Combinatorial Consensus Scoring for Ligand-Based Virtual Fragment Screening: A Comparative Case Study for Serotonin 5-HT3A, Histamine H1, and Histamine H4 Receptors

In the current study we have evaluated the applicability of ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) methods for the identification of small fragment-like biologically active molecules using different similarity descriptors and different consensus scoring approaches. For this purpose, we have evaluated the performance of 14 chemical similarity descriptors in retrospective virtual screening studies to discriminate fragment-like ligands of three membrane-bound receptors from fragments that are experimentally determined to have no affinity for these proteins (true inactives). We used a complete fragment affinity data set of experimentally determined ligands and inactives for two G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), the histamine H1 receptor (H1R) and the histamine H4 receptor (H4R), and one ligand-gated ion channel (LGIC), the serotonin receptor (5-HT3AR), to validate our retrospective virtual screening studies. We have exhaustively tested consensus scoring strategies that combine the results of multiple actives (group fusion) or combine different similarity descriptors (similarity fusion), and for the first time systematically evaluated different combinations of group fusion and similarity fusion approaches. Our studies show that for these three case study protein targets both consensus scoring approaches can increase virtual screening enrichments compared to single chemical similarity search methods. Our cheminformatics analyses recommend to use a combination of both group fusion and similarity fusion for prospective ligand-based virtual fragment screening.

[1]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Comparison of 2D Fingerprint Methods for Multiple‐Template Similarity Searching on Compound Activity Classes of Increasing Structural Diversity , 2007, ChemMedChem.

[2]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  Structure–Activity Relationships of Quinoxaline-Based 5-HT3A and 5-HT3AB Receptor-Selective Ligands , 2013, ChemMedChem.

[3]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  James G. Nourse,et al.  Reoptimization of MDL Keys for Use in Drug Discovery , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[5]  C. Murray,et al.  The rise of fragment-based drug discovery. , 2009, Nature chemistry.

[6]  Rob Leurs,et al.  Fragment based design of new H4 receptor-ligands with anti-inflammatory properties in vivo. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  R. Thurmond,et al.  Histamine H4 receptor antagonism diminishes existing airway inflammation and dysfunction via modulation of Th2 cytokines , 2010, Respiratory research.

[8]  J. Irwin,et al.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Sereina Riniker,et al.  Heterogeneous Classifier Fusion for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Or, How Decision Making by Committee Can Be a Good Thing , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  En route to new blockbuster anti-histamines: surveying the offspring of the expanding histamine receptor family. , 2011, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[11]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Scaffold hopping using two-dimensional fingerprints: true potential, black magic, or a hopeless endeavor? Guidelines for virtual screening. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Jill M. Wetter,et al.  H4 receptor antagonism exhibits anti-nociceptive effects in inflammatory and neuropathic pain models in rats , 2010, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior.

[13]  Wendy A. Warr,et al.  Fragment-based drug discovery , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[14]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  Design, Synthesis, and Structure–Activity Relationships of Highly Potent 5-HT3 Receptor Ligands , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  John Bradshaw,et al.  Similarity Searching Using Reduced Graphs , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[16]  M. Congreve,et al.  Recent developments in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  Holger Claussen,et al.  Searching Fragment Spaces with Feature Trees , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Rob Leurs,et al.  Transforming fragments into candidates: small becomes big in medicinal chemistry. , 2009, Drug discovery today.

[19]  Márton Vass,et al.  Virtual fragment screening on GPCRs: a case study on dopamine D3 and histamine H4 receptors. , 2014, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  T. O'Brien,et al.  Fragment-based drug discovery. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Growth of Ligand-Target Interaction Data in ChEMBL Is Associated with Increasing and Activity Measurement-Dependent Compound Promiscuity , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  Jens Meiler,et al.  Benchmarking Ligand-Based Virtual High-Throughput Screening with the PubChem Database , 2013, Molecules.

[23]  Christoph A. Sotriffer,et al.  Applications and Success Stories in Virtual Screening , 2011 .

[24]  Andreas Bender,et al.  How Diverse Are Diversity Assessment Methods? A Comparative Analysis and Benchmarking of Molecular Descriptor Space , 2014, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  Bernd Wellenzohn,et al.  Ligand‐Based Virtual Screening , 2011 .

