Predicting the multi-modal binding propensity of small molecules: towards an understanding of drug promiscuity.

Drug promiscuity is one of the key issues in current drug development. Many famous drugs have turned out to behave unexpectedly due to their propensity to bind to multiple targets. One of the primary reasons for this promiscuity is that drugs bind to multiple distinctive target environments, a feature that we call multi-modal binding. Accordingly, investigations into whether multi-modal binding propensities can be predicted, and if so, whether the features determining this behavior can be found, would be an important advance. In this study, we have developed a structure-based classifier that predicts whether small molecules will bind to multiple distinct binding sites. The binding sites for all ligands in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) were clustered by binding site similarity, and the ligands that bind to many dissimilar binding sites were identified as multi-modal binding ligands. The mono-binding ligands were also collected, and the classifiers were built using various machine-learning algorithms. A 10-fold cross-validation procedure showed 70-85% accuracy depending on the choice of machine-learning algorithm, and the different definitions used to identify multi-modal binding ligands. In addition, a quantified importance measurement for global and local descriptors was also provided, which suggests that the local features are more likely to have an effect on multi-modal binding than the global ones. The interpretable global and local descriptors were also ranked by their importance. To test the classifier on real examples, several test sets including well-known promiscuous drugs were collected by a literature and database search. Despite the difficulty in constructing appropriate testable sets, the classifier showed reasonable results that were consistent with existing information on drug behavior. Finally, a test on natural enzyme substrates and artificial drugs suggests that the natural compounds tend to exhibit a broader range of multi-modal binding than the drugs.

[1]  A. Hopkins,et al.  Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine , 2004, Nature.

[2]  T. Hampton,et al.  "Promiscuous" anticancer drugs that hit multiple targets may thwart resistance. , 2004, JAMA.

[3]  A. Sali,et al.  Structural genomics: beyond the Human Genome Project , 1999, Nature Genetics.

[4]  C. Arteaga Molecular therapeutics: is one promiscuous drug against multiple targets better than combinations of molecule-specific drugs? , 2003, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[5]  Xi Zhang,et al.  Molecular basis for specificity in the druggable kinome : sequence-based analysis , 2007 .

[6]  Richard Morphy,et al.  The influence of target family and functional activity on the physicochemical properties of pre-clinical compounds. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  Richard Morphy,et al.  The physicochemical challenges of designing multiple ligands. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  F. Lombardo,et al.  Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings , 1997 .

[9]  L. M. Espinoza-Fonseca,et al.  The benefits of the multi-target approach in drug design and discovery. , 2006, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

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

[11]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Drug—target network , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[12]  P. Bork,et al.  Metabolites: a helping hand for pathway evolution? , 2003, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[13]  S. Frantz Drug discovery: Playing dirty , 2005, Nature.

[14]  C. Wermuth,et al.  Multitargeted drugs: the end of the "one-target-one-disease" philosophy? , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[15]  Richard Morphy,et al.  From magic bullets to designed multiple ligands. , 2004, Drug discovery today.

[16]  David S. Wishart,et al.  DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration , 2005, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  Lan V. Zhang,et al.  Evidence for dynamically organized modularity in the yeast protein–protein interaction network , 2004, Nature.

[18]  Hongyu Zhao,et al.  Pathway analysis using random forests classification and regression , 2006, Bioinform..

[19]  David A. Lee,et al.  Predicting protein function from sequence and structure , 2007, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology.

[20]  Péter Csermely,et al.  The efficiency of multi-target drugs: the network approach might help drug design. , 2004, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[21]  A. Debnath,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) paradigm--Hansch era to new millennium. , 2001, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[22]  C. Craik,et al.  Engineering enzyme specificity. , 1998, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[23]  Ziding Zhang,et al.  Similarity networks of protein binding sites , 2005, Proteins.

[24]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Similarity Searching of Chemical Databases Using Atom Environment Descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): Evaluation of Performance , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[25]  Peter Ertl,et al.  Natural Product-likeness Score and Its Application for Prioritization of Compound Libraries , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[26]  W Patrick Walters,et al.  Prediction of 'drug-likeness'. , 2002, Advanced drug delivery reviews.

[27]  A. Barabasi,et al.  Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[28]  Simon K. Mencher,et al.  BMC Clinical Pharmacology BioMed Central Debate , 2005 .

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

[30]  B. Roth,et al.  Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[31]  Tanja Kortemme,et al.  Design of Multi-Specificity in Protein Interfaces , 2007, PLoS Comput. Biol..

[32]  Keunwan Park,et al.  Binding similarity network of ligand , 2008, Proteins.

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

[34]  Pasch,et al.  References and Notes Supporting Online Material Evolution of Hormone-receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation , 2022 .

[35]  Minoru Kanehisa,et al.  The KEGG database. , 2002, Novartis Foundation symposium.

[36]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[37]  Jong H. Park,et al.  Mapping protein family interactions: intramolecular and intermolecular protein family interaction repertoires in the PDB and yeast. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

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

[39]  G. V. Paolini,et al.  Global mapping of pharmacological space , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[40]  Adam Godzik,et al.  Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences , 2006, Bioinform..

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

[42]  R. Leurs,et al.  H1‐antihistamines: inverse agonism, anti‐inflammatory actions and cardiac effects , 2002, Clinical and experimental allergy : journal of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology.