A Chemoinformatics Analysis of Hit Lists Obtained from High-Throughput Affinity-Selection Screening

The high-throughput affinity-selection screening platform SpeedScreen was recently reported by the Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research as a homogeneous, label-free screening technology with mass-spectrometry readout. SpeedScreen relies on the screening of compound mixtures with various target proteins and uses fast size-exclusion chromatography to separate target-bound from unbound substances. After disintegration of the target-binder complex, the binder molecules are identified by their molecular masses using liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. The authors report an analysis of the molecular properties of hits obtained with SpeedScreen on 26 targets screened within the past few years at Novartis using this technology. Affinity-based SpeedScreen is a robust high-throughput screening technology that does not accumulate frequent hitters or potential covalent binders. The hits are representative of the most commonly identified scaffold classes observed for known drugs. Validated SpeedScreen hits tend to be enriched on more lipophilic and larger-molecular-weight compounds compared to the whole library. The potential for a reduced SpeedScreen screening set to be used in case only limited protein quantities are available is evaluated. Such a reduced compound set should also maximize the coverage of the high-performing regions of the chemical property and class spaces; chemoinformatics methods including genetic algorithms and divisive K-means clustering are used for this aim.

[1]  Renaldo Mendoza,et al.  ALARM NMR: a rapid and robust experimental method to detect reactive false positives in biochemical screens. , 2005, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[2]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  Use of Structure-Activity Data To Compare Structure-Based Clustering Methods and Descriptors for Use in Compound Selection , 1996, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. , 2004, Current opinion in chemical biology.

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

[6]  Robert S. Pearlman,et al.  Metric Validation and the Receptor-Relevant Subspace Concept , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[7]  R A Goodnow,et al.  Library design practices for success in lead generation with small molecule libraries. , 2003, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[8]  Steve Steiner,et al.  Missing link , 1989 .

[9]  Andrew M Davis,et al.  Components of successful lead generation. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[10]  M. Uesugi,et al.  [Discovering high-affinity ligands for proteins: SAR by NMR]. , 2007, Tanpakushitsu kakusan koso. Protein, nucleic acid, enzyme.

[11]  P. Beroza,et al.  Target-related affinity profiling: Telik's lead discovery technology. , 2005, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[12]  Bernd Beck,et al.  Onion design and its application to a pharmaceutical QSAR problem , 2004 .

[13]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  Chemoinformatics: A Textbook , 2003 .

[14]  David E. Clark,et al.  Evolutionary Algorithms in Molecular Design: Clark/Evolutionary , 2000 .

[15]  Marvin Johnson,et al.  Concepts and applications of molecular similarity , 1990 .

[16]  Tudor I. Oprea Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery: OPREA:CHEMOINFORMATICS O-BK , 2005 .

[17]  Wolfgang Guba,et al.  Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  I. Kuntz,et al.  The maximal affinity of ligands. , 1999, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  W. Patrick Walters,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[20]  L. Mayr,et al.  SpeedScreen: The “Missing Link” between Genomics and Lead Discovery , 2004, Journal of biomolecular screening.

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

[22]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Chemoinformatics in drug discovery , 2005 .

[23]  Gerhard Müller,et al.  Target Family‐Directed Masterkeys in Chemogenomics , 2005 .

[24]  P Willett,et al.  Comparison of algorithms for dissimilarity-based compound selection. , 1997, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[25]  George Karypis,et al.  A Comparison of Document Clustering Techniques , 2000 .

[26]  Johann Gasteiger,et al.  Assessing Similarity and Diversity of Combinatorial Libraries by Spatial Autocorrelation Functions and Neural Networks , 1996 .

[27]  R. Falchetto,et al.  SpeedScreen: label-free liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-based high-throughput screening for the discovery of orphan protein ligands. , 2004, Analytical biochemistry.

[28]  Y. Martin,et al.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity? , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  U Schopfer,et al.  Molecular diversity management strategies for building and enhancement of diverse and focused lead discovery compound screening collections. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[30]  H Kubinyi,et al.  Chemogenomics in drug discovery. , 2006, Ernst Schering Research Foundation workshop.

[31]  Gary Walker,et al.  Enhancing Hit Quality and Diversity within Assay Throughput Constraints , 2005 .

[32]  Roberto Todeschini,et al.  Handbook of Molecular Descriptors , 2002 .

[33]  Andrew R. Leach,et al.  An Introduction to Chemoinformatics , 2003 .

[34]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  The Design of Leadlike Combinatorial Libraries. , 1999, Angewandte Chemie.

[35]  David E. Clark,et al.  Evolutionary algorithms in computer-aided molecular design , 1996, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..