Structure-Promiscuity Relationship Puzzles—Extensively Assayed Analogs with Large Differences in Target Annotations

Publicly available screening data were systematically searched for extensively assayed structural analogs with large differences in the number of targets they were active against. Screening compounds with potential chemical liabilities that may give rise to assay artifacts were identified and excluded from the analysis. “Promiscuity cliffs” were frequently identified, defined here as pairs of structural analogs with a difference of at least 20 target annotations across all assays they were tested in. New assay indices were introduced to prioritize cliffs formed by screening compounds that were extensively tested in comparably large numbers of assays including many shared assays. In these cases, large differences in promiscuity degrees were not attributable to differences in assay frequency and/or lack of assay overlap. Such analog pairs have high priority for further exploring molecular origins of multi-target activities. Therefore, these promiscuity cliffs and associated target annotations are made freely available. The corresponding analogs often represent equally puzzling and interesting examples of structure-promiscuity relationships.

[1]  Baris E. Suzek,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010 , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

[2]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Chemical Substitutions That Introduce Activity Cliffs Across Different Compound Classes and Biological Targets , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Activity landscape representations for structure-activity relationship analysis. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  María Martín,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010 , 2010 .

[5]  J. Baell,et al.  Chemistry: Chemical con artists foil drug discovery , 2014, Nature.

[6]  Dimitrios H Roukos,et al.  Networks medicine: from reductionism to evidence of complex dynamic biomolecular interactions. , 2011, Pharmacogenomics.

[7]  J. Irwin,et al.  An Aggregation Advisor for Ligand Discovery. , 2015, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  J. Baell,et al.  New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  George Papadatos,et al.  The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[10]  John J. Irwin,et al.  ZINC 15 – Ligand Discovery for Everyone , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  E. Jacoby,et al.  Chemogenomics: an emerging strategy for rapid target and drug discovery , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[12]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Rules for identifying potentially reactive or promiscuous compounds. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  B. Shoichet Screening in a spirit haunted world. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[14]  P. Nurse,et al.  Reductionism: The ends of understanding , 1997, Nature.

[15]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Global mapping of pharmacological space , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[16]  Olivier Sperandio,et al.  FAF-Drugs3: a web server for compound property calculation and chemical library design , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Determining the Degree of Promiscuity of Extensively Assayed Compounds , 2016, PloS one.

[19]  Daniel J. Warner,et al.  Matched molecular pairs as a medicinal chemistry tool. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  R. Iyengar,et al.  Systems approaches to polypharmacology and drug discovery. , 2010, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[21]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  MMP-Cliffs: Systematic Identification of Activity Cliffs on the Basis of Matched Molecular Pairs , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  High-resolution view of compound promiscuity. , 2013, F1000Research.

[23]  Jameed Hussain,et al.  Computationally Efficient Algorithm to Identify Matched Molecular Pairs (MMPs) in Large Data Sets , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Identification and analysis of promiscuity cliffs formed by bioactive compounds and experimental implications , 2017 .

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

[26]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Recent progress in understanding activity cliffs and their utility in medicinal chemistry. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  G. Müller,et al.  Medicinal chemistry of target family-directed masterkeys. , 2003, Drug discovery today.

[28]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Compound promiscuity: what can we learn from current data? , 2013, Drug discovery today.

[29]  Evan Bolton,et al.  PubChem's BioAssay Database , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[30]  Marvin Johnson,et al.  Concepts and applications of molecular similarity , 1990 .

[31]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Matched molecular pair analysis of small molecule microarray data identifies promiscuity cliffs and reveals molecular origins of extreme compound promiscuity. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.