Chemogenomic approaches to rational drug design

Paradigms in drug design and discovery are changing at a significant pace. Concomitant to the sequencing of over 180 several genomes, the high‐throughput miniaturization of chemical synthesis and biological evaluation of a multiple compounds on gene/protein expression and function opens the way to global drug‐discovery approaches, no more focused on a single target but on an entire family of related proteins or on a full metabolic pathway. Chemogenomics is this emerging research field aimed at systematically studying the biological effect of a wide array of small molecular‐weight ligands on a wide array of macromolecular targets. Since the quantity of existing data (compounds, targets and assays) and of produced information (gene/protein expression levels and binding constants) are too large for manual manipulation, information technologies play a crucial role in planning, analysing and predicting chemogenomic data. The present review will focus on predictive in silico chemogenomic approaches to foster rational drug design and derive information from the simultaneous biological evaluation of multiple compounds on multiple targets. State‐of‐the‐art methods for navigating in either ligand or target space will be presented and concrete drug design applications will be mentioned.

[1]  D. Mccormick Sequence the Human Genome , 1986, Bio/Technology.

[2]  B. E. Evans,et al.  Methods for drug discovery: development of potent, selective, orally effective cholecystokinin antagonists. , 1988, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry.

[3]  David Weininger,et al.  SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules , 1988, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[4]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Efficient detection of three-dimensional structural motifs in biological macromolecules by computer vision techniques. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  P. Willett,et al.  A graph-theoretic approach to the identification of three-dimensional patterns of amino acid side-chains in protein structures. , 1994, Journal of molecular biology.

[6]  David M. Rocke,et al.  Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[7]  J. Thornton,et al.  Tess: A geometric hashing algorithm for deriving 3D coordinate templates for searching structural databases. Application to enzyme active sites , 1997, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

[8]  Eleanor J. Gardiner,et al.  Clique-detection algorithms for matching three-dimensional molecular structures. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[9]  P E Bourne,et al.  Protein structure alignment by incremental combinatorial extension (CE) of the optimal path. , 1998, Protein engineering.

[10]  H. Kubinyi,et al.  A scoring scheme for discriminating between drugs and nondrugs. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[11]  R. Nussinov,et al.  Molecular shape comparisons in searches for active sites and functional similarity. , 1998, Protein engineering.

[12]  H Matter,et al.  Affinity and selectivity of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors: a chemometrical study from the perspective of ligands and proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Liisa Holm,et al.  DaliLite workbench for protein structure comparison , 2000, Bioinform..

[14]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[15]  International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome , 2001, Nature.

[16]  Y.Z. Chen,et al.  Ligand–protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule , 2001, Proteins.

[17]  M. Murcko,et al.  Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

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

[20]  H. Matter,et al.  Structural classification of protein kinases using 3D molecular interaction field analysis of their ligand binding sites: target family landscapes. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  G. Klebe,et al.  A new method to detect related function among proteins independent of sequence and fold homology. , 2002, Journal of molecular biology.

[22]  K. Palczewski,et al.  Crystal Structure of Rhodopsin: A G‐Protein‐Coupled Receptor , 2002, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[23]  Gerhard Hessler,et al.  Drug Design Strategies for Targeting G‐Protein‐Coupled Receptors , 2002, Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology.

[24]  M. Jambon,et al.  A new bioinformatic approach to detect common 3D sites in protein structures , 2003, Proteins.

[25]  K. Kinoshita,et al.  Identification of protein biochemical functions by similarity search using the molecular surface database eF‐site , 2003, Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society.

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

[27]  Terri K. Attwood,et al.  PRINTS and its automatic supplement, prePRINTS , 2003, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[29]  Pierre Acklin,et al.  Similarity Metrics for Ligands Reflecting the Similarity of the Target Proteins , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[30]  Peter Willett,et al.  Comparison of chemical clustering methods using graph- and fingerprint-based similarity measures. , 2003, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[31]  H. Scheraga,et al.  Inhibitor design by wrapping packing defects in HIV-1 proteins. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  H. Wolfson,et al.  Recognition of Functional Sites in Protein Structures☆ , 2004, Journal of Molecular Biology.

[33]  Nikolay P Savchuk,et al.  Exploring the chemogenomic knowledge space with annotated chemical libraries. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

[35]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[37]  G. Klebe,et al.  Unexpected nanomolar inhibition of carbonic anhydrase by COX-2-selective celecoxib: new pharmacological opportunities due to related binding site recognition. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  Roger Crossley The design of screening libraries targeted at G-protein coupled receptors. , 2004, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

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

[40]  N. Paul,et al.  Recovering the true targets of specific ligands by virtual screening of the protein data bank , 2004, Proteins.

[41]  Marc Parham,et al.  Prediction of aqueous solubility based on large datasets using several QSPR models utilizing topological structure representation. , 2004, Chemistry & biodiversity.

[42]  Robert P Bywater,et al.  Recognition of privileged structures by G-protein coupled receptors. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[44]  James A. Casbon,et al.  S4: structure-based sequence alignments of SCOP superfamilies , 2004, Nucleic Acids Res..

