8(5): p. 504-509.

da Silva Rocha, S.F.L., et al., Virtual Screening Techniques in Drug Discovery: Review and Recent Applications. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2019. 19(19): p. 1751-1767.

Slater, O. and M. Kontoyianni, The compromise of virtual screening and its impact on drug discovery. Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery, 2019. 14(7): p. 619-637.

Kontoyianni, M., Docking and Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery, in Proteomics for Drug Discovery. 2017. p. 255-266.

Paul, S.M., et al., How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2010. 9(3): p. 203-214.

Kale, V.P., et al., Old drugs, new uses: Drug repurposing in hematological malignancies. Seminars in Cancer Biology, 2021. 68: p. 242-248.

Tamimi, N.A.M. and P. Ellis, Drug Development: From Concept to Marketing! Nephron Clinical Practice, 2009. 113(3): p. c125-c131.

Moridani, M. and S. Harirforoosh, Drug development and discovery: challenges and opportunities. Drug Discovery Today, 2014. 19(11): p. 1679-1681.

Jacq, N., et al., Grid-enabled Virtual Screening Against Malaria. Journal of Grid Computing, 2007. 6(1): p. 29-43.

Kasam, V., et al., WISDOM-II: Screening against multiple targets implicated in malaria using computational grid infrastructures. Malaria Journal, 2009. 8(1).

de Beer, T.A.P., et al., Antimalarial Drug Discovery: In Silico Structural Biology and Rational Drug Design. Infectious Disorders - Drug Targets, 2009. 9(3): p. 304-318.

Ton, A.T., et al., Rapid Identification of Potential Inhibitors of SARS‐CoV‐2 Main Protease by Deep Docking of 1.3 Billion Compounds. Molecular Informatics, 2020. 39(8).

Rutwick Surya, U. and N. Praveen, A molecular docking study of SARS-CoV-2 main protease against phytochemicals of Boerhavia diffusa Linn. for novel COVID-19 drug discovery. VirusDisease, 2021.

Soumia, M., et al., Towards potential inhibitors of COVID-19 main protease Mpro by virtual screening and molecular docking study. Journal of Taibah University for Science, 2020. 14(1): p. 1626-1636.

Talluri, S., Molecular Docking and Virtual Screening based prediction of drugs for COVID-19. Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening, 2020. 23.

Keretsu, S., S.P. Bhujbal, and S.J. Cho, Rational approach toward COVID-19 main protease inhibitors via molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulation and free energy calculation. Scientific Reports, 2020. 10(1).

Ngo, S.T., et al., Assessing potential inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2 main protease from available drugs using free energy perturbation simulations. RSC Advances, 2020. 10(66): p. 40284-40290.

Pham, M.Q., et al., Rapid prediction of possible inhibitors for SARS-CoV-2 main protease using docking and FPL simulations. RSC Advances, 2020. 10(53): p. 31991-31996.

Pranav Kumar, S.K. and V.M. Kulkarni, Molecular dynamics simulations of the three dimensional model of plasmepsin II-peptidic inhibitor complexes. Drug Des Discov, 2001. 17(4): p. 293-313.

Dong, G.Q., et al., Prediction of Substrates for Glutathione Transferases by Covalent Docking. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2014. 54(6): p. 1687-1699.

Choowongkomon, K., et al., Computational analysis of binding between malarial dihydrofolate reductases and anti-folates. Malaria Journal, 2010. 9(1).

Liu, Z., et al., Molecular Docking of Potential Inhibitors for Influenza H7N9. Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2015. 2015: p. 1-8.

Chenafa, H., et al., In silico design of enzyme α-amylase and α-glucosidase inhibitors using molecular docking, molecular dynamic, conceptual DFT investigation and pharmacophore modelling. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, 2021: p. 1-22.

Basu, A., A. Sarkar, and U. Maulik, Molecular docking study of potential phytochemicals and their effects on the complex of SARS-CoV2 spike protein and human ACE2. Scientific Reports, 2020. 10(1).

Du, X., et al., Insights into Protein–Ligand Interactions: Mechanisms, Models, and Methods. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2016. 17(2).

Muegge, I. and S. Oloff, Advances in virtual screening. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 2006. 3(4): p. 405-411.

Reddy, A.S., et al., Virtual Screening in Drug Discovery - A Computational Perspective. Current Protein & Peptide Science, 2007. 8(4): p. 329-351.

Kuntz, I.D., et al., A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. Journal of Molecular Biology, 1982. 161(2): p. 269-288.

Jones, G., et al., Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen. Journal of Molecular Biology, 1997. 267(3): p. 727-748.

