Protein-Ligand-Based Pharmacophores: Generation and Utility Assessment in Computational Ligand Profiling

Ligand profiling is an emerging computational method for predicting the most likely targets of a bioactive compound and therefore anticipating adverse reactions, side effects and drug repurposing. A few encouraging successes have already been reported using ligand 2-D similarity searches and protein-ligand docking. The current study describes the use of receptor-ligand-derived pharmacophore searches as a tool to link ligands to putative targets. A database of 68,056 pharmacophores was first derived from 8,166 high-resolution protein-ligand complexes. In order to limit the number of queries, a maximum of 10 pharmacophores was generated for each complex according to their predicted selectivity. Pharmacophore search was compared to ligand-centric (2-D and 3-D similarity searches) and docking methods in profiling a set of 157 diverse ligands against a panel of 2,556 unique targets of known X-ray structure. As expected, ligand-based methods outperformed, in most of the cases, structure-based approaches in ranking the true targets among the top 1% scoring entries. However, we could identify ligands for which only a single method was successful. Receptor-ligand-based pharmacophore search is notably a fast and reliable alternative to docking when few ligand information is available for some targets. Overall, the present study suggests that a workflow using the best profiling method according to the protein-ligand context is the best strategy to follow. We notably present concrete guidelines for selecting the optimal computational method according to simple ligand and binding site properties.

[1]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Chemical structural novelty: on-targets and off-targets. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Richard A. Lewis,et al.  Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Wolfgang Guba,et al.  Discovery of the first nonpeptidic, small-molecule, highly selective somatostatin receptor subtype 5 antagonists: a chemogenomics approach. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Gisbert Schneider,et al.  Virtual screening: an endless staircase? , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[5]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Binding of Protein Kinase Inhibitors to Synapsin I Inferred from Pair-Wise Binding Site Similarity Measurements , 2010, PloS one.

[6]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Evidence for a novel binding site conformer of aldose reductase in ligand-bound state. , 2007, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  Didier Rognan,et al.  sc-PDB: a database for identifying variations and multiplicity of 'druggable' binding sites in proteins , 2011, Bioinform..

[8]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy , 2004, Proteins.

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

[10]  Gilles Marcou,et al.  Optimizing Fragment and Scaffold Docking by Use of Molecular Interaction Fingerprints , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  Jiabo Li,et al.  New features that improve the pharmacophore tools from Accelrys. , 2011, Current computer-aided drug design.

[12]  Thierry Langer,et al.  LigandScout: 3-D Pharmacophores Derived from Protein-Bound Ligands and Their Use as Virtual Screening Filters , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[13]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  A Computational Approach to Finding Novel Targets for Existing Drugs , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[14]  Lei Xie,et al.  Detecting evolutionary relationships across existing fold space, using sequence order-independent profile–profile alignments , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  D. Rognan Chemogenomic approaches to rational drug design , 2007, British journal of pharmacology.

[16]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  CSAR Benchmark Exercise of 2010: Combined Evaluation Across All Submitted Scoring Functions , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

[19]  Klaus R. Liedl,et al.  One Concept, Three Implementations of 3D Pharmacophore-Based Virtual Screening: Distinct Coverage of Chemical Search Space , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Off-target networks derived from ligand set similarity. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

[21]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  Drug Discovery Using Chemical Systems Biology: Repositioning the Safe Medicine Comtan to Treat Multi-Drug and Extensively Drug Resistant Tuberculosis , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[22]  Sean Ekins,et al.  When pharmaceutical companies publish large datasets: an abundance of riches or fool's gold? , 2010, Drug discovery today.

[23]  E. Kellenberger,et al.  Identification of nonpeptide CCR5 receptor agonists by structure-based virtual screening. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Fedor N. Novikov,et al.  CSAR Scoring Challenge Reveals the Need for New Concepts in Estimating Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  David Vidal,et al.  Ligand-based approaches to in silico pharmacology. , 2011, Methods in molecular biology.

[26]  Paul N. Mortenson,et al.  Diverse, high-quality test set for the validation of protein-ligand docking performance. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Parallel Screening and Activity Profiling with HIV Protease Inhibitor Pharmacophore Models , 2007, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  Didier Rognan,et al.  Structure‐Based Approaches to Target Fishing and Ligand Profiling , 2010, Molecular informatics.

[29]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[30]  Istvan J. Enyedy,et al.  Can we use docking and scoring for hit-to-lead optimization? , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[31]  Didier Rognan,et al.  In silico-guided target identification of a scaffold-focused library: 1,3,5-triazepan-2,6-diones as novel phospholipase A2 inhibitors. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[32]  John P. Overington,et al.  Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? , 2006, Current opinion in structural biology.

[33]  Gerard J. P. van Westen,et al.  Proteochemometric modeling as a tool to design selective compounds and for extrapolating to novel targets , 2011 .

[34]  Lin He,et al.  Harvesting Candidate Genes Responsible for Serious Adverse Drug Reactions from a Chemical-Protein Interactome , 2009, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[35]  Didier Rognan,et al.  A chemogenomic analysis of the transmembrane binding cavity of human G‐protein‐coupled receptors , 2005, Proteins.

[36]  R. Morphy Selectively nonselective kinase inhibition: striking the right balance. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Parallel Screening: A Novel Concept in Pharmacophore Modeling and Virtual Screening , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[38]  Thomas Stützle,et al.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Advanced Protein-Ligand Docking with PLANTS , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  D. J. Price,et al.  Assessing scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[40]  Ajay N. Jain Surflex-Dock 2.1: Robust performance from ligand energetic modeling, ring flexibility, and knowledge-based search , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[41]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[42]  Hong Liu,et al.  Computational Screening for Active Compounds Targeting Protein Sequences: Methodology and Experimental Validation , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[43]  Lin He,et al.  Exploring Off-Targets and Off-Systems for Adverse Drug Reactions via Chemical-Protein Interactome — Clozapine-Induced Agranulocytosis as a Case Study , 2011, PLoS Comput. Biol..

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

[45]  Thierry Langer,et al.  In silico Target Fishing for Rationalized Ligand Discovery Exemplified on Constituents of Ruta graveolens , 2008, Planta medica.

[46]  Nathanael Weill,et al.  Alignment-Free Ultra-High-Throughput Comparison of Druggable Protein-Ligand Binding Sites , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[47]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  A Multidimensional Strategy to Detect Polypharmacological Targets in the Absence of Structural and Sequence Homology , 2010, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[48]  Kai Huang,et al.  PharmMapper server: a web server for potential drug target identification using pharmacophore mapping approach , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[49]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Pharmacophore modeling and parallel screening for PPAR ligands , 2007, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[50]  Anton J. Hopfinger,et al.  Application of Genetic Function Approximation to Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships and Quantitative Structure-Property Relationships , 1994, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[51]  Xin Chen,et al.  The interprotein scoring noises in glide docking scores , 2012, Proteins.

[52]  Thierry Langer,et al.  Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. , 2008, Drug discovery today.