Global mapping of pharmacological space

We present the global mapping of pharmacological space by the integration of several vast sources of medicinal chemistry structure-activity relationships (SAR) data. Our comprehensive mapping of pharmacological space enables us to identify confidently the human targets for which chemical tools and drugs have been discovered to date. The integration of SAR data from diverse sources by unique canonical chemical structure, protein sequence and disease indication enables the construction of a ligand-target matrix to explore the global relationships between chemical structure and biological targets. Using the data matrix, we are able to catalog the links between proteins in chemical space as a polypharmacology interaction network. We demonstrate that probabilistic models can be used to predict pharmacology from a large knowledge base. The relationships between proteins, chemical structures and drug-like properties provide a framework for developing a probabilistic approach to drug discovery that can be exploited to increase research productivity.

[1]  P. Andrews,et al.  Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. , 1984, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  S. van Gestel,et al.  Thirty‐three years of drug discovery and research with Dr. Paul Janssen , 1986 .

[3]  William Frawley,et al.  Knowledge Discovery in Databases , 1991 .

[4]  W. Sneader.  Drug prototypes and their exploitation , 1996 .

[5]  J. Drews.  Genomic sciences and the medicine of tomorrow , 1996, Nature Biotechnology.

[6]  J. Drews,et al.  Drug Development: The role of innovation in drug development , 1997, Nature Biotechnology.

[7]  J. Drews,et al.  Classic drug targets , 1997, Nature Biotechnology.

[8]  G. S. Johnson,et al.  An Information-Intensive Approach to the Molecular Pharmacology of Cancer , 1997, Science.

[9]  Ajay,et al.  Can we learn to distinguish between "drug-like" and "nondrug-like" molecules? , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Carolyn E. Begg,et al.  Database Systems: A Practical Approach to Design, Implementation and Management , 1998 .

[11]  Ajay,et al.  Recognizing molecules with drug-like properties. , 1999, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[12]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[13]  S. Frye.  Structure-activity relationship homology (SARAH): a conceptual framework for drug discovery in the genomic era. , 1999, Chemistry & biology.

[14]  J. Wang,et al.  Toward designing drug-like libraries: a novel computational approach for prediction of drug feasibility of compounds. , 1999, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[15]  C. Lipinski.  Drug-like properties and the causes of poor solubility and poor permeability. , 2000, Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods.

[16]  B. Roth,et al.  The Multiplicity of Serotonin Receptors: Uselessly Diverse Molecules or an Embarrassment of Riches? , 2000 .

[17]  B. Stockwell.  Chemical genetics: ligand-based discovery of gene function , 2000, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[18]  I. Muegge,et al.  Simple selection criteria for drug-like chemical matter. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  Jörg Rech,et al.  Knowledge Discovery in Databases , 2001, Künstliche Intell..

[20]  I. Muegge,et al.  Computational methods to estimate drug development parameters. , 2001, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

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

[22]  A. Hopkins,et al.  The druggable genome , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[23]  Ruedi Stoop,et al.  An Ontology for Pharmaceutical Ligands and Its Application for in Silico Screening and Library Design , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[24]  Stephen R. Johnson,et al.  Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  J. Proudfoot.  Drugs, leads, and drug-likeness: an analysis of some recently launched drugs. , 2002, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[26]  Walters Wp,et al.  Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. , 2002 .

[27]  M. Murcko,et al.  Guiding molecules towards drug-likeness. , 2002, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[28]  Jan M. Zytkow,et al.  Handbook of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery , 2002 .

[29]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[30]  P. Shannon,et al.  Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. , 2003, Genome research.

[31]  I. Muegge.  Selection criteria for drug‐like compounds , 2003, Medicinal research reviews.

[32]  J. Blake.  Examination of the computed molecular properties of compounds selected for clinical development. , 2003, BioTechniques.

[33]  R. Strausberg,et al.  From Knowing to Controlling: A Path from Genomics to Drugs Using Small Molecule Probes , 2003, Science.

[34]  D. Covell,et al.  Mining the NCI screening database: explorations of agents involved in cell cycle regulation. , 2003, Progress in cell cycle research.

[35]  B. Shoichet,et al.  A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  B. Stockwell,et al.  Biological mechanism profiling using an annotated compound library. , 2003, Chemistry & biology.

[37]  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..

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

[39]  P. Leeson,et al.  A comparison of physiochemical property profiles of development and marketed oral drugs. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  James B Golden,et al.  Prioritizing the human genome: knowledge management for drug discovery. , 2003, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[41]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Annotating and mining the ligand-target chemogenomics knowledge space , 2004 .

[42]  B. Roth,et al.  Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[43]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Ligand efficiency: a useful metric for lead selection. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[44]  Michael S Lajiness,et al.  Molecular properties that influence oral drug-like behavior. , 2004, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[45]  T. Insel,et al.  NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative , 2004, Science.

[46]  M. Vieth,et al.  Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[47]  C. Wermuth.  Selective optimization of side activities: another way for drug discovery. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Characteristic physical properties and structural fragments of marketed oral drugs. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  Xiaoyang Xia,et al.  Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine , 2004, Nature.

[51]  Michel Dumontier,et al.  CO: A chemical ontology for identification of functional groups and semantic comparison of small molecules , 2005, FEBS letters.

[52]  M. Vieth,et al.  Kinomics: characterizing the therapeutically validated kinase space. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[53]  D. Rogers,et al.  Using Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints with Laplacian-Modified Bayesian Analysis in High-Throughput Screening Follow-Up , 2005, Journal of biomolecular screening.

[54]  S. Frantz.  Drug discovery: Playing dirty , 2005, Nature.

[55]  David Kushner,et al.  Playing Dirty , 2007, IEEE Spectrum.