Virtual Fragment Screening: Discovery of Histamine H3 Receptor Ligands Using Ligand-Based and Protein-Based Molecular Fingerprints

Virtual fragment screening (VFS) is a promising new method that uses computer models to identify small, fragment-like biologically active molecules as useful starting points for fragment-based drug discovery (FBDD). Training sets of true active and inactive fragment-like molecules to construct and validate target customized VFS methods are however lacking. We have for the first time explored the possibilities and challenges of VFS using molecular fingerprints derived from a unique set of fragment affinity data for the histamine H(3) receptor (H(3)R), a pharmaceutically relevant G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR). Optimized FLAP (Fingerprints of Ligands and Proteins) models containing essential molecular interaction fields that discriminate known H(3)R binders from inactive molecules were successfully used for the identification of new H(3)R ligands. Prospective virtual screening of 156,090 molecules yielded a high hit rate of 62% (18 of the 29 tested) experimentally confirmed novel fragment-like H(3)R ligands that offer new potential starting points for the design of H(3)R targeting drugs. The first construction and application of customized FLAP models for the discovery of fragment-like biologically active molecules demonstrates that VFS is an efficient way to explore protein-fragment interaction space in silico.

[1]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘Omics’ research on drugs , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  John P. Overington,et al.  ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  R. Leurs,et al.  Molecular aspects of the histamine H3 receptor. , 2007, Biochemical pharmacology.

[4]  Christine Humblet,et al.  Computation of 3D queries for ROCS based virtual screens , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  Hugo Gutiérrez-de-Terán,et al.  Ligand-, structure- and pharmacophore-based molecular fingerprints: a case study on adenosine A1, A2A, A2B, and A3 receptor antagonists , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[6]  Yi-Jun Guo,et al.  Molecular basis for the interaction of histamine with the histamine H2 receptor. , 1992, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[7]  R. Stevens,et al.  Crystal structure-based virtual screening for fragment-like ligands of the human histamine H(1) receptor. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  David Rogers,et al.  Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[9]  Lorenz C. Blum,et al.  Chemical space as a source for new drugs , 2010 .

[10]  P. Goodford A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. , 1985, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[11]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  Small and Colorful Tesserae Make Beautiful Mosaics: Fragment‐based Chemogenomics Introduction , 2022 .

[12]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Computational approaches for fragment-based and de novo design. , 2010, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Christopher W Murray,et al.  Experiences in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2012, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[14]  Chaok Seok,et al.  A statistical rescoring scheme for protein–ligand docking: Consideration of entropic effect , 2008, Proteins.

[15]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  Several down, a few to go: histamine H3 receptor ligands making the final push towards the market? , 2011, Expert opinion on investigational drugs.

[16]  Dennis M. Krüger,et al.  Comparison of Structure‐ and Ligand‐Based Virtual Screening Protocols Considering Hit List Complementarity and Enrichment Factors , 2010, ChemMedChem.

[17]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Docking Methods for Virtual Screening: Principles and Recent Advances , 2011 .

[18]  Z. Deng,et al.  Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  Anna Vulpetti,et al.  Tautomer Preference in PDB Complexes and its Impact on Structure-Based Drug Discovery , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Paolo Benedetti,et al.  FLAP: GRID Molecular Interaction Fields in Virtual Screening. Validation using the DUD Data Set , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Michael Berlin,et al.  Histamine H3 receptor as a drug discovery target. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  Jonas Boström,et al.  Assessing the performance of OMEGA with respect to retrieving bioactive conformations. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[23]  Saskia Nijmeijer,et al.  Molecular determinants of ligand binding modes in the histamine H(4) receptor: linking ligand-based three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) models to in silico guided receptor mutagenesis studies. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  György M. Keserü,et al.  Impact of Ligand Protonation on Virtual Screening against β-Secretase (BACE1) , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[26]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Development and testing of a general amber force field , 2004, J. Comput. Chem..

[27]  Xiuzhen Huang,et al.  Maximum common subgraph: some upper bound and lower bound results , 2006, BMC Bioinform..

[28]  Stefano Sabatini,et al.  Discovery of novel inhibitors of the NorA multidrug transporter of Staphylococcus aureus. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  Theofanis Sapatinas,et al.  Discriminant Analysis and Statistical Pattern Recognition , 2005 .

