On exploring structure-activity relationships.

Understanding structure-activity relationships (SARs) for a given set of molecules allows one to rationally explore chemical space and develop a chemical series optimizing multiple physicochemical and biological properties simultaneously, for instance, improving potency, reducing toxicity, and ensuring sufficient bioavailability. In silico methods allow rapid and efficient characterization of SARs and facilitate building a variety of models to capture and encode one or more SARs, which can then be used to predict activities for new molecules. By coupling these methods with in silico modifications of structures, one can easily prioritize large screening decks or even generate new compounds de novo and ascertain whether they belong to the SAR being studied. Computational methods can provide a guide for the experienced user by integrating and summarizing large amounts of preexisting data to suggest useful structural modifications. This chapter highlights the different types of SAR modeling methods and how they support the task of exploring chemical space to elucidate and optimize SARs in a drug discovery setting. In addition to considering modeling algorithms, I briefly discuss how to use databases as a source of SAR data to inform and enhance the exploration of SAR trends. I also review common modeling techniques that are used to encode SARs, recent work in the area of structure-activity landscapes, the role of SAR databases, and alternative approaches to exploring SAR data that do not involve explicit model development.

[1]  Nina Nikolova-Jeliazkova,et al.  QSAR Applicability Domain Estimation by Projection of the Training Set in Descriptor Space: A Review , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[2]  Thomas Sander,et al.  Toxicity-Indicating Structural Patterns , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  J. Irwin,et al.  ZINC ? A Free Database of Commercially Available Compounds for Virtual Screening. , 2005 .

[4]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Consensus Models of Activity Landscapes with Multiple Chemical, Conformer, and Property Representations , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Lorenz C. Blum,et al.  970 million druglike small molecules for virtual screening in the chemical universe database GDB-13. , 2009, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[6]  Shane Weaver,et al.  The importance of the domain of applicability in QSAR modeling. , 2008, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[7]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Structural Interpretation of Activity Cliffs Revealed by Systematic Analysis of Structure-Activity Relationships in Analog Series , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[8]  Matthew Segall,et al.  Beyond Profiling: Using ADMET Models to Guide Decisions , 2009, Chemistry & biodiversity.

[9]  Mathias Wawer,et al.  Elucidation of structure-activity relationship pathways in biological screening data. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Dirk Schepmann,et al.  Synthesis and SAR studies of chiral non-racemic dexoxadrol analogues as uncompetitive NMDA receptor antagonists. , 2010, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[11]  Nathan Brown,et al.  Exploiting QSAR methods in lead optimization. , 2006, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[12]  H. Mewes,et al.  Can we estimate the accuracy of ADME-Tox predictions? , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[13]  Hua Gao,et al.  Dimension related distance and its application in QSAR/QSPR model error estimation , 2003 .

[14]  M. Natália D. S. Cordeiro,et al.  Desirability‐based multiobjective optimization for global QSAR studies: Application to the design of novel NSAIDs with improved analgesic, antiinflammatory, and ulcerogenic profiles , 2008, J. Comput. Chem..

[15]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author) , 2001 .

[16]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  Discovery of α7-Nicotinic Receptor Ligands by Virtual Screening of the Chemical Universe Database GDB-13 , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Forbes J. Burkowski,et al.  A constructive approach for discovering new drug leads: Using a kernel methodology for the inverse-QSAR problem , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[18]  David A. Winkler,et al.  The role of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in biomolecular discovery , 2002, Briefings Bioinform..

[19]  W. Guida,et al.  The art and practice of structure‐based drug design: A molecular modeling perspective , 1996, Medicinal research reviews.

[20]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Interpreting Computational Neural Network Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models: A Detailed Interpretation of the Weights and Biases , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  The Importance of Being Earnest: Validation is the Absolute Essential for Successful Application and Interpretation of QSPR Models , 2003 .