[27]  Erwin W. Gelfand,et al.  The role of histamine H1 and H4 receptors in allergic inflammation: the search for new antihistamines , 2008, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[28]  Pekka Tiikkainen,et al.  Critical Comparison of Virtual Screening Methods against the MUV Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[30]  N. Blomberg,et al.  An integrated approach to fragment-based lead generation: philosophy, strategy and case studies from AstraZeneca's drug discovery programmes. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[31]  John P. Overington,et al.  ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[32]  Stefano Costanzi,et al.  On the applicability of GPCR homology models to computer-aided drug discovery: a comparison between in silico and crystal structures of the beta2-adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[33]  Jean-Louis Reymond,et al.  Virtual Exploration of the Chemical Universe up to 11 Atoms of C, N, O, F: Assembly of 26.4 Million Structures (110.9 Million Stereoisomers) and Analysis for New Ring Systems, Stereochemistry, Physicochemical Properties, Compound Classes, and Drug Discovery , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[34]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  What do we know and when do we know it? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[35]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Cross-pharmacology analysis of G protein-coupled receptors. , 2011, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[36]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Fast and Efficient in Silico 3D Screening: Toward Maximum Computational Efficiency of Pharmacophore-Based and Shape-Based Approaches , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Introduction of Target Cliffs as a Concept To Identify and Describe Complex Molecular Selectivity Patterns , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Recommendations for evaluation of computational methods , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[39]  Peter Willett,et al.  Enhancing the Effectiveness of Virtual Screening by Fusing Nearest Neighbor Lists: A Comparison of Similarity Coefficients , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[40]  F. Simons Advances in H1-antihistamines. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[41]  Robert Kiss,et al.  Discovery of Novel Histamine H4 and Serotonin Transporter Ligands Using the Topological Feature Tree Descriptor , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Jérôme Hert,et al.  New Methods for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening: Use of Data Fusion and Machine Learning to Enhance the Effectiveness of Similarity Searching , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[43]  Saskia Nijmeijer,et al.  Structure-based virtual screening for fragment-like ligands of the G protein-coupled histamine H4 receptor , 2015 .

[44]  H J Wiggers,et al.  Integration of Ligand‐ and Target‐Based Virtual Screening for the Discovery of Cruzain Inhibitors , 2011, Molecular informatics.

[45]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Scaffold‐Hopping: How Far Can You Jump? , 2006 .

[46]  P. Desai,et al.  Histamine H4 receptor antagonists are superior to traditional antihistamines in the attenuation of experimental pruritus. , 2007, The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology.

[47]  Jaap Heringa,et al.  Electron Density Fingerprints (EDprints): Virtual Screening Using Assembled Information of Electron Density , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[48]  Miklos Feher,et al.  The Use of Consensus Scoring in Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[49]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Analysis and Display of the Size Dependence of Chemical Similarity Coefficients , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[50]  Christoph Helma,et al.  Classification of cytochrome p(450) activities using machine learning methods. , 2009, Molecular pharmaceutics.

[51]  Saskia Nijmeijer,et al.  Small and colorful stones make beautiful mosaics: fragment-based chemogenomics. , 2013, Drug Discovery Today.

[52]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  Molecular Complexity and Its Impact on the Probability of Finding Leads for Drug Discovery , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[53]  Paolo Massimo Buscema,et al.  Similarity Coefficients for Binary Chemoinformatics Data: Overview and Extended Comparison Using Simulated and Real Data Sets , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[54]  D. Rognan,et al.  Selective structure-based virtual screening for full and partial agonists of the beta2 adrenergic receptor. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[55]  Stephen H Muggleton,et al.  Assessment of a rule-based virtual screening technology (INDDEx) on a benchmark data set. , 2012, The journal of physical chemistry. B.

[56]  Qiang Zhang,et al.  Scaffold hopping through virtual screening using 2D and 3D similarity descriptors: ranking, voting, and consensus scoring. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[57]  Guixia Liu,et al.  Performance Evaluation of 2D Fingerprint and 3D Shape Similarity Methods in Virtual Screening , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[58]  A. J. Thompson,et al.  The 5-HT3 receptor as a therapeutic target , 2007, Expert opinion on therapeutic targets.

[59]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and ligand specificity in fragment-based inhibitor discovery. , 2009, Nature chemical biology.

[60]  Thomas Gärtner,et al.  Support-Vector-Machine-Based Ranking Significantly Improves the Effectiveness of Similarity Searching Using 2D Fingerprints and Multiple Reference Compounds , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[61]  Darren R. Flower,et al.  On the Properties of Bit String-Based Measures of Chemical Similarity , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

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

[63]  Christopher W Murray,et al.  Experiences in fragment-based drug discovery. , 2012, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[64]  R. Smits,et al.  Discovery of quinazolines as histamine H4 receptor inverse agonists using a scaffold hopping approach. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[65]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Molecular similarity analysis in virtual screening: foundations, limitations and novel approaches. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[66]  Edgar Jacoby,et al.  Library design for fragment based screening. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[67]  Y. Martin,et al.  Beyond QSAR: Lead Hopping to Different Structures , 2009 .

[68]  Jérôme Hert,et al.  Comparison of Fingerprint-Based Methods for Virtual Screening Using Multiple Bioactive Reference Structures , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[69]  I. D. de Esch,et al.  Antiinflammatory and antinociceptive effects of the selective histamine H4-receptor antagonists JNJ7777120 and VUF6002 in a rat model of carrageenan-induced acute inflammation. , 2007, European journal of pharmacology.

[70]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Increasing Chemical Space Coverage by Combining Empirical and Computational Fragment Screens , 2014, ACS chemical biology.

[71]  R. Smits,et al.  Fragment library screening reveals remarkable similarities between the G protein-coupled receptor histamine H4 and the ion channel serotonin 5-HT3A , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

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

[73]  Andreas Bender,et al.  A Discussion of Measures of Enrichment in Virtual Screening: Comparing the Information Content of Descriptors with Increasing Levels of Sophistication , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[74]  H. Stark,et al.  Histamine H4 receptor antagonism reduces hapten‐induced scratching behaviour but not inflammation , 2009, Experimental dermatology.

[75]  Thomas Sander,et al.  Comparison of Ligand- and Structure-Based Virtual Screening on the DUD Data Set , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[76]  R. Smits,et al.  Ligand based design of novel histamine H₄ receptor antagonists; fragment optimization and analysis of binding kinetics. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[77]  R. North,et al.  5-HT3 receptors are membrane ion channels , 1989, Nature.

[78]  G. Bemis,et al.  The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[79]  Jin Zhang,et al.  Toward a Benchmarking Data Set Able to Evaluate Ligand- and Structure-based Virtual Screening Using Public HTS Data , 2015, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[80]  M. Aapro 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists , 1991, Drugs.

[81]  Martin J. Scanlon,et al.  Design and Evaluation of the Performance of an NMR Screening Fragment Library , 2013 .

[82]  R. Leurs,et al.  A structural chemogenomics analysis of aminergic GPCRs: lessons for histamine receptor ligand design , 2013, British journal of pharmacology.

[83]  R. Stevens,et al.  Crystal structure-based virtual screening for fragment-like ligands of the human histamine H(1) receptor. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[84]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Boosting Virtual Screening Enrichments with Data Fusion: Coalescing Hits from Two-Dimensional Fingerprints, Shape, and Docking , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[86]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Application of Belief Theory to Similarity Data Fusion for Use in Analog Searching and Lead Hopping , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

[88]  Saskia Nijmeijer,et al.  Virtual Fragment Screening: Discovery of Histamine H3 Receptor Ligands Using Ligand-Based and Protein-Based Molecular Fingerprints , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[89]  Peter Willett,et al.  Analysis of Data Fusion Methods in Virtual Screening: Similarity and Group Fusion , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[90]  P. Willett,et al.  Enhancing the effectiveness of similarity-based virtual screening using nearest-neighbor information. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[91]  Fredrik Svensson,et al.  Virtual Screening Data Fusion Using Both Structure- and Ligand-Based Methods , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[92]  G. Hessler,et al.  The scaffold hopping potential of pharmacophores. , 2010, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[93]  G. Schneider,et al.  Scaffold‐Hopping Potential of Ligand‐Based Similarity Concepts , 2006, ChemMedChem.

[94]  Knut Baumann,et al.  Impact of Benchmark Data Set Topology on the Validation of Virtual Screening Methods: Exploration and Quantification by Spatial Statistics , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[95]  Lars Karlsson,et al.  A Potent and Selective Histamine H4 Receptor Antagonist with Anti-Inflammatory Properties , 2004, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.

[96]  Adriaan P. IJzerman,et al.  Complementarity between in Silico and Biophysical Screening Approaches in Fragment-Based Lead Discovery against the A2A Adenosine Receptor , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[97]  George Papadatos,et al.  Evaluation of machine-learning methods for ligand-based virtual screening , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[98]  Sebastian G. Rohrer,et al.  Maximum Unbiased Validation (MUV) Data Sets for Virtual Screening Based on PubChem Bioactivity Data , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[99]  Roderick E. Hubbard,et al.  Lessons for fragment library design: analysis of output from multiple screening campaigns , 2009, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[100]  Peter Willett,et al.  Combination of Similarity Rankings Using Data Fusion , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[101]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Bayesian methods in virtual screening and chemical biology. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[102]  G. Keserű,et al.  Fragment-based lead discovery on G-protein-coupled receptors , 2013, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[103]  Woody Sherman,et al.  Computational approaches for fragment-based and de novo design. , 2010, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[104]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A fast method of molecular shape comparison: A simple application of a Gaussian description of molecular shape , 1996, J. Comput. Chem..

[105]  R. Smits,et al.  The emerging role of the histamine H4 receptor in anti-inflammatory therapy. , 2006, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[106]  Andreas Bender,et al.  "Virtual fragment linking": an approach to identify potent binders from low affinity fragment hits. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[107]  G. Siegal,et al.  Fragment based lead discovery of small molecule inhibitors for the EPHA4 receptor tyrosine kinase. , 2012, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[109]  Mark Johnson,et al.  Using Molecular Equivalence Numbers To Visually Explore Structural Features that Distinguish Chemical Libraries , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[110]  Frank M. Boeckler,et al.  DEKOIS: Demanding Evaluation Kits for Objective in Silico Screening - A Versatile Tool for Benchmarking Docking Programs and Scoring Functions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[111]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[112]  G. Harper,et al.  The reduced graph descriptor in virtual screening and data-driven clustering of high-throughput screening data. , 2004, Journal of chemical information and computer sciences.

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

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