Ewing, T.J.A., et al., DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2001. 15(5): p. 411-428.

Friesner, R.A., et al., Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 1. Method and Assessment of Docking Accuracy. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2004. 47(7): p. 1739-1749.

Halgren, T.A., et al., Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 2. Enrichment Factors in Database Screening. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2004. 47(7): p. 1750-1759.

Kramer, B., M. Rarey, and T. Lengauer, Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1999. 37(2): p. 228-241.

Buzko, O.V., A.C. Bishop, and K.M. Shokat, Modified AutoDock for accurate docking of protein kinase inhibitors. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2002. 16(2): p. 113-127.

Morris, G.M., et al., Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 1998. 19(14): p. 1639-1662.

Warren, G.L., et al., A Critical Assessment of Docking Programs and Scoring Functions. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2006. 49(20): p. 5912-5931.

Verdonk, M.L., et al., Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 2003. 52(4): p. 609-623.

Grosdidier, A., V. Zoete, and O. Michielin, EADock: Docking of small molecules into protein active sites with a multiobjective evolutionary optimization. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics, 2007. 67(4): p. 1010-1025.

Jain, A.N., Surflex-Dock 2.1: Robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2007. 21(5): p. 281-306.

Abagyan, R., M. Totrov, and D. Kuznetsov, ICM-A new method for protein modeling and design: Applications to docking and structure prediction from the distorted native conformation. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 1994. 15(5): p. 488-506.

Bohm, H.-J., The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 1994. 8(3): p. 243-256.

Ravitz, O., Z. Zsoldos, and A. Simon, Improving molecular docking through eHiTS’ tunable scoring function. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2011. 25(11): p. 1033-1051.

Zavodszky, M.I., et al., Scoring ligand similarity in structure-based virtual screening. Journal of Molecular Recognition, 2009. 22(4): p. 280-292.

Gray, J.J., et al., Protein–Protein Docking with Simultaneous Optimization of Rigid-body Displacement and Side-chain Conformations. Journal of Molecular Biology, 2003. 331(1): p. 281-299.

Thomsen, R. and M.H. Christensen, MolDock: A New Technique for High-Accuracy Molecular Docking. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2006. 49(11): p. 3315-3321.

McGann, M., FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2012. 26(8): p. 897-906.

Chen, R., L. Li, and Z. Weng, ZDOCK: An initial-stage protein-docking algorithm. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 2003. 52(1): p. 80-87.

Kitchen, D.B., et al., Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2004. 3(11): p. 935-949.

Brooijmans, N. and I.D. Kuntz, Molecular Recognition and Docking Algorithms. Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure, 2003. 32(1): p. 335-373.

Moitessier, N., et al., Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go. British Journal of Pharmacology, 2008. 153(S1): p. S7-S26.

Huang, S.-Y., S.Z. Grinter, and X. Zou, Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein–ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 2010. 12(40).

Krovat, E., T. Steindl, and T. Langer, Recent Advances in Docking and Scoring. Current Computer Aided-Drug Design, 2005. 1(1): p. 93-102.

Bentham Science Publisher, B.S.P., Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Docking. Current Protein & Peptide Science, 2006. 7(5): p. 407-420.

Meng, E.C., B.K. Shoichet, and I.D. Kuntz, Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 1992. 13(4): p. 505-524.

Goodsell, D.S. and A.J. Olson, Automated docking of substrates to proteins by simulated annealing. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1990. 8(3): p. 195-202.

Shoichet, B.K., A.R. Leach, and I.D. Kuntz, Ligand solvation in molecular docking. Proteins: Structure, Function, and Genetics, 1999. 34(1): p. 4-16.

Zou, X., Yaxiong, and I.D. Kuntz, Inclusion of Solvation in Ligand Binding Free Energy Calculations Using the Generalized-Born Model. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1999. 121(35): p. 8033-8043.

Wang, J., et al., Use of MM-PBSA in Reproducing the Binding Free Energies to HIV-1 RT of TIBO Derivatives and Predicting the Binding Mode to HIV-1 RT of Efavirenz by Docking and MM-PBSA. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2001. 123(22): p. 5221-5230.

Weng, Z., S. Vajda, and C. Delisi, Prediction of protein complexes using empirical free energy functions. Protein Science, 1996. 5(4): p. 614-626.

Schulz-Gasch, T. and M. Stahl, Scoring functions for protein–ligand interactions: a critical perspective. Drug Discovery Today: Technologies, 2004. 1(3): p. 231-239.

Kulharia, M., R.S. Goody, and R.M. Jackson, Information Theory-Based Scoring Function for the Structure-Based Prediction of Protein−Ligand Binding Affinity. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2008. 48(10): p. 1990-1998.