[22]  Angelo Carotti,et al.  Improving Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships through Multiobjective Optimization , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Does your model weigh the same as a Duck? , 2011, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[24]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Characterization of Activity Landscapes Using 2D and 3D Similarity Methods: Consensus Activity Cliffs , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  David T. Stanton,et al.  On the Physical Interpretation of QSAR Models , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[26]  Stefan Wetzel,et al.  Interactive exploration of chemical space with Scaffold Hunter. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[27]  Richard D. Cramer,et al.  The inevitable QSAR renaissance , 2011, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[28]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Structure—Activity Landscape Index: Identifying and Quantifying Activity Cliffs. , 2008 .

[29]  Gerald M. Maggiora,et al.  On Outliers and Activity Cliffs-Why QSAR Often Disappoints , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  J. Bajorath,et al.  SAR index: quantifying the nature of structure-activity relationships. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Development of QSAR Models To Predict and Interpret the Biological Activity of Artemisinin Analogues , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[32]  Jean-Loup Faulon,et al.  The Signature Molecular Descriptor. 1. Using Extended Valence Sequences in QSAR and QSPR Studies , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[33]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  On the interpretation and interpretability of quantitative structure–activity relationship models , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  Ivonne M C M Rietjens,et al.  Promises and pitfalls of quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches for predicting metabolism and toxicity. , 2008, Chemical research in toxicology.

[35]  Dimitris K. Agrafiotis,et al.  Single R-Group Polymorphisms (SRPs) and R-Cliffs: An Intuitive Framework for Analyzing and Visualizing Activity Cliffs in a Single Analog Series , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[36]  M. Hewitt,et al.  Assessing Applicability Domains of Toxicological QSARs: Definition, Confidence in Predicted Values, and the Role of Mechanisms of Action , 2007 .

[37]  Tomasz Arodz,et al.  Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): a review. , 2006, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[38]  John J. M. Wiener,et al.  Scaffold explorer: an interactive tool for organizing and mining structure-activity data spanning multiple chemotypes. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[39]  Bin Chen,et al.  PubChem BioAssays as a data source for predictive models. , 2010, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[40]  Jean-Loup Faulon,et al.  The signature molecular descriptor. 3. Inverse-quantitative structure-activity relationship of ICAM-1 inhibitory peptides. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[41]  S. Chatterjee,et al.  Influential Observations, High Leverage Points, and Outliers in Linear Regression , 1986 .

[42]  T. Insel,et al.  NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative , 2004, Science.

[43]  Nina Nikolova-Jeliazkova,et al.  An Approach to Determining Applicability Domains for QSAR Group Contribution Models: An Analysis of SRC KOWWIN , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[44]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Similarity to Molecules in the Training Set Is a Good Discriminator for Prediction Accuracy in QSAR , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  Boris Mirkin,et al.  A Measure of Domain of Applicability for QSAR Modelling Based on Intelligent K-Means Clustering , 2007 .

[46]  Valerie J Gillet,et al.  Multiobjective optimization in quantitative structure-activity relationships: deriving accurate and interpretable QSARs. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[47]  Igor V Tetko,et al.  A comparison of different QSAR approaches to modeling CYP450 1A2 inhibition , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  Statistically Validated QSARs, Based on Theoretical Descriptors, for Modeling Aquatic Toxicity of Organic Chemicals in Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow) , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author) , 2001, Statistical Science.

[50]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Cover Picture: From Activity Cliffs to Target‐Specific Scoring Models and Pharmacophore Hypotheses (ChemMedChem 9/2011) , 2011 .

[51]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Structure-activity relationship anatomy by network-like similarity graphs and local structure-activity relationship indices. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[52]  Petra S Kern,et al.  Mechanistic applicability domain classification of a local lymph node assay dataset for skin sensitization. , 2007, Chemical research in toxicology.

[53]  Bo-Han Su,et al.  A comprehensive support vector machine binary hERG classification model based on extensive but biased end point hERG data sets. , 2011, Chemical research in toxicology.