Fuzzy Tricentric Pharmacophore Fingerprints, 1. Topological Fuzzy Pharmacophore Triplets and Adapted Molecular Similarity Scoring Schemes

This paper introduces a novel molecular description--topological (2D) fuzzy pharmacophore triplets, 2D-FPT--using the number of interposed bonds as the measure of separation between the atoms representing pharmacophore types (hydrophobic, aromatic, hydrogen-bond donor and acceptor, cation, and anion). 2D-FPT features three key improvements with respect to the state-of-the-art pharmacophore fingerprints: (1) The first key novelty is fuzzy mapping of molecular triplets onto the basis set of pharmacophore triplets: unlike in the binary scheme where an atom triplet is set to highlight the bit of a single, best-matching basis triplet, the herein-defined fuzzy approach allows for gradual mapping of each atom triplet onto several related basis triplets, thus minimizing binary classification artifacts. (2) The second innovation is proteolytic equilibrium dependence, by explicitly considering all of the conjugated acids and bases (microspecies). 2D-FPTs are concentration-weighted (as predicted at pH=7.4) averages of microspecies fingerprints. Therefore, small structural modifications, not affecting the overall pharmacophore pattern (in the sense of classical rule-based assignment), but nevertheless triggering a pKa shift, will have a major impact on 2D-FPT. Pairs of almost identical compounds with significantly differing activities ("activity cliffs" in classical descriptor spaces) were in many cases predictable by 2D-FPT. (3) The third innovation is a new similarity scoring formula, acknowledging that the simultaneous absence of a triplet in two molecules is a less-constraining indicator of similarity than its simultaneous presence. It displays excellent neighborhood behavior, outperforming 2D or 3D two-point pharmacophore descriptors or chemical fingerprints. The 2D-FPT calculator was developed using the chemoinformatics toolkit of ChemAxon (www.chemaxon.com).

[1]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Neighborhood Behavior of in Silico Structural Spaces with Respect to In Vitro Activity Spaces-A Benchmark for Neighborhood Behavior Assessment of Different in Silico Similarity Metrics , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[2]  Jeffrey J. Sutherland,et al.  Spline-Fitting with a Genetic Algorithm: A Method for Developing Classification Structure-Activity Relationships , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[3]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[4]  Myriam Witvrouw,et al.  Pharmacophore-based design of HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitors. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  D. Horvath,et al.  Neighborhood behavior. Fuzzy molecular descriptors and their influence on the relationship between structural similarity and property similarity , 2003 .

[6]  Stephen D. Pickett,et al.  Diversity Profiling and Design Using 3D Pharmacophores: Pharmacophore-Derived Queries (PDQ) , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[7]  J. Sutherland,et al.  A comparison of methods for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  C. Simmerling,et al.  Use of the tubulin bound paclitaxel conformation for structure-based rational drug design. , 2005, Chemistry & biology.

[9]  J. Christensen,et al.  c-Met as a target for human cancer and characterization of inhibitors for therapeutic intervention. , 2005, Cancer letters.

[10]  J. Mason,et al.  New 4-point pharmacophore method for molecular similarity and diversity applications: overview of the method and applications, including a novel approach to the design of combinatorial libraries containing privileged substructures. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[11]  S. Altschul.  Amino acid substitution matrices from an information theoretic perspective , 1991, Journal of Molecular Biology.

[12]  H. Kubinyi.  Structure-based design of enzyme inhibitors and receptor ligands. , 1998, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[13]  G. Makara,et al.  Measuring molecular similarity and diversity: total pharmacophore diversity. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Markus H. J. Seifert.  Assessing the Discriminatory Power of Scoring Functions for Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[15]  G. Schneider,et al.  Extraction and visualization of potential pharmacophore points using support vector machines: application to ligand-based virtual screening for COX-2 inhibitors. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  P. Willett,et al.  Enhancing the effectiveness of similarity-based virtual screening using nearest-neighbor information. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  A. Ivanov,et al.  Molecular modeling and molecular dynamics simulation of the human A2B adenosine receptor. The study of the possible binding modes of the A2B receptor antagonists. , 2005, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[18]  John M. Barnard,et al.  Chemical Similarity Searching , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[19]  F Darvas,et al.  Prediction of distribution coefficient from structure. 1. Estimation method. , 1997, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.

[20]  D. Horvath,et al.  G-protein-coupled receptor affinity prediction based on the use of a profiling dataset: QSAR design, synthesis, and experimental validation. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Matthew P Jacobson,et al.  Virtual Ligand Screening against Escherichia coli Dihydrofolate Reductase: Improving Docking Enrichment Using Physics-Based Methods , 2005, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[22]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Strengths and Limitations of Pharmacophore‐Based Virtual Screening , 2005 .

[23]  Jonathan S. Mason,et al.  Chemistry Space Metrics in Diversity Analysis, Library Design, and Compound Selection , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[24]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Neighborhood Behavior of in Silico Structural Spaces with Respect to in Vitro Activity Spaces-A Novel Understanding of the Molecular Similarity Principle in the Context of Multiple Receptor Binding Profiles , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. , 2003, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[26]  J. G. Vinter,et al.  Scaffold hopping with molecular field points: identification of a cholecystokinin-2 (CCK2) receptor pharmacophore and its use in the design of a prototypical series of pyrrole- and imidazole-based CCK2 antagonists. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Matthias Adam,et al.  Integrating research and development: the emergence of rational drug design in the pharmaceutical industry. , 2005, Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences.

[28]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Application of validated QSAR models of D1 dopaminergic antagonists for database mining. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.