Huang, S.-Y. and X. Zou, Inclusion of Solvation and Entropy in the Knowledge-Based Scoring Function for Protein−Ligand Interactions. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2010. 50(2): p. 262-273.

Leach, A.R., B.K. Shoichet, and C.E. Peishoff, Prediction of Protein−Ligand Interactions. Docking and Scoring: Successes and Gaps. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2006. 49(20): p. 5851-5855.

O’Boyle, N.M., J.W. Liebeschuetz, and J.C. Cole, Testing Assumptions and Hypotheses for Rescoring Success in Protein−Ligand Docking. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2009. 49(8): p. 1871-1878.

Raub, S., et al., AIScore — Chemically Diverse Empirical Scoring Function Employing Quantum Chemical Binding Energies of Hydrogen-Bonded Complexes. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 2008. 48(7): p. 1492-1510.

Seifert, M.H.J., Robust optimization of scoring functions for a target class. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2009. 23(9): p. 633-644.

Charifson, P.S., et al., Consensus Scoring: A Method for Obtaining Improved Hit Rates from Docking Databases of Three-Dimensional Structures into Proteins. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 1999. 42(25): p. 5100-5109.

Feher, M., Consensus scoring for protein–ligand interactions. Drug Discovery Today, 2006. 11(9-10): p. 421-428.

Evers, A., et al., Virtual Screening of Biogenic Amine-Binding G-Protein Coupled Receptors: Comparative Evaluation of Protein- and Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Protocols. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2005. 48(17): p. 5448-5465.

Jiang, F. and S.-H. Kim, “Soft docking”: Matching of molecular surface cubes. Journal of Molecular Biology, 1991. 219(1): p. 79-102.

Perez, A., et al., FlexE: Using Elastic Network Models to Compare Models of Protein Structure. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 2012. 8(10): p. 3985-3991.

Sherman, W., et al., Novel Procedure for Modeling Ligand/Receptor Induced Fit Effects. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2006. 49(2): p. 534-553.

Lin, J.-H., et al., The relaxed complex method: Accommodating receptor flexibility for drug design with an improved scoring scheme. Biopolymers, 2003. 68(1): p. 47-62.

Amaro, R.E., R. Baron, and J.A. McCammon, An improved relaxed complex scheme for receptor flexibility in computer-aided drug design. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 2008. 22(9): p. 693-705.

Case, D.A., et al., The Amber biomolecular simulation programs. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 2005. 26(16): p. 1668-1688.

Phillips, J.C., et al., Scalable molecular dynamics with NAMD. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 2005. 26(16): p. 1781-1802.

Van Der Spoel, D., et al., GROMACS: Fast, flexible, and free. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 2005. 26(16): p. 1701-1718.

Dudek, A., T. Arodz, and J. Galvez, Computational Methods in Developing Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR): A Review. Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening, 2006. 9(3): p. 213-228.

Zou, J., et al., Towards more accurate pharmacophore modeling: Multicomplex-based comprehensive pharmacophore map and most-frequent-feature pharmacophore model of CDK2. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, 2008. 27(4): p. 430-438.

Verma, J., V. Khedkar, and E. Coutinho, 3D-QSAR in Drug Design - A Review. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2010. 10(1): p. 95-115.

Lavecchia, A. and C. Giovanni, Virtual Screening Strategies in Drug Discovery: A Critical Review. Current Medicinal Chemistry, 2013. 20(23): p. 2839-2860.

Dobson, C.M., Chemical space and biology. Nature, 2004. 432(7019): p. 824-828.

Bohacek, R.S., C. McMartin, and W.C. Guida, The art and practice of structure-based drug design: A molecular modeling perspective. Medicinal Research Reviews, 1996. 16(1): p. 3-50.

Ertl, P., Cheminformatics Analysis of Organic Substituents: Identification of the Most Common Substituents, Calculation of Substituent Properties, and Automatic Identification of Drug-like Bioisosteric Groups. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 2002. 43(2): p. 374-380.

Selzer, P., et al., Complex molecules: do they add value? Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2005. 9(3): p. 310-316.

Feher, M. and J.M. Schmidt, Property Distributions: Differences between Drugs, Natural Products, and Molecules from Combinatorial Chemistry. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 2002. 43(1): p. 218-227.

Hann, M.M. and T.I. Oprea, Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology, 2004. 8(3): p. 255-263.

Lipinski, C.A., Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods, 2000. 44(1): p. 235-249.

Ridder, L., et al., Revisiting the Rule of Five on the Basis of Pharmacokinetic Data from Rat. ChemMedChem, 2011. 6(11): p. 1967-1970.

