Shaping the interaction landscape of bioactive molecules

MOTIVATION Most bioactive molecules perform their action by interacting with proteins or other macromolecules. However, for a significant fraction of them, the primary target remains unknown. In addition, the majority of bioactive molecules have more than one target, many of which are poorly characterized. Computational predictions of bioactive molecule targets based on similarity with known ligands are powerful to narrow down the number of potential targets and to rationalize side effects of known molecules. RESULTS Using a reference set of 224 412 molecules active on 1700 human proteins, we show that accurate target prediction can be achieved by combining different measures of chemical similarity based on both chemical structure and molecular shape. Our results indicate that the combined approach is especially efficient when no ligand with the same scaffold or from the same chemical series has yet been discovered. We also observe that different combinations of similarity measures are optimal for different molecular properties, such as the number of heavy atoms. This further highlights the importance of considering different classes of similarity measures between new molecules and known ligands to accurately predict their targets.

[1]  Lazaros Mavridis,et al.  Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Data set Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[2]  Raman Sharma,et al.  ElectroShape: fast molecular similarity calculations incorporating shape, chirality and electrostatics , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[3]  Yanli Wang,et al.  PubChem: Integrated Platform of Small Molecules and Biological Activities , 2008 .

[4]  Jung-Hsin Lin,et al.  idTarget: a web server for identifying protein targets of small chemical molecules with robust scoring functions and a divide-and-conquer docking approach , 2012, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  Michael Schroeder,et al.  Old friends in new guise: repositioning of known drugs with structural bioinformatics , 2011, Briefings Bioinform..

[6]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility , 2009, J. Comput. Chem..

[7]  Xiaomin Luo,et al.  TarFisDock: a web server for identifying drug targets with docking approach , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[8]  W. Graham Richards,et al.  Improving the accuracy of ultrafast ligand-based screening: incorporating lipophilicity into ElectroShape as an extra dimension , 2011, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  Lirong Wang,et al.  TargetHunter: An In Silico Target Identification Tool for Predicting Therapeutic Potential of Small Organic Molecules Based on Chemogenomic Database , 2013, The AAPS Journal.

[10]  Xiaoyan Zhu,et al.  Building Disease-Specific Drug-Protein Connectivity Maps from Molecular Interaction Networks and PubMed Abstracts , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[11]  Herbert Waldmann,et al.  Target identification for small bioactive molecules: finding the needle in the haystack. , 2013, Angewandte Chemie.

[12]  Lazaros Mavridis,et al.  Detecting Drug Promiscuity Using Gaussian Ensemble Screening , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Stefan Wetzel,et al.  The Scaffold Tree - Visualization of the Scaffold Universe by Hierarchical Scaffold Classification , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Paul W Finn,et al.  Ultrafast shape recognition: evaluating a new ligand-based virtual screening technology. , 2009, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[15]  Ryan G. Coleman,et al.  ZINC: A Free Tool to Discover Chemistry for Biology , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Xiaofeng Liu,et al.  ChemMapper: a versatile web server for exploring pharmacology and chemical structure association based on molecular 3D similarity method , 2013, Bioinform..

[17]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Chemical structural novelty: on-targets and off-targets. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  A. Vulpetti,et al.  The experimental uncertainty of heterogeneous public K(i) data. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  P. Bork,et al.  Systematic identification of proteins that elicit drug side effects , 2013, Molecular systems biology.

[20]  Z. Deng,et al.  Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Corey Nislow,et al.  A survey of yeast genomic assays for drug and target discovery. , 2010, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[22]  Knut Baumann,et al.  Impact of Benchmark Data Set Topology on the Validation of Virtual Screening Methods: Exploration and Quantification by Spatial Statistics , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  T. Ashburn,et al.  Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[24]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Effects of inductive bias on computational evaluations of ligand-based modeling and on drug discovery , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[25]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Rapid Shape-Based Ligand Alignment and Virtual Screening Method Based on Atom/Feature-Pair Similarities and Volume Overlap Scoring , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Large Scale Prediction and Testing of Drug Activity on Side-Effect Targets , 2012, Nature.

[27]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Scaffold Topologies. 1. Exhaustive Enumeration up to Eight Rings , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  R. Tagliaferri,et al.  Discovery of drug mode of action and drug repositioning from transcriptional responses , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[29]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘Omics’ research on drugs , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[30]  Natalia Novac,et al.  Challenges and opportunities of drug repositioning. , 2013, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[31]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs , 2009, Nature.

[32]  Stefan Günther,et al.  SuperPred: drug classification and target prediction , 2008, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[34]  W. Graham Richards,et al.  Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes , 2007, J. Comput. Chem..

[35]  I. Kola,et al.  Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[36]  M. Jackson,et al.  The Hallucinogen N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) Is an Endogenous Sigma-1 Receptor Regulator , 2009, Science.

[37]  Katarzyna H. Kaminska,et al.  Characterization of drug-induced transcriptional modules: towards drug repositioning and functional understanding , 2013, Molecular systems biology.

[38]  Rainer Schrader,et al.  Small Molecule Subgraph Detector (SMSD) toolkit , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[39]  Aurélien Grosdidier,et al.  Docking, virtual high throughput screening and in silico fragment-based drug design , 2009, Journal of cellular and molecular medicine.

[40]  Matthias Wirth,et al.  Bioactive Molecules: Perfectly Shaped for Their Target? , 2011, Molecular informatics.

[41]  Aurélien Grosdidier,et al.  SwissDock, a protein-small molecule docking web service based on EADock DSS , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[42]  Xiaofeng Liu,et al.  SHAFTS: A Hybrid Approach for 3D Molecular Similarity Calculation. 1. Method and Assessment of Virtual Screening , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[44]  P. Bork,et al.  Drug Target Identification Using Side-Effect Similarity , 2008, Science.

[45]  G. Schneider,et al.  Scaffold‐Hopping Potential of Ligand‐Based Similarity Concepts , 2006, ChemMedChem.