Rules for identifying potentially reactive or promiscuous compounds.

This article describes a set of 275 rules, developed over an 18-year period, used to identify compounds that may interfere with biological assays, allowing their removal from screening sets. Reasons for rejection include reactivity (e.g., acyl halides), interference with assay measurements (fluorescence, absorbance, quenching), activities that damage proteins (oxidizers, detergents), instability (e.g., latent aldehydes), and lack of druggability (e.g., compounds lacking both oxygen and nitrogen). The structural queries were profiled for frequency of occurrence in druglike and nondruglike compound sets and were extensively reviewed by a panel of experienced medicinal chemists. As a means of profiling the rules and as a filter in its own right, an index of biological promiscuity was developed. The 584 gene targets with screening data at Lilly were assigned to 17 subfamilies, and the number of subfamilies at which a compound was active was used as a promiscuity index. For certain compounds, promiscuous activity disappeared after sample repurification, indicating interference from occult contaminants. Because this type of interference is not amenable to substructure search, a "nuisance list" was developed to flag interfering compounds that passed the substructure rules.

[1]  Stefan Vasile,et al.  The oxidative mechanism of action of ortho-quinone inhibitors of protein-tyrosine phosphatase alpha is mediated by hydrogen peroxide. , 2004, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[2]  G. Rishton Reactive compounds and in vitro false positives in HTS , 1997 .

[3]  J. Baell,et al.  New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Brian Hudson,et al.  Strategic Pooling of Compounds for High-Throughput Screening , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[5]  M. Waring,et al.  Complex formation between ethidium bromide and nucleic acids. , 1965, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  S Omura,et al.  A new alkaloid AM-2282 OF Streptomyces origin. Taxonomy, fermentation, isolation and preliminary characterization. , 1977, The Journal of antibiotics.

[7]  B. Shoichet Screening in a spirit haunted world. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[8]  B. Brodie,et al.  Absorption of drugs from the stomach. II. The human. , 1957, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[9]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Is There a Difference Between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective. , 2001 .

[10]  B. Jastorff,et al.  Structure–activity relationships of pyrithiones – IPC-81 toxicity tests with the antifouling biocide zinc pyrithione and structural analogs , 2004 .

[11]  T. Schirmeister,et al.  Cysteine Proteases and Their Inhibitors , 2010 .

[12]  S. Thrall,et al.  A Simple Assay for Detection of Small-Molecule Redox Activity , 2007, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[13]  T. Ali-vehmas,et al.  Automation of the resazurin reduction test using fluorometry of microtitration trays. , 1991, Zentralblatt fur Veterinarmedizin. Reihe B. Journal of veterinary medicine. Series B.

[14]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  G. Rishton,et al.  Molecular diversity in the context of leadlikeness: compound properties that enable effective biochemical screening. , 2008, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[17]  James Inglese,et al.  Apparent activity in high-throughput screening: origins of compound-dependent assay interference. , 2010, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[18]  Michael S Lajiness,et al.  Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  Brian K Shoichet,et al.  Kinase inhibitors: not just for kinases anymore. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  B. Shoichet,et al.  High-throughput assays for promiscuous inhibitors , 2005, Nature chemical biology.

[21]  Maria Paola Costi,et al.  Comprehensive mechanistic analysis of hits from high-throughput and docking screens against beta-lactamase. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  E. Thorsett,et al.  A series of C-Terminal amino alcohol dipeptide Aβ inhibitors , 2002 .

[23]  J. Baell Observations on screening-based research and some concerning trends in the literature. , 2010, Future medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Wolfgang Guba,et al.  Can we discover pharmacological promiscuity early in the drug discovery process? , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[25]  W. Patrick Walters,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[26]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  An Empirical Process for the Design of High-Throughput Screening Deck Filters. , 2006 .

[27]  H. Verheij,et al.  Leadlikeness and structural diversity of synthetic screening libraries , 2006, Molecular Diversity.

[28]  J. Powers,et al.  Irreversible Inhibitors of Serine, Cysteine, and Threonine Proteases , 2003 .

[29]  C. Humblet,et al.  Escape from flatland: increasing saturation as an approach to improving clinical success. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  C. Chung,et al.  Effect of detergent on "promiscuous" inhibitors. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  G. Rishton Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[32]  Anthony M Giannetti,et al.  Surface plasmon resonance based assay for the detection and characterization of promiscuous inhibitors. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.