Facing the Challenges of Structure-Based Target Prediction by Inverse Virtual Screening

Computational target prediction for bioactive compounds is a promising field in assessing off-target effects. Structure-based methods not only predict off-targets, but, simultaneously, binding modes, which are essential for understanding the mode of action and rationally designing selective compounds. Here, we highlight the current open challenges of computational target prediction methods based on protein structures and show why inverse screening rather than sequential pairwise protein-ligand docking methods are needed. A new inverse screening method based on triangle descriptors is introduced: iRAISE (inverse Rapid Index-based Screening Engine). A Scoring Cascade considering the reference ligand as well as the ligand and active site coverage is applied to overcome interprotein scoring noise of common protein-ligand scoring functions. Furthermore, a statistical evaluation of a score cutoff for each individual protein pocket is used. The ranking and binding mode prediction capabilities are evaluated on different datasets and compared to inverse docking and pharmacophore-based methods. On the Astex Diverse Set, iRAISE ranks more than 35% of the targets to the first position and predicts more than 80% of the binding modes with a root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) accuracy of <2.0 Å. With a median computing time of 5 s per protein, large amounts of protein structures can be screened rapidly. On a test set with 7915 protein structures and 117 query ligands, iRAISE predicts the first true positive in a ranked list among the top eight ranks (median), i.e., among 0.28% of the targets.

[1]  A. Hopkins Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. , 2008, Nature chemical biology.

[2]  Sean Ekins,et al.  In silico repositioning of approved drugs for rare and neglected diseases. , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[3]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: a database for identifying variations and multiplicity of 'druggable' binding sites in proteins , 2011, Bioinform..

[4]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  MONA – Interactive manipulation of molecule collections , 2013, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[5]  X. Chen,et al.  TTD: Therapeutic Target Database , 2002, Nucleic Acids Res..

[6]  P. Bork,et al.  Drug Target Identification Using Side-Effect Similarity , 2008, Science.

[7]  A. Bender,et al.  Modeling Promiscuity Based on in vitro Safety Pharmacology Profiling Data , 2007, ChemMedChem.

[8]  Xiaomin Luo,et al.  TarFisDock: a web server for identifying drug targets with docking approach , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[9]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  NAOMI: On the Almost Trivial Task of Reading Molecules from Different File formats , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Beyond the Virtual Screening Paradigm: Structure-Based Searching for New Lead Compounds , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  B. Roth,et al.  Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[12]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  TrixX: structure-based molecule indexing for large-scale virtual screening in sublinear time , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[13]  R. Solé,et al.  The topology of drug-target interaction networks: implicit dependence on drug properties and target families. , 2009, Molecular bioSystems.

[14]  B Testa,et al.  In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[15]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Protoss: a holistic approach to predict tautomers and protonation states in protein-ligand complexes , 2014, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[16]  Eric J. Deeds,et al.  Structural Properties of Non-Traditional Drug Targets Present New Challenges for Virtual Screening , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Y. Z. Chen,et al.  Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-protein inverse docking approach. , 2001, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[18]  B. Tidor,et al.  Rational Approaches to Improving Selectivity in Drug Design , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  Weida Tong,et al.  In silico drug repositioning: what we need to know. , 2013, Drug discovery today.

[20]  Richard M. Jackson,et al.  ReverseScreen3D: A Structure-Based Ligand Matching Method To Identify Protein Targets , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  CONFECT: Conformations from an Expert Collection of Torsion Patterns , 2013, ChemMedChem.

[22]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[23]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: an Annotated Database of Druggable Binding Sites from the Protein Data Bank , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  Anders Wallqvist,et al.  Exploring Polypharmacology Using a ROCS-Based Target Fishing Approach , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Ranking Targets in Structure-Based Virtual Screening of Three-Dimensional Protein Libraries: Methods and Problems , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Protein-Ligand-Based Pharmacophores: Generation and Utility Assessment in Computational Ligand Profiling , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[28]  Maurizio Recanatini,et al.  The role of fragment-based and computational methods in polypharmacology. , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[29]  Paul N. Mortenson,et al.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  I. Khanna,et al.  Drug discovery in pharmaceutical industry: productivity challenges and trends. , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[31]  Alfons Nonell-Canals,et al.  In Silico Target Profiling of One Billion Molecules , 2011, Molecular informatics.

[32]  Xiaomin Luo,et al.  PDTD: a web-accessible protein database for drug target identification , 2008, BMC Bioinformatics.

[33]  Xin Chen,et al.  The interprotein scoring noises in glide docking scores , 2012, Proteins.

[34]  J. Medina-Franco,et al.  Shifting from the single to the multitarget paradigm in drug discovery. , 2013, Drug discovery today.

[35]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[37]  David Weininger,et al.  SMILES. 2. Algorithm for generation of unique SMILES notation , 1989, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[38]  Lin He,et al.  Harvesting Candidate Genes Responsible for Serious Adverse Drug Reactions from a Chemical-Protein Interactome , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[39]  Didier Rognan,et al.  In silico-guided target identification of a scaffold-focused library: 1,3,5-triazepan-2,6-diones as novel phospholipase A2 inhibitors. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  Holger Claussen,et al.  Substantial improvements in large-scale redocking and screening using the novel HYDE scoring function , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[41]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-ray Structures , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[42]  Gerard J. Kleywegt,et al.  A chemogenomics view on protein-ligand spaces , 2009, BMC Bioinformatics.

[43]  Satoshi Niijima,et al.  Cross-Target View to Feature Selection: Identification of Molecular Interaction Features in Ligand-Target Space , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  J. Mestres,et al.  A ligand-based approach to mining the chemogenomic space of drugs. , 2008, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[45]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Structure‐Based Approaches to Target Fishing and Ligand Profiling , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[46]  Stefan Schmitt,et al.  Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion? , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[47]  Ram Samudrala,et al.  Novel paradigms for drug discovery: computational multitarget screening. , 2008, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

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

[49]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein-Ligand Docking with PLANTS , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[50]  Ajay N. Jain Surflex-Dock 2.1: Robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[51]  T. Ashburn,et al.  Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[52]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Inside Cover: CONFECT: Conformations from an Expert Collection of Torsion Patterns (ChemMedChem 10/2013) , 2013 .

[53]  Angelo D. Favia,et al.  Protein promiscuity and its implications for biotechnology , 2009, Nature Biotechnology.

[54]  Lin He,et al.  Exploring Off-Targets and Off-Systems for Adverse Drug Reactions via Chemical-Protein Interactome — Clozapine-Induced Agranulocytosis as a Case Study , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[55]  N. Paul,et al.  Recovering the true targets of specific ligands by virtual screening of the protein data bank , 2004, Proteins.

[56]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. , 1996, Journal of molecular biology.