Accelerating drug discovery and repurposing by combining transcriptional signature connectivity with docking

The development of targeted treatment options for precision medicine is hampered by a slow and costly process of drug screening. While small molecule docking simulations are often applied in conjunction with cheminformatic methods to reduce the number of candidate molecules to be tested experimentally, the current approaches suffer from high false positive rates and are computationally expensive. Here, we present a novel in silico approach for drug discovery and repurposing, dubbed connectivity enhanced Structure Activity Relationship (ceSAR) that improves on current methods by combining docking and virtual screening approaches with pharmacogenomics and transcriptional signature connectivity analysis. ceSAR builds on the landmark LINCS library of transcriptional signatures of over 20,000 drug-like molecules and ~5,000 gene knock-downs (KDs) to connect small molecules and their potential targets. For a set of candidate molecules and specific target gene, candidate molecules are first ranked by chemical similarity to their ‘concordant’ LINCS analogs that share signature similarity with a knock-down of the target gene. An efficient method for chemical similarity search, optimized for sparse binary fingerprints of chemical moieties, is used to enable fast searches for large libraries of small molecules. A small subset of candidate compounds identified in the first step is then re-scored by combining signature connectivity with docking simulations. On a set of 20 DUD-E benchmark targets with LINCS KDs, the consensus approach reduces significantly false positive rates, improving the median precision 3-fold over docking methods at the extreme library reduction. We conclude that signature connectivity and docking provide complementary signals, offering an avenue to improve the accuracy of virtual screening while reducing run times by multiple orders of magnitude.

[1]  Olli Yli-Harja,et al.  Systems Pharmacogenomic Landscape of Drug Similarities from LINCS data: Drug Association Networks , 2019, Scientific Reports.

[2]  Scott E. Martin,et al.  Reproducible pharmacogenomic profiling of cancer cell line panels , 2016, Nature.

[3]  Wail Ba-Alawi,et al.  Integrative cancer pharmacogenomics to establish drug mechanism of action: drug repurposing. , 2017, Pharmacogenomics.

[4]  Michael A. Funk,et al.  Drug Repurposing , 2022, Drug Discovery.

[5]  M. Apuzzo World Neurosurgery: origins and evolution. , 2010, World neurosurgery.

[6]  M. Cragg,et al.  Role of the pro-survival molecule Bfl-1 in melanoma. , 2015, The international journal of biochemistry & cell biology.

[7]  Tao Jiang,et al.  ChemmineR: a compound mining framework for R , 2008, Bioinform..

[8]  Ram Samudrala,et al.  Fingerprinting CANDO: Increased Accuracy with Structure- and Ligand-Based Shotgun Drug Repurposing , 2019, bioRxiv.

[9]  Arjan Durresi,et al.  A survey: Control plane scalability issues and approaches in Software-Defined Networking (SDN) , 2017, Comput. Networks.

[10]  Avi Ma'ayan,et al.  Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool , 2013, BMC Bioinformatics.

[11]  A. F. Adams,et al.  The Survey , 2021, Dyslexia in Higher Education.

[12]  Paul A Clemons,et al.  The Connectivity Map: Using Gene-Expression Signatures to Connect Small Molecules, Genes, and Disease , 2006, Science.

[13]  Vasileios Stathias,et al.  Connecting omics signatures of diseases, drugs, and mechanisms of actions with iLINCS , 2019, bioRxiv.

[14]  Angela N. Brooks,et al.  A Next Generation Connectivity Map: L1000 Platform And The First 1,000,000 Profiles , 2017 .

[15]  M. Stratton,et al.  Abstract 2206: Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC): A resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells. , 2013 .

[16]  D. Rachkovskij Index Structures for Fast Similarity Search for Binary Vectors , 2017 .

[17]  Terry K. Smith,et al.  Direct and indirect approaches to identify drug modes of action , 2018, IUBMB life.

[18]  L. Lam,et al.  ABT-199, a potent and selective BCL-2 inhibitor, achieves antitumor activity while sparing platelets , 2013, Nature Medicine.

[19]  Yanli Wang,et al.  Identifying Compound-Target Associations by Combining Bioactivity Profile Similarity Search and Public Databases Mining , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  S. Ramaswamy,et al.  Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells , 2012, Nature.

[21]  R. Dymock Origins and Evolution , 2010 .