[45]  Matthew Clark,et al.  Generalized Fragment-Substructure Based Property Prediction Method , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  Martin Ebeling,et al.  An Automated System for the Analysis of G Protein-Coupled Receptor Transmembrane Binding Pockets: Alignment, Receptor-Based Pharmacophores, and Their Application , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[47]  Scott Boyer,et al.  Chemical and biological profiling of an annotated compound library directed to the nuclear receptor family. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[48]  Incomplete protein packing as a selectivity filter in drug design. , 2005, Structure.

[49]  Michael G. Lerner,et al.  Binding MOAD (Mother Of All Databases) , 2005, Proteins.

[50]  Evi Kostenis,et al.  A physicogenetic method to assign ligand-binding relationships between 7TM receptors. , 2005, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[51]  A. Schuffenhauer,et al.  Charting biologically relevant chemical space: a structural classification of natural products (SCONP). , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[52]  S. Lampel,et al.  The druggable genome: an update. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[53]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Pocketome via Comprehensive Identification and Classification of Ligand Binding Envelopes* , 2005, Molecular & Cellular Proteomics.

[54]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  GASH: An improved algorithm for maximizing the number of equivalent residues between two protein structures , 2005, BMC Bioinformatics.

[55]  David A. Gough,et al.  Virtual Screen for Ligands of Orphan G Protein-Coupled Receptors , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[56]  Eric R. Prossnitz,et al.  A Transmembrane Intracellular Estrogen Receptor Mediates Rapid Cell Signaling , 2005, Science.

[57]  Christopher W. V. Hogue,et al.  Domain-based small molecule binding site annotation , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[58]  Zhan Deng,et al.  Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[59]  Zhan Deng,et al.  Knowledge-based design of target-focused libraries using protein-ligand interaction constraints. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[60]  Meir Glick,et al.  Prediction of Biological Targets for Compounds Using Multiple-Category Bayesian Models Trained on Chemogenomics Databases , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[61]  Cathy H. Wu,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt): an expanding universe of protein information , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[62]  K. A. Snyder,et al.  A complete small molecule dataset from the protein data bank , 2006, FEBS letters.

[63]  Développement de nouvelles méthodes bioinformatiques pour l'étude des récepteurs couplés aux protéines G , 2006 .

[64]  Richard Morphy,et al.  The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[65]  Marc A. Martí-Renom,et al.  MODBASE: a database of annotated comparative protein structure models and associated resources , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[66]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Parallel Screening: A Novel Concept in Pharmacophore Modeling and Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[67]  Didier Rognan,et al.  A chemogenomic analysis of the transmembrane binding cavity of human G‐protein‐coupled receptors , 2005, Proteins.

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

[69]  Gabrielle A. Reeves,et al.  Structural diversity of domain superfamilies in the CATH database. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[70]  Hans Matter,et al.  Matrix metalloproteinase target family landscape: a chemometrical approach to ligand selectivity based on protein binding site analysis. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[72]  V. Sridhar,et al.  Substructure-Based Support Vector Machine Classifiers for Prediction of Adverse Effects in Diverse Classes of Drugs , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[73]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: an Annotated Database of Druggable Binding Sites from the Protein Data Bank , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[74]  Ariel Fernández,et al.  A priori inference of cross reactivity for drug-targeted kinases. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[75]  N. Gold,et al.  Fold independent structural comparisons of protein-ligand binding sites for exploring functional relationships. , 2006, Journal of molecular biology.

[76]  Didier Rognan,et al.  In silico-guided target identification of a scaffold-focused library: 1,3,5-triazepan-2,6-diones as novel phospholipase A2 inhibitors. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[77]  Ziding Zhang,et al.  Similarity networks of protein binding sites , 2005, Proteins.

[78]  R. Powers,et al.  Comparison of protein active site structures for functional annotation of proteins and drug design , 2006, Proteins.

[79]  Claudio Chuaqui,et al.  Structural Interaction Fingerprints: A New Approach to Organizing, Mining, Analyzing, and Designing Protein–Small Molecule Complexes , 2006, Chemical biology & drug design.

[80]  Amos Bairoch,et al.  The PROSITE database , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[81]  Haruki Nakamura,et al.  Noise Reduction Method for Molecular Interaction Energy: Application to in Silico Drug Screening and in Silico Target Protein Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[82]  Robert D. Finn,et al.  Pfam: clans, web tools and services , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[84]  Junmei Wang,et al.  Genetic Algorithm-Optimized QSPR Models for Bioavailability, Protein Binding, and Urinary Excretion , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[85]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  Chemometric Analysis of Ligand Receptor Complementarity: Identifying Complementary Ligands Based on Receptor Information (CoLiBRI) , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[86]  Scott Boyer,et al.  Ligand-Based Approach to In Silico Pharmacology: Nuclear Receptor Profiling , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[87]  Christoph Steinbeck,et al.  Classification and comparison of ligand-binding sites derived from grid-mapped knowledge-based potentials. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[88]  Andreas Bender,et al.  "Bayes Affinity Fingerprints" Improve Retrieval Rates in Virtual Screening and Define Orthogonal Bioactivity Space: When Are Multitarget Drugs a Feasible Concept? , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[89]  Dora M Schnur,et al.  Are target-family-privileged substructures truly privileged? , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[90]  Gilles Marcou,et al.  Optimizing Fragment and Scaffold Docking by Use of Molecular Interaction Fingerprints , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..