Scanning Structure-Activity Relationships with Structure-Activity Similarity and Related Maps: From Consensus Activity Cliffs to Selectivity Switches

Systematic description of structure-activity relationships (SARs) of data sets and structure-property relationships (SPRs) is of paramount importance in medicinal chemistry and other research fields. To this end, structure-activity similarity (SAS) maps are one of the first tools proposed to describe SARs using the concept of activity landscape modeling. One of the major goals of the SAS maps is to identify activity cliffs defined as chemical compounds with high similar structure but unexpectedly very different biological activity. Since the first publication of the SAS maps more than ten years ago, these tools have evolved and adapted over the years to analyze various types of compound collections, including structural diverse and combinatorial sets with activity for one or multiple biological end points. The development of SAS maps has led to general concepts that are applicable to other activity landscape methods such as "consensus activity cliffs" (activity cliffs common to a series of representations or descriptors) and "selectivity switches" (structural changes that completely invert the selectivity pattern of similar compounds against two biological end points). Herein, we review the development, practical applications, limitations, and perspectives of the SAS and related maps which are intuitive and powerful informatics tools to computationally analyze SPRs.

[1]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Structure–activity relationships of benzimidazole derivatives as antiparasitic agents: Dual activity-difference (DAD) maps , 2011 .

[2]  Austin B. Yongye,et al.  Multitarget Structure-Activity Relationships Characterized by Activity-Difference Maps and Consensus Similarity Measure , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Consensus Models of Activity Landscapes , 2012 .

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

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

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

[7]  Peter Willett,et al.  Combination Rules for Group Fusion in Similarity‐Based Virtual Screening , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[8]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Dynamic clustering threshold reduces conformer ensemble size while maintaining a biologically relevant ensemble , 2010, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[9]  Jaime Pérez-Villanueva,et al.  Activity landscape modeling of PPAR ligands with dual-activity difference maps. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[10]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Consensus Models of Activity Landscapes with Multiple Chemical, Conformer, and Property Representations , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[12]  Dimitris K. Agrafiotis,et al.  Efficient Substructure Searching of Large Chemical Libraries: The ABCD Chemical Cartridge , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Dimitris K. Agrafiotis,et al.  Single R-Group Polymorphisms (SRPs) and R-Cliffs: An Intuitive Framework for Analyzing and Visualizing Activity Cliffs in a Single Analog Series , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[14]  Tom Blundell,et al.  CREDO: A Protein–Ligand Interaction Database for Drug Discovery , 2009, Chemical biology & drug design.

[15]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Assessing How Well a Modeling Protocol Captures a Structure-Activity Landscape , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  When is Chemical Similarity Significant? The Statistical Distribution of Chemical Similarity Scores and Its Extreme Values , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  Patricia Rotureau,et al.  Predicting the Thermal Stability of Nitroaromatic Compounds Using Chemoinformatic Tools , 2011, Molecular informatics.

[18]  Andreas Bender,et al.  How similar are those molecules after all? Use two descriptors and you will have three different answers , 2010, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[19]  Z. Deng,et al.  Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[21]  Jacob de Vlieg,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Pharmacophore Screening Tools , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Databases: Compound bioactivities go public , 2010 .

[23]  Obdulia Rabal,et al.  APIF: A New Interaction Fingerprint Based on Atom Pairs and Its Application to Virtual Screening , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  Matthias Rarey,et al.  Cover Picture: From Activity Cliffs to Target‐Specific Scoring Models and Pharmacophore Hypotheses (ChemMedChem 9/2011) , 2011 .

[25]  Thierry Kogej,et al.  Comparison of Molecular Fingerprint Methods on the Basis of Biological Profile Data , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Clemencia Pinilla,et al.  A Similarity‐based Data‐fusion Approach to the Visual Characterization and Comparison of Compound Databases , 2007, Chemical biology & drug design.

