From lith!kestas@ucdavis.edu  Sat Dec  4 21:53:05 1993
Received: from ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  for lith!kestas@ucdavis.edu
	by www.ccl.net (8.6.4/930601.1506) id UAA11646; Sat, 4 Dec 1993 20:54:56 -0500
Received: from lith.UUCP by ucdavis.ucdavis.edu (4.1/UCD2.05)
	id AA12181; Sat, 4 Dec 93 17:43:44 PST
Received: by lith.UUCP (smail2.5.3-coh) id AA11236; 4 Dec 93 17:10:20 PST (Sat)
Subject: Automatic Analogue Proposal (Summary)
To: chemistry@ccl.net
From: Kestutis Sliupas <kestas@ccl.net>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Message-Id: <9312041710.AA11234@lith.UUCP>
Date: 4 Dec 93 17:10:20 PST (Sat)


Hi:
	I posted the following message, and received two fax's from 
vendors, Tripos and Bio-Sym. They are sending literature; however, I 
am really surprised that no users dropped a line. Perhaps it was the 
US holidays? When the lit. arrives, I will filter and post a summary.
As an aside, does anyone know how to contact Dr. Marsili, the author
of ANALOG, or obtain a copy for evaluation?

Forwarded message:
> Hi:
> 	What programs are being used to suggest analogues of
> lead compounds for biological evaluation? I personally am aware
> of 'ANALOG' by Dr. M. Marsili, as described in a recent issue
> of 'The Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences',
> but I am sure there must be several more.
> 	What is their availability (ie. public domain, commercial),
> strengths and weaknesses, ease of use, and requirements for input/output 
> formats? What is their general utility? Do they save time and money on 
> synthesis? Do they do an adequate job on proposing sufficiently diverse
> analogues needed for a first-pass to explore the chemical and physical 
> parameters needed for bio. activity, or are they an interesting excercise?
> 	Please reply via e-mail. I will summarise in a couple of
> weeks.
-- 

 				Regards, Kestas
 
  Kestutis Sliupas              x  (510) 231-1540 (work voice) 
  kestas%lith.UUCP@ucdavis.edu  x  (510) 231-1285 (work FAX) USA CA