[30]  Lei Shi,et al.  The binding site of aminergic G protein-coupled receptors: the transmembrane segments and second extracellular loop. , 2002, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[31]  M. H Fulekar,et al.  Bioinformatics : applications in life and environmental sciences , 2009 .

[32]  Loriano Storchi,et al.  New and Original pKa Prediction Method Using Grid Molecular Interaction Fields , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[33]  Ray A. Jarvis,et al.  Clustering Using a Similarity Measure Based on Shared Near Neighbors , 1973, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

[34]  Vadim Cherezov,et al.  Diversity and modularity of G protein-coupled receptor structures. , 2012, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[35]  R. Fisher THE USE OF MULTIPLE MEASUREMENTS IN TAXONOMIC PROBLEMS , 1936 .

[36]  M. H. Fulekar Comprar Bioinformatics · Applications in Life and Environmental Sciences | Fulekar, M.H. | 9781402088797 | Springer , 2009 .

[37]  David Calkins,et al.  Towards the comprehensive, rapid, and accurate prediction of the favorable tautomeric states of drug-like molecules in aqueous solution , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[38]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  Molecular determinants of selective agonist and antagonist binding to the histamine H₄ receptor. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

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

[40]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Customizing G Protein-coupled receptor models for structure-based virtual screening. , 2009, Current pharmaceutical design.

[41]  Delineation of Agonist Binding to the Human Histamine H4 Receptor Using Mutational Analysis, Homology Modeling, and ab initio Calculations. , 2008 .

[42]  E. Istyastono Computational Studies of the Histamine H4 Receptor-Ligand Interactions , 2012 .

[43]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  WOMBAT and WOMBAT‐PK: Bioactivity Databases for Lead and Drug Discovery , 2008 .

[44]  Cen Gao,et al.  Estimating binding affinities by docking/scoring methods using variable protonation states , 2011, Proteins.

[45]  Gilles Marcou,et al.  Optimizing Fragment and Scaffold Docking by Use of Molecular Interaction Fingerprints , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  R. Leurs,et al.  The histamine H3 receptor: from gene cloning to H3 receptor drugs , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[47]  Christopher R. Corbeil,et al.  Towards the development of universal, fast and highly accurate docking/scoring methods: a long way to go , 2008, British journal of pharmacology.

[48]  John Dunlop,et al.  The role of transmembrane helix 5 in agonist binding to the human H3 receptor. , 2002, The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics.

[49]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  An ant colony optimization approach to flexible protein–ligand docking , 2007, Swarm Intelligence.

[50]  X Chen,et al.  The binding database: overview and user's guide. , 2001, Biopolymers.

[51]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  Neural networks as data mining tools in drug design , 2003 .

[52]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[53]  H Hayashi,et al.  Site-directed mutagenesis of the histamine H1 receptor: roles of aspartic acid107, asparagine198 and threonine194. , 1994, Biochemical and biophysical research communications.

[54]  Saskia Nijmeijer,et al.  Triazole ligands reveal distinct molecular features that induce histamine H4 receptor affinity and subtly govern H4/H3 subtype selectivity. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[55]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  A chemical switch for the modulation of the functional activity of higher homologues of histamine on the human histamine H3 receptor: effect of various substitutions at the primary amino function. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[56]  Rob Leurs,et al.  Keynote review: histamine H3 receptor antagonists reach out for the clinic. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[57]  Willem P. van Hoorn,et al.  Designing Compound Subsets: Comparison of Random and Rational Approaches Using Statistical Simulation , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[58]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and ligand specificity in fragment-based inhibitor discovery. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[59]  Chris de Graaf,et al.  Ligand efficiency as a guide in fragment hit selection and optimization. , 2010, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[60]  Darren R. Flower,et al.  On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[61]  Andreas Bender,et al.  How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[62]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods , 2010, J. Cheminformatics.

[63]  Richard D. Taylor,et al.  Virtual Screening Using Protein—Ligand Docking: Avoiding Artificial Enrichment. , 2004 .

