The drug development process is a major challenge in the pharmaceutical industry since it takes a substantial amount of time and money to move through all the phases of developing of a new drug. One extensively used method to minimize the cost and time for the drug development process is computer-aided drug design (CADD). CADD allows better focusing on experiments, which can reduce the time and cost involved in researching new drugs. In this context, structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) is robust and useful and is one of the most promising in silico techniques for drug design. SBVS attempts to predict the best interaction mode between two molecules to form a stable complex, and it uses scoring functions to estimate the force of non-covalent interactions between a ligand and molecular target. Thus, scoring functions are the main reason for the success or failure of SBVS software. Many software programs are used to perform SBVS, and since they use different algorithms, it is possible to obtain different results from different software using the same input. In the last decade, a new technique of SBVS called consensus virtual screening (CVS) has been used in some studies to increase the accuracy of SBVS and to reduce the false positives obtained in these experiments. An indispensable condition to be able to utilize SBVS is the availability of a 3D structure of the target protein. Some virtual databases, such as the Protein Data Bank, have been created to store the 3D structures of molecules. However, sometimes it is not possible to experimentally obtain the 3D structure. In this situation, the homology modeling methodology allows the prediction of the 3D structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence. This review presents an overview of the challenges involved in the use of CADD to perform SBVS, the areas where CADD tools support SBVS, a comparison between the most commonly used tools, and the techniques currently used in an attempt to reduce the time and cost in the drug development process. Finally, the final considerations demonstrate the importance of using SBVS in the drug development process.

Drug discovery and repositioning are important processes for the pharmaceutical industry. These processes demand a high investment in resources and are time-consuming. Several strategies have been used to address this problem, including computer-aided drug design (CADD). Among CADD approaches, it is essential to highlight virtual screening (VS), an in silico approach based on computer simulation that can select organic molecules toward the therapeutic targets of interest. The techniques applied by VS are based on the structure of ligands (LBVS), receptors (SBVS), or fragments (FBVS). Regardless of the type of VS to be applied, they can be divided into categories depending on the used algorithms: similarity-based, quantitative, machine learning, meta-heuristics, and other algorithms. Each category has its objectives, advantages, and disadvantages. This review presents an overview of the algorithms used in VS, describing them and showing their use in drug design and their contribution to the drug development process.

Computer-assisted drug design (CADD) methods have greatly contributed to the development of new drugs. Among CADD methodologies, virtual screening (VS) can enrich the compound collection with molecules that have the desired physicochemical and pharmacophoric characteristics that are needed to become drugs. Many free tools are available for this purpose, but they are difficult to use and do not have a graphical user interface. Furthermore, several free tools must be used to carry out the entire VS process, requiring the user to process the results of one software program so that they can be used in another program, adding a potential source of human error. Moreover, some software programs require knowledge of advanced computational skills, such as programming languages. This context has motivated us to develop Molecular Architect (MolAr). MolAr is a workflow with a simple and intuitive interface that acts in an integrated and automated form to perform the entire VS process, from protein preparation (homology modeling and protonation state) to virtual screening. MolAr carries out VS through AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, or a consensus of the two. Two case studies were conducted to demonstrate the performance of MolAr. In the first study, the feasibility of using MolAr for DNA–ligand systems was assessed. Both AutoDock Vina and DOCK 6 showed good results in performing VS in DNA–ligand systems. However, the use of consensus virtual screening was able to enrich the results. According to the area under the ROC curve and the enrichment factors, consensus VS was better able to predict the positions of the active ligands. The second case study was performed on 8 targets from the DUD-E database and 10 active ligands for each target. The results demonstrated that using the final ligand conformation provided by AutoDock Vina as an input for DOCK 6 improved the DOCK 6 ROC curves by up to 42% in VS. These case studies demonstrated that MolAr is capable conducting the VS process and is an easy-to-use and effective tool. MolAr is available for download free of charge at http: //www.drugdiscovery.com.br/software/.

DNA is a molecular target for the treatment of several diseases, including cancer, but there are few docking methodologies exploring the interactions between nucleic acids with DNA intercalating agents. Different docking methodologies, such as AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus, implemented into Molecular Architect (MolAr), were evaluated for their ability to analyze those interactions, considering visual inspection, redocking, and ROC curve. Ligands were refined by Parametric Method 7 (PM7), and ligands and decoys were docked into the minor DNA groove (PDB code: 1VZK). As a result, the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC) was 0.98, 0.88, and 0.99 for AutoDock Vina, DOCK 6, and Consensus methodologies, respectively. In addition, we proposed a machine learning model to determine the experimental ∆T_m value, which found a 0.84 R² score. Finally, the selected ligands mono imidazole lexitropsin (42), netropsin (45), and N,N′-(1H-pyrrole-2,5-diyldi-4,1-phenylene)dibenzenecarboximidamide (51) were submitted to Molecular Dynamic Simulations (MD) through NAMD software to evaluate their equilibrium binding pose into the groove. In conclusion, the use of MolAr improves the docking results obtained with other methodologies, is a suitable methodology to use in the DNA system and was proven to be a valuable tool to estimate the ∆T_m experimental values of DNA intercalating agents.