Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors.

Bridging chemical and biological space is the key to drug discovery and development. Typically, cheminformatics methods operate under the assumption that similar chemicals have similar biological activity. Ideally then, one could predict a drug's biological function(s) given only its chemical structure by similarity searching in libraries of compounds with known activities. In practice, effectively choosing a similarity metric is case dependent. This work compares both 2D and 3D chemical descriptors as tools for predicting the biological targets of ligand probes, on the basis of their similarity to reference molecules in a 46,000 compound, biologically annotated chemical database. Overall, we found that the 2D methods employed here outperform the 3D (88% vs 67% success) in correct target prediction. However, the 3D descriptors proved superior in cases of probes with low structural similarity to other compounds in the database (singletons). Additionally, the 3D method (FEPOPS) shows promise for providing pharmacophoric alignment of the small molecules' chemical features consistent with those seen in experimental ligand/ receptor complexes. These results suggest that querying annotated chemical databases with a systematic combination of both 2D and 3D descriptors will prove more effective than employing single methods.

[1]  John M. Barnard,et al.  Clustering of chemical structures on the basis of two-dimensional similarity measures , 1992, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[2]  L Zhang,et al.  Synthesis and structure-activity relationships of novel retinoid X receptor-selective retinoids. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  J. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  Synthesis, antitubulin and antimitotic activity, and cytotoxicity of analogs of 2-methoxyestradiol, an endogenous mammalian metabolite of estradiol that inhibits tubulin polymerization by binding to the colchicine binding site. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  P. Chambon A decade of molecular biology of retinoic acid receptors , 1996, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[5]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  The Information Content of 2D and 3D Structural Descriptors Relevant to Ligand-Receptor Binding , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[6]  P B Sigler,et al.  Crystallographic comparison of the estrogen and progesterone receptor's ligand binding domains. , 1998, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  David A. Agard,et al.  The Structural Basis of Estrogen Receptor/Coactivator Recognition and the Antagonism of This Interaction by Tamoxifen , 1998, Cell.

[8]  Nguyen-Huu Xuong,et al.  Crystal structure of the potent natural product inhibitor balanol in complex with the catalytic subunit of cAMP-dependent protein kinase. , 1999 .

[9]  D R Flower,et al.  Lead generation using pharmacophore mapping and three-dimensional database searching: application to muscarinic M(3) receptor antagonists. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[10]  Hans Matter,et al.  Comparing 3D Pharmacophore Triplets and 2D Fingerprints for Selecting Diverse Compound Subsets , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[11]  Ajay N. Jain Morphological similarity: A 3D molecular similarity method correlated with protein-ligand recognition , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  Y.Z. Chen,et al.  Ligand–protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule , 2001, Proteins.

[13]  G. Makara,et al.  Measuring molecular similarity and diversity: total pharmacophore diversity. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Robert P Sheridan,et al.  Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[15]  R. Evans,et al.  The Structural Basis for the Specificity of Retinoid-X Receptor-selective Agonists: New Insights Into the Role of Helix H12* , 2002, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[16]  Paul W. Erhardt,et al.  Medicinal chemistry in the new millennium. A glance into the future , 2002 .

[17]  D. Moras,et al.  Molecular recognition of agonist ligands by RXRs. , 2002, Molecular endocrinology.

[18]  M. D. Leibowitz,et al.  Design, synthesis, and structure-activity relationship studies of novel 6,7-locked-[7-(2-alkoxy-3,5-dialkylbenzene)-3-methylocta]-2,4,6-trienoic acids. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  V. Jordan,et al.  The biological role of estrogen receptors α and β in cancer , 2004 .

[20]  J. Jenkins,et al.  A 3D similarity method for scaffold hopping from known drugs or natural ligands to new chemotypes. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Molecular Similarity Searching Using Atom Environments, Information-Based Feature Selection, and a Naïve Bayesian Classifier , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[22]  S. Ekins Predicting undesirable drug interactions with promiscuous proteins in silico. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[23]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  Descriptors you can count on? Normalized and filtered pharmacophore descriptors for virtual screening , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[25]  B. Stockwell Exploring biology with small organic molecules , 2004, Nature.

[26]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries , 2004, Nature.

[27]  Robert J. Jilek,et al.  "Lead hopping". Validation of topomer similarity as a superior predictor of similar biological activities. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  Anthony Nicholls,et al.  Variable selection and model validation of 2D and 3D molecular descriptors> , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[29]  Andrew C. Good,et al.  Measuring CAMD technique performance: A virtual screening case study in the design of validation experiments , 2004, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

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

[31]  J. A. Grant,et al.  A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[32]  M. Austen,et al.  Phenotype-first screening for the identification of novel drug targets. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[33]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  WOMBAT: World of Molecular Bioactivity , 2005 .

[34]  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.

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

[36]  Meir Glick,et al.  Prediction of Biological Targets for Compounds Using Multiple-Category Bayesian Models Trained on Chemogenomics Databases , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[37]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Robust ligand-based modeling of the biological targets of known drugs. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  A. Bender,et al.  Circular fingerprints: flexible molecular descriptors with applications from physical chemistry to ADME. , 2006, IDrugs : the investigational drugs journal.

[39]  P. Chambon,et al.  Function of retinoid nuclear receptors: lessons from genetic and pharmacological dissections of the retinoic acid signaling pathway during mouse embryogenesis. , 2006, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[40]  Andreas Bender,et al.  "Bayes Affinity Fingerprints" Improve Retrieval Rates in Virtual Screening and Define Orthogonal Bioactivity Space: When Are Multitarget Drugs a Feasible Concept? , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..