Rationalizing Three-Dimensional Activity Landscapes and the Influence of Molecular Representations on Landscape Topology and the Formation of Activity Cliffs

Activity landscapes are defined by potency and similarity distributions of active compounds and reflect the nature of structure-activity relationships (SARs). Three-dimensional (3D) activity landscapes are reminiscent of topographical maps and particularly intuitive representations of compound similarity and potency distributions. From their topologies, SAR characteristics can be deduced. Accordingly, idealized theoretical landscape models have been utilized to rationalize SAR features, but "true" 3D activity landscapes have not yet been described in detail. Herein we present a computational approach to derive approximate 3D activity landscapes for actual compound data sets and to analyze exemplary landscape representations. These activity landscapes are generated within a consistent reference frame so that they can be compared across different activity classes. We show that SAR features of compound data sets can be derived from the topology of landscape models. A notable correlation is observed between global SAR phenotypes, assigned on the basis of SAR discontinuity scoring, and characteristic landscape topologies. We also show that different molecular representations can substantially alter the topology of activity landscapes for a given data set and modulate the formation of activity cliffs, which represent the most prominent landscape features. Depending on the choice of molecular representations, compounds forming a steep activity cliff in a given landscape might be separated in another and no longer form a cliff. However, comparison of alternative activity landscapes makes it possible to focus on compound subsets having high SAR information content.

[1]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Structure—Activity Landscape Index: Identifying and Quantifying Activity Cliffs. , 2008 .

[2]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Structure-activity relationship anatomy by network-like similarity graphs and local structure-activity relationship indices. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  J. H. Ward Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[4]  John W. Sammon,et al.  A Nonlinear Mapping for Data Structure Analysis , 1969, IEEE Transactions on Computers.

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

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

[7]  P Willett,et al.  Visual and computational analysis of structure--activity relationships in high-throughput screening data. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[8]  J. Bajorath,et al.  SAR index: quantifying the nature of structure-activity relationships. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Dimitris K. Agrafiotis,et al.  Nonlinear Mapping Networks , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[10]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  From Structure–Activity to Structure–Selectivity Relationships: Quantitative Assessment, Selectivity Cliffs, and Key Compounds , 2009, ChemMedChem.

[11]  Clemencia Pinilla,et al.  A Similarity‐based Data‐fusion Approach to the Visual Characterization and Comparison of Compound Databases , 2007, Chemical biology & drug design.

[12]  Mathias Wawer,et al.  Elucidation of structure-activity relationship pathways in biological screening data. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

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

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

[16]  J. Kruskal Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[17]  Rajarshi Guha,et al.  Assessing How Well a Modeling Protocol Captures a Structure-Activity Landscape , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Systematic computational analysis of structure-activity relationships: concepts, challenges and recent advances. , 2009, Future medicinal chemistry.

[19]  J. Kruskal Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method , 1964 .

[20]  José L. Medina-Franco,et al.  Characterization of Activity Landscapes Using 2D and 3D Similarity Methods: Consensus Activity Cliffs , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..