From Structure–Activity to Structure–Selectivity Relationships: Quantitative Assessment, Selectivity Cliffs, and Key Compounds

The exploration of structure–activity relationships (SARs) in chemical lead optimization is mostly focused on activity against single targets. Because many active compounds have the potential to act against multiple targets, achieving a sufficient degree of target selectivity often becomes a major issue during optimization. Herein we report a data analysis approach to explore compound selectivity in a systematic and quantitative manner. Sets of compounds that are active against multiple targets provide a basis for exploring structure–selectivity relationships (SSRs). Compound similarity and selectivity data are analyzed with the aid of network‐like similarity graphs (NSGs), which organize molecular networks on the basis of similarity relationships and SAR index (SARI) values. For this purpose, the SARI framework has been adapted to quantify SSRs. Using sets of compounds with differential activity against four cathepsin thiol proteases, we show that SSRs can be quantitatively described and categorized. Furthermore, local SSR environments are identified, the analysis of which provides insight into compound selectivity determinants at the molecular level. These environments often contain “selectivity cliffs” formed by pairs or groups of similar compounds with significantly different selectivity. Moreover, key compounds are identified that determine characteristic features of single‐target SARs and dual‐target SSRs. The comparison of compounds involved in the formation of selectivity cliffs often reveals chemical modifications that render compounds target selective.

[1]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Quantifying the Relationships among Drug Classes , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Methods for Computer‐Aided Chemical Biology. Part 3: Analysis of Structure–Selectivity Relationships through Single‐ or Dual‐Step Selectivity Searching and Bayesian Classification , 2008, Chemical biology & drug design.

[3]  Mindy I. Davis,et al.  A quantitative analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[4]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Molecular similarity analysis uncovers heterogeneous structure-activity relationships and variable activity landscapes. , 2007, Chemistry & biology.

[5]  H. Kubinyi QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design Part 1: methodology , 1997 .

[6]  Mathias Wawer,et al.  Navigating structure-activity landscapes. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[7]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Structure-activity relationship anatomy by network-like similarity graphs and local structure-activity relationship indices. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  A. Hopfinger,et al.  Methods for applying the quantitative structure-activity relationship paradigm. , 2004, Methods in molecular biology.

[9]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Structure-Activity Landscape Index: Identifying and Quantifying Activity Cliffs , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Systematic computational analysis of structure-activity relationships: concepts, challenges and recent advances. , 2009, Future medicinal chemistry.

[11]  David S. Munro,et al.  In: Software-Practice and Experience , 2000 .

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

[13]  A. Hopkins Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. , 2008, Nature chemical biology.

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

[15]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Structural Interpretation of Activity Cliffs Revealed by Systematic Analysis of Structure-Activity Relationships in Analog Series , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[17]  Francis L. Fennell Hopkins , 2010 .

[18]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[19]  J. Bajorath Computational analysis of ligand relationships within target families. , 2008, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[20]  Edward M. Reingold,et al.  Graph drawing by force‐directed placement , 1991, Softw. Pract. Exp..

[21]  Gerald M. Maggiora,et al.  On Outliers and Activity Cliffs-Why QSAR Often Disappoints , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  J. Bajorath,et al.  SAR index: quantifying the nature of structure-activity relationships. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.