Identification and analysis of promiscuity cliffs formed by bioactive compounds and experimental implications

Multi-target activities of small molecules must be distinguished from apparent promiscuity resulting from assay artifacts. The molecular origins of specific multi-target activities are currently poorly understood. Compounds from the medicinal chemistry literature with available high-confidence activity data were systematically searched for ‘promiscuity cliffs’, defined as pairs of structural analogs with large differences between the number of targets they are active against. During the search, compounds with detectable aggregator properties, pan-assay interference characteristics, or other possible chemical liabilities were eliminated. A large number of promiscuity cliffs remained, many of which were centered on a limited number of highly promiscuous compounds, as revealed by network representations. The analysis of promiscuity cliffs often suggested follow-up experiments to further explore the molecular basis of promiscuity and assess the influence of data sparseness. Therefore, promiscuity cliffs identified herein are made freely available to support follow-up investigations.

[1]  George Papadatos,et al.  The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Polypharmacology: challenges and opportunities in drug discovery. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Rules for identifying potentially reactive or promiscuous compounds. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Quantifying the Tendency of Therapeutic Target Proteins to Bind Promiscuous or Selective Compounds , 2015, PloS one.

[5]  R. Solé,et al.  Data completeness—the Achilles heel of drug-target networks , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  John J. Irwin,et al.  ZINC 15 – Ligand Discovery for Everyone , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[8]  Evan Bolton,et al.  PubChem's BioAssay Database , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Data Mining of Protein-Binding Profiling Data Identifies Structural Modifications that Distinguish Selective and Promiscuous Compounds , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Janet M Thornton,et al.  On the diversity of physicochemical environments experienced by identical ligands in binding pockets of unrelated proteins , 2010, Proteins.

[11]  Daniel J. Warner,et al.  Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Matched molecular pair analysis of small molecule microarray data identifies promiscuity cliffs and reveals molecular origins of extreme compound promiscuity. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Jameed Hussain,et al.  Computationally Efficient Algorithm to Identify Matched Molecular Pairs (MMPs) in Large Data Sets , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  MMP-Cliffs: Systematic Identification of Activity Cliffs on the Basis of Matched Molecular Pairs , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Influence of Search Parameters and Criteria on Compound Selection, Promiscuity, and Pan Assay Interference Characteristics , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Highly Promiscuous Small Molecules from Biological Screening Assays Include Many Pan-Assay Interference Compounds but Also Candidates for Polypharmacology. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  K. Shokat,et al.  Targeting the cancer kinome through polypharmacology , 2010, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[18]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Compound promiscuity: what can we learn from current data? , 2013, Drug discovery today.

[19]  Dimitrios H Roukos,et al.  Networks medicine: from reductionism to evidence of complex dynamic biomolecular interactions. , 2011, Pharmacogenomics.

[20]  Matthew J. O’Meara,et al.  The Recognition of Identical Ligands by Unrelated Proteins. , 2015, ACS chemical biology.

[21]  J. Peters,et al.  Pharmacological Promiscuity: Dependence on Compound Properties and Target Specificity in a Set of Recent Roche Compounds , 2009, ChemMedChem.

[22]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Determining the Degree of Promiscuity of Extensively Assayed Compounds , 2016, PloS one.

[23]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  High-resolution view of compound promiscuity , 2013, F1000Research.

[24]  J. Thornton,et al.  Shape variation in protein binding pockets and their ligands. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[25]  J. Irwin,et al.  An Aggregation Advisor for Ligand Discovery. , 2015, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[27]  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.

[28]  J. Baell,et al.  Chemistry: Chemical con artists foil drug discovery , 2014, Nature.

[29]  P. Shannon,et al.  Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. , 2003, Genome research.

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

[31]  P. Nurse,et al.  Reductionism: The ends of understanding , 1997, Nature.

[32]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Global mapping of pharmacological space , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.