[27]  G. Maggiora,et al.  Molecular similarity measures. , 2004, Methods in molecular biology.

[28]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Exploring Uncharted Territories: Predicting Activity Clis in Structure-Activity Landscapes , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[29]  R. Todeschini,et al.  Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics: Volume I: Alphabetical Listing / Volume II: Appendices, References , 2009 .

[30]  Luca Pireddu,et al.  Support Vector Machine (SVM) as Alternative Tool to Assign Acute Aquatic Toxicity Warning Labels to Chemicals , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[31]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Comparison of two- and three-dimensional activity landscape representations for different compound data sets , 2011 .

[32]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Exploring activity cliffs in medicinal chemistry. , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[33]  Jaime Pérez-Villanueva,et al.  Towards a systematic characterization of the antiprotozoal activity landscape of benzimidazole derivatives. , 2010, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

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

[35]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Modeling of activity landscapes for drug discovery , 2012, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[36]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Structure—Activity Landscape Index: Identifying and Quantifying Activity Cliffs. , 2008 .

[37]  P. Jaccard,et al.  Etude comparative de la distribution florale dans une portion des Alpes et des Jura , 1901 .

[38]  A. Worth,et al.  Q)SARs for Predicting Effects Relating to Reproductive Toxicity , 2008 .

[39]  Anders Wallqvist,et al.  Classification of scaffold-hopping approaches. , 2012, Drug discovery today.

[40]  Austin B. Yongye,et al.  Identification, structure-activity relationships and molecular modeling of potent triamine and piperazine opioid ligands. , 2009, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[41]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  From Structure–Activity to Structure–Selectivity Relationships: Quantitative Assessment, Selectivity Cliffs, and Key Compounds , 2009, ChemMedChem.

[42]  Jaime Pérez-Villanueva,et al.  CASE Plots for the Chemotype‐Based Activity and Selectivity Analysis: A CASE Study of Cyclooxygenase Inhibitors , 2012, Chemical biology & drug design.

[43]  Karina Martinez-Mayorga,et al.  Chemoinformatics-applications in food chemistry. , 2009, Advances in food and nutrition research.

[44]  Kathrin Heikamp,et al.  Prediction of Activity Cliffs Using Support Vector Machines , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[45]  Clemencia Pinilla,et al.  Strategies for the use of mixture-based synthetic combinatorial libraries: scaffold ranking, direct testing in vivo, and enhanced deconvolution by computational methods. , 2008, Journal of combinatorial chemistry.

[46]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Visualization of the Chemical Space in Drug Discovery , 2008 .

[47]  Clemencia Pinilla,et al.  Mixture-Based Synthetic Combinatorial Libraries , 1999 .

[48]  Robert P Sheridan,et al.  Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? , 2002, Drug discovery today.

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

[50]  Andreas Bender,et al.  How Similar Are Similarity Searching Methods? A Principal Component Analysis of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[51]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Exploring structure–activity data using the landscape paradigm , 2012, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science.

[52]  José L Medina-Franco,et al.  Bioactivity landscape modeling: chemoinformatic characterization of structure-activity relationships of compounds tested across multiple targets. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[53]  J. Medina-Franco,et al.  Foodinformatics: Applications of Chemical Information to Food Chemistry , 2014 .

[54]  Austin B. Yongye,et al.  Characterization of a comprehensive flavor database , 2011 .

[55]  Alberto Del Rio,et al.  Freely accessible databases of commercial compounds for high- throughput virtual screenings. , 2012, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

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

[57]  Schmid,et al.  "Scaffold-Hopping" by Topological Pharmacophore Search: A Contribution to Virtual Screening. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.

[58]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Data Mining of Protein-Binding Profiling Data Identifies Structural Modifications that Distinguish Selective and Promiscuous Compounds , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[59]  Nathan Brown,et al.  On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. , 2006, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[60]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Characterization of Activity Landscapes Using 2D and 3D Similarity Methods: Consensus Activity Cliffs , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..