"Bayes Affinity Fingerprints" Improve Retrieval Rates in Virtual Screening and Define Orthogonal Bioactivity Space: When Are Multitarget Drugs a Feasible Concept?

Conventional similarity searching of molecules compares single (or multiple) active query structures to each other in a relative framework, by means of a structural descriptor and a similarity measure. While this often works well, depending on the target, we show here that retrieval rates can be improved considerably by incorporating an external framework describing ligand bioactivity space for comparisons ("Bayes affinity fingerprints"). Structures are described by Bayes scores for a ligand panel comprising about 1000 activity classes extracted from the WOMBAT database. The comparison of structures is performed via the Pearson correlation coefficient of activity classes, that is, the order in which two structures are similar to the panel activity classes. Compound retrieval on a recently published data set could be improved by as much as 24% relative (9% absolute). Knowledge about the shape of the "bioactive chemical universe" is thus beneficial to identifying similar bioactivities. Principal component analysis was employed to further analyze activity space with the objective to define orthogonal ligand bioactive chemical space, leading to nine major (roughly orthogonal) activity axes. Employing only those nine activity classes, retrieval rates are still comparable to original Bayes affinity fingerprints; thus, the concept of orthogonal bioactive ligand chemical space was validated as being an information-rich but low-dimensional representation of bioactivity space. Correlations between activity classes are a major determinant to gauge whether the desired multitarget activity of drugs is (on the basis of current knowledge) a feasible concept because it measures the extent to which activities can be optimized independently, or only by strongly influencing one another.

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

[2]  G. Bemis,et al.  The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  G. S. Johnson,et al.  An Information-Intensive Approach to the Molecular Pharmacology of Cancer , 1997, Science.

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

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

[6]  U. Lessel,et al.  In vitro and in silico affinity fingerprints: Finding similarities beyond structural classes , 2000 .

[7]  Hans Briem,et al.  Flexsim-R: A virtual affinity fingerprint descriptor to calculate similarities of functional groups , 2002, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[8]  P. Beroza,et al.  Chemoproteomics as a basis for post-genomic drug discovery. , 2002, Drug discovery today.

[9]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Chemical space navigation in lead discovery. , 2002, Current opinion in chemical biology.

[10]  K. Baumann Distance Profiles (DiP): A translationally and rotationally invariant 3D structure descriptor capturing steric properties of molecules , 2002 .

[11]  Dragos Horvath,et al.  Predicting ADME properties and side effects: the BioPrint approach. , 2003, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[12]  N. Stiefl,et al.  Mapping property distributions of molecular surfaces: algorithm and evaluation of a novel 3D quantitative structure-activity relationship technique. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  G. S. Gill,et al.  Molecular surface point environments for virtual screening and the elucidation of binding patterns (MOLPRINT) , 2004 .

[14]  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.

[15]  Robert P. Sheridan,et al.  Calculating Similarities between Biological Activities in the MDL Drug Data Report Database , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

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

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

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

[19]  P. Willett,et al.  Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. , 2004, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[20]  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..

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

[22]  Muthukumarasamy Karthikeyan,et al.  General Melting Point Prediction Based on a Diverse Compound Data Set and Artificial Neural Networks , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  Andreas Bender,et al.  A Discussion of Measures of Enrichment in Virtual Screening: Comparing the Information Content of Descriptors with Increasing Levels of Sophistication , 2005, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[24]  A. Fliri,et al.  Biospectra analysis: model proteome characterizations for linking molecular structure and biological response. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  P. Willett,et al.  Enhancing the effectiveness of similarity-based virtual screening using nearest-neighbor information. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  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.

[27]  J. Jenkins,et al.  Prediction of Biological Targets for Compounds Using Multiple‐Category Bayesian Models Trained on Chemogenomics Databases. , 2006 .

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

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

[30]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Analysis of Activity Space by Fragment Fingerprints, 2D Descriptors, and Multitarget Dependent Transformation of 2D Descriptors , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[31]  Robert C. Glen,et al.  Chapter 9 Molecular Similarity: Advances in Methods, Applications and Validations in Virtual Screening and QSAR , 2006, Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry.