Chemical Space Travel

Modern medicine critically depends on the discovery of new drugs. In this context a detailed knowledge of the ensemble of all possible organic molecules would be extremely useful to identify new structural types. This so-called chemical space is estimated at 10-10 structures in the typical drug range of MW 500 Da, which is far too large for an exhaustive listing. On the other hand known drugs define regions of chemical space that might be particularly favourable for discovering useful compounds. Herein we report a “spaceship” program which travels from a starting molecule A to a target molecule B through a continuum of structural mutations, and thereby charts unexplored chemical space. The compounds encountered along the way provide valuable starting points for virtual screening, as exemplified for ligands of the AMPA receptor. The principle of chemical space travel presented here is different from previously reported molecular structure evolution programs that combine fragments of different molecules, which did not follow the structural continuum and were not shown to reach a set target molecule. Chemical space is often visualized as a property space whose dimensions represent numerical properties of molecules, such as physicochemical descriptor values, pharmacophore descriptors, or similarity measures to reference compounds. One can define nearest neighbours in such property space as compounds with the most similar numerical property values, a concept which has been previously used for data mining by classification of existing libraries and databases. However, because one cannot derive a structure from its descriptor values, it is not possible to move between nearest neighbours in property space unless the structure of the nearest neighbours and hence all compounds under consideration are known in advance. To enable movement in an unexplored chemical space and the discovery of new structures, we describe chemical space as a structural continuum. Rather than referring to proximity in property space, we define nearest neighbours as molecules related through a single structural mutation, for example an atom-type exchange, the addition or retrieval of a bond or atom, or a skeletal rearrangement (Table 1). This description or-

[1]  Peter Willett,et al.  Implementation of nearest-neighbor searching in an online chemical structure search system , 1986, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[2]  W. Guida,et al.  The art and practice of structure‐based drug design: A molecular modeling perspective , 1996, Medicinal research reviews.

[3]  David S. Goodsell,et al.  Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function , 1998 .

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

[5]  A. Globus,et al.  Automatic molecular design using evolutionary techniques , 1999 .

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

[7]  R. Dingledine,et al.  The glutamate receptor ion channels. , 1999, Pharmacological reviews.

[8]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  „Grundgerüstwechsel”︁ (Scaffold‐Hopping) durch topologische Pharmakophorsuche: ein Beitrag zum virtuellen Screening , 1999 .

[9]  Dominique Douguet,et al.  A genetic algorithm for the automated generation of small organic molecules: Drug design using an evolutionary algorithm , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  E. Gouaux,et al.  Mechanisms for Activation and Antagonism of an AMPA-Sensitive Glutamate Receptor Crystal Structures of the GluR2 Ligand Binding Core , 2000, Neuron.

[11]  P. Krogsgaard‐Larsen,et al.  Ligands for glutamate receptors: design and therapeutic prospects. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Irwin D. Kuntz,et al.  A genetic algorithm for structure-based de novo design , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[14]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Chemography: the Art of Navigating in Chemical Space , 2000 .

[15]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[16]  Peter Ertl,et al.  Cheminformatics Analysis of Organic Substituents: Identification of the Most Common Substituents, Calculation of Substituent Properties, and Automatic Identification of Drug-like Bioisosteric Groups , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[17]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  ChemSpaceShuttle: A tool for data mining in drug discovery by classification, projection, and 3D visualization , 2003 .

[18]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  A Graph-Based Genetic Algorithm and Its Application to the Multiobjective Evolution of Median Molecules , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  The de novo design of median molecules within a property range of interest , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[20]  G. Bemis,et al.  BREED: Generating novel inhibitors through hybridization of known ligands. Application to CDK2, p38, and HIV protease. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Strategies for compound selection. , 2004, Current drug discovery technologies.

[22]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  Virtual exploration of the small-molecule chemical universe below 160 Daltons. , 2005, Angewandte Chemie.

[23]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. , 2006, Current protein & peptide science.

[24]  Thomas Bäck,et al.  The Molecule Evoluator. An Interactive Evolutionary Algorithm for the Design of Drug-Like Molecules , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Andrea Zaliani,et al.  A Knowledge-Based Weighting Approach to Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  B. Grzybowski,et al.  The core and most useful molecules in organic chemistry. , 2006, Angewandte Chemie.

[27]  A. Pozzan,et al.  Molecular descriptors and methods for ligand based virtual high throughput screening in drug discovery. , 2006, Current pharmaceutical design.

[28]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  A. Gorse Diversity in medicinal chemistry space. , 2006, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[30]  P. Hawkins,et al.  Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.