Congreve, M., et al., A ‘Rule of Three’ for fragment-based lead discovery? Drug Discovery Today, 2003. 8(19): p. 876-877.

Hughes, J.D., et al., Physiochemical drug properties associated with in vivo toxicological outcomes. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2008. 18(17): p. 4872-4875.

Axerio-Cilies, P., et al., Investigation of the incidence of “undesirable” molecular moieties for high-throughput screening compound libraries in marketed drug compounds. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2009. 44(3): p. 1128-1134.

Benigni, R. and C. Bossa, Mechanisms of Chemical Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity: A Review with Implications for Predictive Toxicology. Chemical Reviews, 2011. 111(4): p. 2507-2536.

Enoch, S.J., et al., A review of the electrophilic reaction chemistry involved in covalent protein binding relevant to toxicity. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2011. 41(9): p. 783-802.

Erve, J.C.L., Chemical toxicology: reactive intermediates and their role in pharmacology and toxicology. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology, 2006. 2(6): p. 923-946.

Kazius, J., R. McGuire, and R. Bursi, Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2005. 48(1): p. 312-320.

Rishton, G.M., Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discovery Today, 2003. 8(2): p. 86-96.

Irwin, J.J. and B.K. Shoichet, ZINC--a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model, 2005. 45(1): p. 177-82.

Chen, J.H., et al., ChemDB update full-text search and virtual chemical space. Bioinformatics, 2007. 23(17): p. 2348-2351.

Seiler, K.P., et al., ChemBank: a small-molecule screening and cheminformatics resource database. Nucleic Acids Research, 2007. 36(Database): p. D351-D359.

Wishart, D.S., DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Research, 2006. 34(90001): p. D668-D672.

Knox, C., et al., DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for 'Omics' research on drugs. Nucleic Acids Research, 2010. 39(Database): p. D1035-D1041.

Gaulton, A., et al., ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Research, 2011. 40(D1): p. D1100-D1107.

Olah, M., et al., WOMBAT: World of Molecular Bioactivity, in Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery. 2005. p. 221-239.

Del Rio, A., et al., CoCoCo: a free suite of multiconformational chemical databases for high-throughput virtual screening purposes. Molecular BioSystems, 2010. 6(11).

Amézqueta, S., et al., Octanol-Water Partition Constant, in Liquid-Phase Extraction. 2020. p. 183-208.

Le Fèvre, R.J.W., Molecular Refractivity and Polarizability. 1965. p. 1-90.

Price, D.A., et al., Physicochemical drug properties associated within vivotoxicological outcomes: a review. Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology, 2009. 5(8): p. 921-931.

Wenlock, M.C., Designing safer oral drugs. MedChemComm, 2017. 8(3): p. 571-577.

Ekins, S. and A.J. Williams, Precompetitive preclinical ADME/Tox data: set it free on the web to facilitate computational model building and assist drug development. Lab Chip, 2010. 10(1): p. 13-22.

Ertl, P. and S. Jelfs, Designing Drugs on the Internet? Free Web Tools and Services Supporting Medicinal Chemistry. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, 2007. 7(15): p. 1491-1501.

Richard, A.M., L.S. Gold, and M.C. Nicklaus, Chemical structure indexing of toxicity data on the internet: moving toward a flat world. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel, 2006. 9(3): p. 314-25.

Szakács, G., et al., The role of ABC transporters in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADME–Tox). Drug Discovery Today, 2008. 13(9-10): p. 379-393.

Tsaioun, K., Evidence-based absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME) and its interplay with alternative toxicity methods. Altex, 2016: p. 343-358.

Li, A.P., Screening for human ADME/Tox drug properties in drug discovery. Drug Discovery Today, 2001. 6(7): p. 357-366.

Guengerich, F.P., Cytochrome P450s and other enzymes in drug metabolism and toxicity. The AAPS Journal, 2006. 8(1): p. E101-E111.

Zanger, U.M. and M. Schwab, Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism: Regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 2013. 138(1): p. 103-141.

Caldwell, J., I. Gardner, and N. Swales, An Introduction to Drug Disposition: The Basic Principles of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion. Toxicologic Pathology, 2016. 23(2): p. 102-114.

Downloads

Published

2021-08-13

How to Cite

PHAM, Q. M., & PHAM, L. Q. (2021). VIRTUAL SCREENING STATEGIES IN DRUG DISCOVERY – A BRIEF OVERVIEW. Vietnam Journal of Science and Technology, 59(4), 415. https://doi.org/10.15625/2525-2518/59/4/16003

Issue

Section

Natural Products