MolTarPred: A web tool for comprehensive target prediction with reliability estimation

Molecular target prediction can provide a starting point to understand the efficacy and side effects of phenotypic screening hits. Unfortunately, the vast majority of in silico target prediction methods are not available as web tools. Furthermore, these are limited in the number of targets that can be predicted, do not estimate which target predictions are more reliable and/or lack comprehensive retrospective validations. We present MolTarPred ( http://moltarpred.marseille.inserm.fr/), a user‐friendly web tool for predicting protein targets of small organic compounds. It is powered by a large knowledge base comprising 607,659 compounds and 4,553 macromolecular targets collected from the ChEMBL database. In about 1 min, the predicted targets for the supplied molecule will be listed in a table. The chemical structures of the query molecule and the most similar compounds annotated with the predicted target will also be shown to permit visual inspection and comparison. Practical examples of the use of MolTarPred are showcased. MolTarPred is a new resource for scientists that require a more complete knowledge of the polypharmacology of a molecule. The introduction of a reliability score constitutes an attractive functionality of MolTarPred, as it permits focusing experimental confirmatory tests on the most reliable predictions, which leads to higher prospective hit rates.

[1]  Bridget K Wagner,et al.  The resurgence of phenotypic screening in drug discovery and development , 2016, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[2]  George Papadatos,et al.  The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update , 2013, Nucleic Acids Res..

[3]  M. Bogyo,et al.  Target deconvolution techniques in modern phenotypic profiling. , 2013, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[4]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018 , 2017, Nucleic Acids Res..

[5]  P. Janssen,et al.  Is there a case for P-450 inhibitors in cancer treatment? , 1989, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Xiang-Qun Xie,et al.  Computational target fishing: what should chemogenomics researchers expect for the future of in silico drug design and discovery? , 2014, Future medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Pedro J. Ballester,et al.  Biochemical evaluation of virtual screening methods reveals a cell-active inhibitor of the cancer-promoting phosphatases of regenerating liver , 2014, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[9]  Lin He,et al.  DRAR-CPI: a server for identifying drug repositioning potential and adverse drug reactions via the chemical–protein interactome , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[10]  Aurélien Grosdidier,et al.  SwissTargetPrediction: a web server for target prediction of bioactive small molecules , 2014, Nucleic Acids Res..

[11]  Shuxing Zhang,et al.  Polypharmacology: drug discovery for the future , 2013, Expert review of clinical pharmacology.

[12]  George Papadatos,et al.  Target Identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Phenotypic Hits Using a Concerted Chemogenomic, Biophysical, and Structural Approach , 2017, Front. Pharmacol..

[13]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  In Silico Target Prediction for Small Molecules. , 2018, Methods in molecular biology.

[14]  Xian Liu,et al.  TarPred: a web application for predicting therapeutic and side effect targets of chemical compounds , 2015, Bioinform..

[15]  Ola Spjuth,et al.  Ligand-Based Target Prediction with Signature Fingerprints , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[16]  Aditya Kumar Bubna,et al.  Vorinostat—An Overview , 2015, Indian journal of dermatology.

[17]  Yoshihiro Yamanishi,et al.  Drug Side-Effect Prediction Based on the Integration of Chemical and Biological Spaces , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Alexander M. Lewis,et al.  Identification of a chemical probe for NAADP by virtual screening , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[19]  Sean Ekins,et al.  In silico repositioning of approved drugs for rare and neglected diseases. , 2011, Drug discovery today.

[20]  P. Siiteri,et al.  Inhibition of peripheral aromatization of androstenedione to estrone in postmenopausal women with breast cancer using delta 1-testololactone. , 1979, The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism.

[21]  R. Solé,et al.  Data completeness—the Achilles heel of drug-target networks , 2008, Nature Biotechnology.

[22]  A. Kozikowski,et al.  Synthesis and biological evaluation of triazol-4-ylphenyl-bearing histone deacetylase inhibitors as anticancer agents. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  Pedro J. Ballester,et al.  How Reliable Are Ligand-Centric Methods for Target Fishing? , 2015, bioRxiv.

[24]  J. Irwin,et al.  Identifying mechanism-of-action targets for drugs and probes , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

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

[26]  A. Ganesan,et al.  Target fishing: a key to unlock the One-To-Many puzzle in drug discovery , 2016 .

[27]  Jens-Uwe Peters,et al.  Polypharmacology in drug discovery , 2012 .

[28]  Monica Campillos,et al.  HitPick: a web server for hit identification and target prediction of chemical screenings , 2013, Bioinform..

[29]  U. Eggert.  The why and how of phenotypic small-molecule screens. , 2013, Nature chemical biology.

[30]  Antonio Peón,et al.  Predicting the Reliability of Drug-target Interaction Predictions with Maximum Coverage of Target Space , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[31]  Bing Xiong,et al.  Potent and novel 11β-HSD1 inhibitors identified from shape and docking based virtual screening. , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[32]  Conrad Kunick,et al.  Selective inhibitors of Plasmodium falciparum glycogen synthase-3 (PfGSK-3): New antimalarial agents? , 2015, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

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

[34]  Tapio Pahikkala,et al.  Toward more realistic drug^target interaction predictions , 2014 .

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

[36]  Asher Mullard.  2018 FDA drug approvals , 2019, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[37]  P. Petrone,et al.  Aggregated Compound Biological Signatures Facilitate Phenotypic Drug Discovery and Target Elucidation. , 2016, ACS chemical biology.

[38]  Adrià Cereto-Massagué,et al.  Tools for in silico target fishing. , 2015, Methods.

[39]  José L Medina-Franco,et al.  Activity Cliffs: Facts or Artifacts? , 2013, Chemical biology & drug design.

[40]  Gang Fu,et al.  PubChem Substance and Compound databases , 2015, Nucleic Acids Res..

[41]  Antonio Lavecchia,et al.  In silico methods to address polypharmacology: current status, applications and future perspectives. , 2016, Drug discovery today.

[42]  Ho Jeong Kwon,et al.  Target deconvolution of bioactive small molecules: the heart of chemical biology and drug discovery , 2015, Archives of Pharmacal Research.

[43]  D. Pereira,et al.  Origin and evolution of high throughput screening , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[44]  Peter Willett,et al.  The Calculation of Molecular Structural Similarity: Principles and Practice , 2014, Molecular informatics.

[45]  P. Clemons,et al.  Target identification and mechanism of action in chemical biology and drug discovery. , 2013, Nature chemical biology.