[22]  W. Wilson,et al.  Navitoclax, a targeted high-affinity inhibitor of BCL-2, in lymphoid malignancies: a phase 1 dose-escalation study of safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antitumour activity. , 2010, The Lancet. Oncology.

[23]  R. Hamid,et al.  Modern Computational Strategies for Designing Drugs to Curb Human Diseases: A Prospect. , 2019, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Bin Chen,et al.  Leveraging Big Data to Transform Drug Discovery. , 2019, Methods in molecular biology.

[25]  Ravi Iyengar,et al.  The Library of Integrated Network-Based Cellular Signatures NIH Program: System-Level Cataloging of Human Cells Response to Perturbations. , 2017, Cell systems.

[26]  N. Salomonis,et al.  IL-1 signaling mediates intrauterine inflammation and chorio-decidua neutrophil recruitment and activation. , 2018, JCI insight.

[27]  Niroshini Nirmalan,et al.  “Omics”-Informed Drug and Biomarker Discovery: Opportunities, Challenges and Future Perspectives , 2016, Proteomes.

[28]  J. Jesús Naveja,et al.  Open chemoinformatic resources to explore the structure, properties and chemical space of molecules , 2017 .

[29]  C. Wiesmann,et al.  The discovery of first-in-class drugs: origins and evolution , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[30]  C. Rudin,et al.  Phase I study of Navitoclax (ABT-263), a novel Bcl-2 family inhibitor, in patients with small-cell lung cancer and other solid tumors. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[31]  Martin Serrano,et al.  Nucleic Acids Research Advance Access published October 18, 2007 ChemBank: a small-molecule screening and , 2007 .

[32]  Vijay Zawar,et al.  Aluminium blunts the proliferative response and increases apoptosis of cultured human cells: putative relationship to alzheimer's disease , 2007, Bioinformation.

[33]  Sridhar Ramaswamy,et al.  Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC): a resource for therapeutic biomarker discovery in cancer cells , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[34]  Wolfgang Sippl,et al.  Computational Drug Repurposing: Current Trends. , 2019, Current medicinal chemistry.

[35]  Adrià Cereto-Massagué,et al.  Molecular fingerprint similarity search in virtual screening. , 2015, Methods.

[36]  David A Hildeman,et al.  Dying to protect: cell death and the control of T‐cell homeostasis , 2017, Immunological reviews.

[37]  D. Vidovic,et al.  Large-scale integration of small molecule-induced genome-wide transcriptional responses, Kinome-wide binding affinities and cell-growth inhibition profiles reveal global trends characterizing systems-level drug action , 2014, Front. Genet..

[38]  Pierre Tufféry,et al.  MTiOpenScreen: a web server for structure-based virtual screening , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[39]  Adam A. Margolin,et al.  The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modeling of anticancer drug sensitivity , 2012, Nature.

[40]  D. Scudiero,et al.  Development of human tumor cell line panels for use in disease-oriented drug screening. , 1988, Progress in clinical and biological research.

[41]  Keqiu Li,et al.  Binary Hashing for Approximate Nearest Neighbor Search on Big Data: A Survey , 2018, IEEE Access.

[42]  S. Korsmeyer,et al.  An inhibitor of Bcl-2 family proteins induces regression of solid tumours , 2005, Nature.

[43]  Károly Héberger,et al.  Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations? , 2015, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[44]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  A generalizable definition of chemical similarity for read-across , 2014, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[45]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity searching using 2D structural fingerprints. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[46]  Radka Svobodová Vareková,et al.  PDBe: improved findability of macromolecular structure data in the PDB , 2019, Nucleic Acids Res..

[47]  Heng Tao Shen,et al.  Hashing for Similarity Search: A Survey , 2014, ArXiv.

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

[49]  Ruth Huey,et al.  Computational protein–ligand docking and virtual drug screening with the AutoDock suite , 2016, Nature Protocols.

[50]  Adrià Cereto-Massagué,et al.  The Light and Dark Sides of Virtual Screening: What Is There to Know? , 2019, International journal of molecular sciences.

[51]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[52]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[53]  Eduardo Habib Bechelane Maia,et al.  Structure-Based Virtual Screening: From Classical to Artificial Intelligence , 2020, Frontiers in Chemistry.

[54]  Prasenjit Mukherjee,et al.  An overview of molecular fingerprint similarity search in virtual screening , 2016, Expert opinion on drug discovery.