Comprehensive Analysis of Single‐ and Multi‐Target Activity Cliffs Formed by Currently Available Bioactive Compounds

Activity cliffs are formed by structurally similar compounds having large potency differences. Their study is a focal point of SAR analysis. We present a first systematic survey of single‐ and multitarget activity cliffs contained in currently available bioactive compounds. Approximately 12% of all active compounds were involved in the formation of activity cliffs. Perhaps unexpectedly, activity cliffs were found to be similarly distributed over different protein target families. Moreover, only approximately 5% of all activity cliffs were multitarget cliffs. Importantly, we also found that only very few multitarget cliffs were formed by compounds having different target selectivity. In addition, ‘polypharmacological cliffs’, i.e., multitarget activity cliffs involving targets from different protein families, were also only rarely found. Taken together, our findings reveal that only approximately 2% of all pairs of structurally similar compounds sharing the same biological activity form activity cliffs but that, on average, approximately one of 10 active compounds is involved in the formation of one or two single‐target cliffs of large magnitude (with at least 100‐fold difference in potency). These compounds provide a rich source of SAR information and can be identified across many different target families.

[1]  María Martín,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010 , 2010 .

[2]  J. Mestres,et al.  Conciliating binding efficiency and polypharmacology. , 2009, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

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

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

[5]  John P. Overington ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI). Interview by Wendy A. Warr. , 2009, Journal of computer-aided molecular design.

[6]  Mathias Wawer,et al.  Similarity-Potency Trees: A Method to Search for SAR Information in Compound Data Sets and Derive SAR Rules , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

[9]  Xin Wen,et al.  BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein–ligand binding affinities , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

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

[11]  Anne Mai Wassermann,et al.  Design of Multitarget Activity Landscapes That Capture Hierarchical Activity Cliff Distributions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[12]  Wendy A. Warr,et al.  ChEMBL. An interview with John Overington, team leader, chemogenomics at the European Bioinformatics Institute Outstation of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL-EBI) , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[13]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Rationalizing Three-Dimensional Activity Landscapes and the Influence of Molecular Representations on Landscape Topology and the Formation of Activity Cliffs , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[15]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Design of multi-target activity landscapes that capture hierarchical activity cliff distributions , 2012, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[16]  Baris E. Suzek,et al.  The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010 , 2009, Nucleic Acids Res..

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