[64]  Richard J. Hall,et al.  Docking performance of fragments and druglike compounds. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[65]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[66]  Thierry Kogej,et al.  Multifingerprint Based Similarity Searches for Targeted Class Compound Selection , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[67]  Paul M. Selzer,et al.  The Impact of Tautomer Forms on Pharmacophore-Based Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[68]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[69]  Scott P. Brown,et al.  A unified, probabilistic framework for structure- and ligand-based virtual screening. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[70]  M. Congreve,et al.  A 'rule of three' for fragment-based lead discovery? , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[71]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  N-substituted piperidinyl alkyl imidazoles: discovery of methimepip as a potent and selective histamine H3 receptor agonist. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[72]  Elizabeth Yuriev,et al.  Challenges and advances in computational docking: 2009 in review , 2011, Journal of molecular recognition : JMR.

[73]  James E. J. Mills,et al.  High-Throughput Virtual Screening of Proteins Using GRID Molecular Interaction Fields , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[74]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Structure‐Based Discovery of Allosteric Modulators of Two Related Class B G‐Protein‐Coupled Receptors , 2011, ChemMedChem.

[75]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Property distribution of drug-related chemical databases* , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[76]  William A. Goddard,et al.  Structure-Based Prediction of Subtype Selectivity of Histamine H3 Receptor Selective Antagonists in Clinical Trials , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[77]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[78]  Andreas Bender,et al.  "Virtual fragment linking": an approach to identify potent binders from low affinity fragment hits. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[79]  Y. Cheng,et al.  Relationship between the inhibition constant (K1) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. , 1973, Biochemical pharmacology.

[80]  M. Congreve,et al.  Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[81]  Loriano Storchi,et al.  Tautomer Enumeration and Stability Prediction for Virtual Screening on Large Chemical Databases. , 2009 .

[82]  Rob Leurs,et al.  Evaluation of Histamine H1-, H2-, and H3-Receptor Ligands at the Human Histamine H4 Receptor: Identification of 4-Methylhistamine as the First Potent and Selective H4 Receptor Agonist , 2005, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[83]  Rob Leurs,et al.  Transforming fragments into candidates: small becomes big in medicinal chemistry. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[84]  Leonardo Pardo,et al.  An Activation Switch in the Rhodopsin Family of G Protein-coupled Receptors , 2005, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[85]  Gabriele Cruciani,et al.  A Common Reference Framework for Analyzing/Comparing Proteins and Ligands. Fingerprints for Ligands And Proteins (FLAP): Theory and Application , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[86]  Massimo Baroni,et al.  Virtual screening for novel openers of pancreatic K(ATP) channels. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[87]  Pedro Alexandrino Fernandes,et al.  Protein–ligand docking: Current status and future challenges , 2006, Proteins.

[88]  Hugo O Villar,et al.  Computational techniques in fragment based drug discovery. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[89]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Analysis and Display of the Size Dependence of Chemical Similarity Coefficients , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[90]  Matthew Paul Gleeson,et al.  QM/MM As a Tool in Fragment Based Drug Discovery. A Cross-Docking, Rescoring Study of Kinase Inhibitors , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[91]  Thomas E. Exner,et al.  pKa based protonation states and microspecies for protein–ligand docking , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[92]  R. Smits,et al.  Fragment library screening reveals remarkable similarities between the G protein-coupled receptor histamine H4 and the ion channel serotonin 5-HT3A , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[93]  Mathias Wawer,et al.  Similarity-Potency Trees: A Method to Search for SAR Information in Compound Data Sets and Derive SAR Rules , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[94]  Philip M. Dean,et al.  slate: A method for the superposition of flexible ligands , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[95]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Strategies for compound selection. , 2004, Current drug discovery technologies.

[96]  F. Monsma,et al.  Molecular modeling and site-specific mutagenesis of the histamine-binding site of the histamine H4 receptor. , 2002, Molecular pharmacology.

[97]  B. Cosimelli,et al.  Absolute configuration and biological profile of two thiazinooxadiazol-3-ones with L-type calcium channel activity: a study of the structural effects. , 2012, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[98]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Let’s not forget tautomers , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[99]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  What do we know and when do we know it? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[100]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  Visualisation and subsets of the chemical universe database GDB-13 for virtual screening , 2011, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[101]  D. Rognan,et al.  Selective structure-based virtual screening for full and partial agonists of the beta2 adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.