Profile-QSAR: A Novel meta-QSAR Method that Combines Activities across the Kinase Family To Accurately Predict Affinity, Selectivity, and Cellular Activity

Profile-QSAR is a novel 2D predictive model building method for kinases. This "meta-QSAR" method models the activity of each compound against a new kinase target as a linear combination of its predicted activities against a large panel of 92 previously studied kinases comprised from 115 assays. Profile-QSAR starts with a sparse incomplete kinase by compound (KxC) activity matrix, used to generate Bayesian QSAR models for the 92 "basis-set" kinases. These Bayesian QSARs generate a complete "synthetic" KxC activity matrix of predictions. These synthetic activities are used as "chemical descriptors" to train partial-least squares (PLS) models, from modest amounts of medium-throughput screening data, for predicting activity against new kinases. The Profile-QSAR predictions for the 92 kinases (115 assays) gave a median external R²(ext) = 0.59 on 25% held-out test sets. The method has proven accurate enough to predict pairwise kinase selectivities with a median correlation of R²(ext) = 0.61 for 958 kinase pairs with at least 600 common compounds. It has been further expanded by adding a "C(k)XC" cellular activity matrix to the KxC matrix to predict cellular activity for 42 kinase driven cellular assays with median R²(ext) = 0.58 for 24 target modulation assays and R²(ext) = 0.41 for 18 cell proliferation assays. The 2D Profile-QSAR, along with the 3D Surrogate AutoShim, are the foundations of an internally developed iterative medium-throughput screening (IMTS) methodology for virtual screening (VS) of compound archives as an alternative to experimental high-throughput screening (HTS). The method has been applied to 20 actual prospective kinase projects. Biological results have so far been obtained in eight of them. Q² values ranged from 0.3 to 0.7. Hit-rates at 10 uM for experimentally tested compounds varied from 25% to 80%, except in K5, which was a special case aimed specifically at finding "type II" binders, where none of the compounds were predicted to be active at 10 μM. These overall results are particularly striking as chemical novelty was an important criterion in selecting compounds for testing. The method is completely automated. Predicted activities for nearly 4 million internal and commercial compounds across 115 kinase assays and 42 cellular assays are stored in the corporate database. Like computed physical properties, this predicted kinase activity profile can be computed and stored as each compound is registered.

[1]  Ariel Fernández,et al.  A priori inference of cross reactivity for drug-targeted kinases. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  J. Mestres,et al.  Conciliating binding efficiency and polypharmacology. , 2009, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[3]  M. Vieth,et al.  Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. , 2004, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[4]  C. E. Peishoff,et al.  A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  M. Vieth,et al.  Kinomics: characterizing the therapeutically validated kinase space. , 2005, Drug discovery today.

[6]  D. Vanderwall,et al.  Inhibitors of dihydrodipicolinate reductase, a key enzyme of the diaminopimelate pathway of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. , 2001, Biochimica et biophysica acta.

[7]  J. Bajorath Affinity fingerprints--leading the way? , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[8]  J. Goodwin,et al.  Physicochemical determinants of passive membrane permeability: role of solute hydrogen-bonding potential and volume. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Claudio N. Cavasotto,et al.  Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. , 2007, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[10]  I. Tsigelny,et al.  Disruption of angiogenesis and tumor growth with an orally active drug that stabilizes the inactive state of PDGFRβ/B-RAF , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[11]  Darren Vs Green,et al.  Virtual screening of chemical libraries for drug discovery , 2008, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[12]  J. Bajorath Computational approaches in chemogenomics and chemical biology: current and future impact on drug discovery , 2008, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[13]  Martyn G. Ford,et al.  Selecting Screening Candidates for Kinase and G Protein-Coupled Receptor Targets Using Neural Networks , 2002, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[14]  T. Hunter,et al.  The Protein Kinase Complement of the Human Genome , 2002, Science.

[15]  Hans Briem,et al.  Flexsim-X: A Method for the Detection of Molecules with Similar Biological Activity , 2000, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[16]  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..

[17]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Kinase inhibitor data modeling and de novo inhibitor design with fragment approaches. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  J. Regan,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of 5-HT receptor binding data for tetrahydropyridinylindole derivatives: a comparison of the Hansch and CoMFA methods. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[19]  M. Murcko,et al.  Kinase-likeness and kinase-privileged fragments: toward virtual polypharmacology. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[21]  Xiaoyang Xia,et al.  Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  QSAR Models for Predicting the Similarity in Binding Profiles for Pairs of Protein Kinases and the Variation of Models between Experimental Data Sets , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  C. Harris,et al.  Chemogenomics: structuring the drug discovery process to gene families. , 2006, Drug discovery today.

[24]  E. Jacoby,et al.  Chemogenomics: an emerging strategy for rapid target and drug discovery , 2004, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[25]  Brian K. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular Docking and High-Throughput Screening for Novel Inhibitors of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase-1 B , 2022 .

[26]  David M. Rocke,et al.  Predicting ligand binding to proteins by affinity fingerprinting. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.

[27]  Hans-Joachim Böhm,et al.  A guide to drug discovery: Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[28]  G. Bemis,et al.  Kinase chemogenomics: targeting the human kinome for target validation and drug discovery. , 2004, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[29]  Eric J. Martin,et al.  AutoShim: Empirically Corrected Scoring Functions for Quantitative Docking with a Crystal Structure and IC50 Training Data , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[30]  S. Nelson,et al.  Melanomas acquire resistance to B-RAF(V600E) inhibition by RTK or N-RAS upregulation , 2010, Nature.

[31]  D. C. Sullivan,et al.  AutoShim: Empirically Corrected Scoring Functions for Quantitative Docking with a Crystal Structure and IC50 Training Data. , 2008 .

[32]  N. Rosen,et al.  Resistance to BRAF inhibition in melanomas. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[33]  Hugo Kubinyi,et al.  Success Stories of Computer‐Aided Design , 2006 .

[34]  S. Semus,et al.  Modeling the cannabinoid receptor: a three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity analysis. , 1991, Molecular pharmacology.

[35]  E. Bradley,et al.  Performance of 3D-database molecular docking studies into homology models. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  G. Oliva,et al.  Virtual screening and its integration with modern drug design technologies. , 2008, Current medicinal chemistry.

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

[38]  B. Shoichet,et al.  Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[39]  M. Murcko,et al.  Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery. , 2001, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[40]  Steven L. Dixon,et al.  Bioactive Diversity and Screening Library Selection via Affinity Fingerprinting , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[41]  Ian A. Watson,et al.  Chemical fragments as foundations for understanding target space and activity prediction. , 2008, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[42]  I. Muegge,et al.  Virtual screening for kinase targets. , 2004, Current medicinal chemistry.

[43]  Stephen R. Johnson,et al.  Trends in kinase selectivity: insights for target class-focused library screening. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[44]  C. Harris,et al.  Bringing kinases into focus: efficient drug design through the use of chemogenomic toolkits. , 2006, Current medicinal chemistry.

[45]  Eric J. Martin,et al.  Surrogate AutoShim: Predocking into a Universal Ensemble Kinase Receptor for Three Dimensional Activity Prediction, Very Quickly, without a Crystal Structure , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[46]  K. Shokat Tyrosine kinases: modular signaling enzymes with tunable specificities. , 1995, Chemistry & biology.