From Activity Cliffs to Target‐Specific Scoring Models and Pharmacophore Hypotheses

The role of activity cliffs in drug discovery projects is certainly two‐edged: on the one hand, they often lead to the failure of QSAR modeling techniques; on the other, they are highly valuable for identifying key aspects of SARs. In the presence of activity cliffs the results of purely ligand‐based QSAR approaches often remain puzzling, and the resulting models have limited predictive power. Herein we present a new approach for the identification of structure‐based activity cliffs (ISAC). It uses the valuable information of activity cliffs in a structure‐based design scenario by analyzing interaction energies of protein–ligand complexes. Using the relative frequency at which a protein atom is involved in activity cliff events, we introduce a novel visualization of hot spots in the active site of a protein. The ISAC approach supports the medicinal chemist in elucidating the key interacting atoms of the binding site and facilitates the development of pharmacophore hypotheses. The hot spot visualization can be applied to small data sets in early project phases as well as in the lead optimization process. Based on the ISAC approach, we developed a method to derive target‐specific scoring functions and pharmacophore constraints, which were validated on independent external data sets in virtual screening experiments. The activity‐cliff‐based approach shows an improved enrichment over the generic empirical scoring function for various protein targets in the validation set.

[1]  Dimitris K Agrafiotis,et al.  SAR maps: a new SAR visualization technique for medicinal chemists. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Ian Harrow Virtual Screening: An Alternative or Complement to High Throughput Screening? , 2002 .

[3]  R. Natesh,et al.  Crystal structure of the human angiotensin-converting enzyme–lisinopril complex , 2003, Nature.

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

[5]  G Klebe,et al.  Factorising ligand affinity: a combined thermodynamic and crystallographic study of trypsin and thrombin inhibition. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  Obdulia Rabal,et al.  APIF: A New Interaction Fingerprint Based on Atom Pairs and Its Application to Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[7]  Ricardo L. Mancera,et al.  Expanded Interaction Fingerprint Method for Analyzing Ligand Binding Modes in Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[8]  R. Wade,et al.  Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis , 1995 .

[9]  Markus H J Seifert,et al.  Targeted scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[10]  Gang Liu,et al.  Potent, selective inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B. , 2003, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[11]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  ZINC - A Free Database of Commercially Available Compounds for Virtual Screening , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Ting Wang,et al.  Comparative binding energy analysis for binding affinity and target selectivity prediction , 2010, Proteins.

[13]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  Z. Deng,et al.  Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  D. Banner,et al.  Crystallographic analysis at 3.0-A resolution of the binding to human thrombin of four active site-directed inhibitors. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[16]  Scott P. Brown,et al.  Large-scale application of high-throughput molecular mechanics with Poisson-Boltzmann surface area for routine physics-based scoring of protein-ligand complexes. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  3D-QSAR of angiotensin-converting enzyme and thermolysin inhibitors: A comparison of CoMFA models based on deduced and experimentally determined active site geometries , 1993 .

[18]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Structure-Activity Landscape Index: Identifying and Quantifying Activity Cliffs , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Y. Martin,et al.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Rationalizing Three-Dimensional Activity Landscapes and the Influence of Molecular Representations on Landscape Topology and the Formation of Activity Cliffs , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

[23]  M. Vieth,et al.  DoMCoSAR: a novel approach for establishing the docking mode that is consistent with the structure-activity relationship. Application to HIV-1 protease inhibitors and VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Chang Park,et al.  Synthesis and biological evaluation of 1-(2,4,5-trisubstituted phenyl)-3-(5-cyanopyrazin-2-yl)ureas as potent Chk1 kinase inhibitors. , 2006, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

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

[26]  Sangtae Kim,et al.  Position Specific Interaction Dependent Scoring Technique for Virtual Screening Based on Weighted Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprint Profiles , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Flexible docking under pharmacophore type constraints , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[28]  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..

[29]  R. Guha The ups and downs of structure-activity landscapes. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.