De Novo Drug Design Using Multiobjective Evolutionary Graphs

Drug discovery and development is a complex, lengthy process, and failure of a candidate molecule can occur as a result of a combination of reasons, such as poor pharmacokinetics, lack of efficacy, or toxicity. Successful drug candidates necessarily represent a compromise between the numerous, sometimes competing objectives so that the benefits to patients outweigh potential drawbacks and risks. De novo drug design involves searching an immense space of feasible, druglike molecules to select those with the highest chances of becoming drugs using computational technology. Traditionally, de novo design has focused on designing molecules satisfying a single objective, such as similarity to a known ligand or an interaction score, and ignored the presence of the multiple objectives required for druglike behavior. Recently, methods have appeared in the literature that attempt to design molecules satisfying multiple predefined objectives and thereby produce candidate solutions with a higher chance of serving as viable drug leads. This paper describes the Multiobjective Evolutionary Graph Algorithm (MEGA), a new multiobjective optimization de novo design algorithmic framework that can be used to design structurally diverse molecules satisfying one or more objectives. The algorithm combines evolutionary techniques with graph-theory to directly manipulate graphs and perform an efficient global search for promising solutions. In the Experimental Section we present results from the application of MEGA for designing molecules that selectively bind to a known pharmaceutical target using the ChillScore interaction score family. The primary constraints applied to the design are based on the identified structure of the protein target and a known ligand currently marketed as a drug. A detailed explanation of the key elements of the specific implementation of the algorithm is given, including the methods for obtaining molecular building blocks, evolving the chemical graphs, and scoring the designed molecules. Our findings demonstrate that MEGA can produce structurally diverse candidate molecules representing a wide range of compromises of the supplied constraints and thus can be used as an "idea generator" to support expert chemists assigned with the task of molecular design.

[1]  Barry Robson,et al.  PRO_LIGAND: An approach to de novo molecular design. 3. A genetic algorithm for structure refinement , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[2]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  On Handling a Large Number of Objectives A Posteriori and During Optimization , 2008, Multiobjective Problem Solving from Nature.

[3]  Julian Francis Miller,et al.  Principles in the Evolutionary Design of Digital Circuits—Part II , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[4]  A. Globus,et al.  Automatic molecular design using evolutionary techniques , 1999 .

[5]  M Rarey,et al.  Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Robert C. Glen,et al.  A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of molecules within constraints , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[7]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  Introduction to Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery – A Personal View , 2005 .

[8]  Petra Schneider,et al.  De novo design of molecular architectures by evolutionary assembly of drug-derived building blocks , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  David E. Clark,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in computer-aided molecular design , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  Michael M. Hann,et al.  RECAP-Retrosynthetic Combinatorial Analysis Procedure: A Powerful New Technique for Identifying Privileged Molecular Fragments with Useful Applications in Combinatorial Chemistry , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[11]  A. Hagler,et al.  Chemoinformatics and Drug Discovery , 2002, Molecules : A Journal of Synthetic Chemistry and Natural Product Chemistry.

[12]  Michael de la Maza,et al.  Book review: Genetic Algorithms + Data Structures = Evolution Programs by Zbigniew Michalewicz (Springer-Verlag, 1992) , 1993 .

[13]  G. Labesse,et al.  LEA3D: a computer-aided ligand design for structure-based drug design. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Uli Fechner,et al.  Flux (2): Comparison of Molecular Mutation and Crossover Operators for Ligand-Based de Novo Design. , 2007 .

[15]  Constantinos S. Pattichis,et al.  Molecular Substructure Mining Approaches for Computer-Aided Drug Discovery: A Review , 2006 .

[16]  Joshua D. Knowles,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology , 2007, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics.

[17]  Davidr . Evans,et al.  Application of Complex Aldol Reactions to the Total Synthesis of Phorboxazole B , 2000 .

[18]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Flux (2): Comparison of Molecular Mutation and Crossover Operators for Ligand-Based de Novo Design , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  C. Fonseca,et al.  GENETIC ALGORITHMS FOR MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION: FORMULATION, DISCUSSION, AND GENERALIZATION , 1993 .

[20]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. , 2001, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[21]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings , 1997 .

[22]  Barry Robson,et al.  PRO_LIGAND: An approach to de novo molecular design. 1. Application to the design of organic molecules , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[23]  Erkki Mäkinen,et al.  TimGA - A Genetic Algorithm for Drawing Undirected Graphs , 1996 .

[24]  C. John Blankley,et al.  Comparison of 2D Fingerprint Types and Hierarchy Level Selection Methods for Structural Grouping Using Ward's Clustering , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[25]  Peter J. Fleming,et al.  Genetic Algorithms for Multiobjective Optimization: FormulationDiscussion and Generalization , 1993, ICGA.

[26]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  The Molecule Evoluator. An Interactive Evolutionary Algorithm for the Design of Drug-Like Molecules , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[27]  Dominique Douguet,et al.  A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of small organic molecules: Drug design using an evolutionary algorithm , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[28]  Marco Laumanns,et al.  A Tutorial on Evolutionary Multiobjective Optimization , 2004, Metaheuristics for Multiobjective Optimisation.

[29]  Gary B. Lamont,et al.  Multiobjective Evolutionary Algorithms: Analyzing the State-of-the-Art , 2000, Evolutionary Computation.

[30]  Riccardo Poli,et al.  A Field Guide to Genetic Programming , 2008 .

[31]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Computer-based de novo design of drug-like molecules , 2005, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[32]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Chemical Similarity Using Physiochemical Property Descriptors , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[33]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Flux (1): A Virtual Synthesis Scheme for Fragment-Based de Novo Design , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  Robert B. Nachbar,et al.  Molecular Evolution: Automated Manipulation of Hierarchical Chemical Topology and Its Application to Average Molecular Structures , 2000, Genetic Programming and Evolvable Machines.

[35]  P. Siarry,et al.  Multiobjective Optimization: Principles and Case Studies , 2004 .

[36]  Nathan Brown,et al.  Molecular optimization using computational multi-objective methods. , 2007, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

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

[38]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  A novel workflow for the inverse QSPR problem using multiobjective optimization , 2006, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[39]  Karl-Heinz Baringhaus,et al.  Efficient Strategies for Lead Optimization by Simultaneously Addressing Affinity, Selectivity and Pharmacokinetic Parameters , 2008 .

[40]  David Weininger,et al.  SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules , 1988, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[41]  Joannis Apostolakis,et al.  GlamDock: Development and Validation of a New Docking Tool on Several Thousand Protein-Ligand Complexes , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Drug Design , 2005, Natural Computing.

[43]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  A Graph-Based Genetic Algorithm and Its Application to the Multiobjective Evolution of Median Molecules , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[44]  Lothar Thiele,et al.  Multiobjective evolutionary algorithms: a comparative case study and the strength Pareto approach , 1999, IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput..

[45]  Bruno Boulanger,et al.  Towards a new age of virtual ADME/TOX and multidimensional drug discovery , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..