Combining Similarity Searching and Network Analysis for the Identification of Active Compounds

A variety of computational screening methods generate similarity-based compound rankings for hit identification. However, these rankings are difficult to interpret. It is essentially impossible to determine where novel active compounds might be found in database rankings. Thus, compound selection largely depends on intuition and guesswork. Herein, we show that molecular networks can substantially aid in the analysis of similarity-based compound rankings. A series of networks generated for rankings provides visual access to search results and adds chemical neighborhood and context information for reference compounds that are not available in rankings. Network structure is shown to serve as a diagnostic criterion for the likelihood to successfully select active compounds from rankings. In addition, comparison of different networks makes it possible to prioritize alternative similarity measures for search calculations and optimize the enrichment of active compounds in rankings.

[1]  Robert D Clark,et al.  Neighborhood behavior: a useful concept for validation of "molecular diversity" descriptors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Gábor Csárdi,et al.  The igraph software package for complex network research , 2006 .

[3]  J. Irwin,et al.  Docking Screens for Novel Ligands Conferring New Biology. , 2016, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  G. Maggiora,et al.  Molecular similarity in medicinal chemistry. , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Activity-relevant similarity values for fingerprints and implications for similarity searching , 2016, F1000Research.

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

[7]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Chemical space networks: a powerful new paradigm for the description of chemical space , 2014, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[8]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Design of chemical space networks using a Tanimoto similarity variant based upon maximum common substructures , 2015, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

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

[10]  A Lavecchia,et al.  Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery: a critical review. , 2013, Current medicinal chemistry.

[11]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018 , 2017, Nucleic Acids Res..

[12]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

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

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

[15]  A. Good,et al.  3-D pharmacophores in drug discovery. , 2001, Current pharmaceutical design.

[16]  David Rogers,et al.  Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Veerabahu Shanmugasundaram,et al.  Molecular similarity measures. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[18]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Similarity searching , 2011 .

[19]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fingerprints: true potential, black magic, or a hopeless endeavor? Guidelines for virtual screening. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.