A graph-based approach to construct target-focused libraries for virtual screening
Tóm tắt
Due to exorbitant costs of high-throughput screening, many drug discovery projects commonly employ inexpensive virtual screening to support experimental efforts. However, the vast majority of compounds in widely used screening libraries, such as the ZINC database, will have a very low probability to exhibit the desired bioactivity for a given protein. Although combinatorial chemistry methods can be used to augment existing compound libraries with novel drug-like compounds, the broad chemical space is often too large to be explored. Consequently, the trend in library design has shifted to produce screening collections specifically tailored to modulate the function of a particular target or a protein family.
Assuming that organic compounds are composed of sets of rigid fragments connected by flexible linkers, a molecule can be decomposed into its building blocks tracking their atomic connectivity. On this account, we developed eSynth, an exhaustive graph-based search algorithm to computationally synthesize new compounds by reconnecting these building blocks following their connectivity patterns. We conducted a series of benchmarking calculations against the Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced database. First, in a self-benchmarking test, the correctness of the algorithm is validated with the objective to recover a molecule from its building blocks. Encouragingly, eSynth can efficiently rebuild more than 80 % of active molecules from their fragment components. Next, the capability to discover novel scaffolds is assessed in a cross-benchmarking test, where eSynth successfully reconstructed 40 % of the target molecules using fragments extracted from chemically distinct compounds. Despite an enormous chemical space to be explored, eSynth is computationally efficient; half of the molecules are rebuilt in less than a second, whereas 90 % take only about a minute to be generated.
eSynth can successfully reconstruct chemically feasible molecules from molecular fragments.
Furthermore, in a procedure mimicking the real application, where one expects to discover novel compounds based on a small set of already developed bioactives, eSynth is capable of generating diverse collections of molecules with the desired activity profiles. Thus, we are very optimistic that our effort will contribute to targeted drug discovery. eSynth is freely available to the academic community at
www.brylinski.org/content/molecular-synthesis
.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Leung CH, Ma DL (2015) Recent advances in virtual screening for drug discovery. Methods 71:1–3
Jain AN (2004) Virtual screening in lead discovery and optimization. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 7(4):396–403
Lavecchia A, Giovanni C (2013) Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery: a critical review. Curr Med Chem 20(23):2839–2860
Gschwend DA, Good AC, Kuntz ID (1996) Molecular docking towards drug discovery. J Mol Recognit 9(2):175–186
Cavasotto C, Orry W (2007) Ligand docking and structure-based virtual screening in drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem 7(10):1006–1014
Villoutreix BO, Eudes R, Miteva MA (2009) Structure-based virtual ligand screening: recent success stories. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 12(10):1000–1016
Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2005) ZINC: a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 45(1):177–182
Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3(11):935–949
Akritopoulou-Zanze I, Hajduk PJ (2009) Kinase-targeted libraries: the design and synthesis of novel, potent, and selective kinase inhibitors. Drug Discov Today 14(5–6):291–297
Lowrie J, Delisle R, Hobbs D, Diller D (2004) The different strategies for designing GPCR and kinase targeted libraries. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 7(5):495–510
JohnHarris C, Hill RD, Sheppard DW, Slater MJ, Stouten PFW (2011) The design and application of target-focused compound libraries. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 14(6):521–531
Orry AJW, Abagyan RA, Cavasotto CN (2006) Structure-based development of target-specific compound libraries. Drug Discov Today 11(5–6):261–266
Maly DJ, Choong IC, Ellman JA (2000) Combinatorial target-guided ligand assembly: identification of potent subtype-selective c-Src inhibitors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97(6):2419–2424
Gozalbes R, Simon L, Froloff N, Sartori E, Monteils C, Baudelle R (2008) Development and experimental validation of a docking strategy for the generation of kinase-targeted libraries. J Med Chem 51(11):3124–3132
Alvesalo JKO, Siiskonen A, Vainio MJ, Tammela PSM, Vuorela PM (2006) Similarity based virtual screening: a tool for targeted library design. J Med Chem 49(7):2353–2356
Renner S, Schneider G (2006) Scaffold-hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. ChemMedChem 1(2):181–185
Brylinski M, Waldrop G (2014) Computational redesign of bacterial biotin carboxylase inhibitors using structure-based virtual screening of combinatorial libraries. Molecules 19(4):4021–4045
Gorse A-D (2006) Diversity in medicinal chemistry space. Curr Top Med Chem 6(1):3–18
Dobson CM (2004) Chemical space and biology. Nature 432(7019):824–828
Traverso P, Ghallab M, Nau D (2004) Automated planning: theory and practice. Morgan Kauffman, Burlington, MA
Alvin C, Gulwani S, Majumdar R, Mukhopadhyay S (2014) Synthesis of Geometry Proof Problems. In: Proc AAAI 2014, pp 245–252
Chu T-A (1987) Synthesis of self-timed VLSI circuits from graph-theoretic specifications. Ph.D. Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Afrati F, Papadimitriou CH, Papageorgiou G (1988) The synthesis of communication protocols. Algorithmica 3(1–4):451–472
Bemis GW, Murcko MA (1996) The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem 39(15):2887–2893
Estrada E, Peña A, García-Domenech R (1998) Designing sedative/hypnotic compounds from a novel substructural graph-theoretical approach. J Comput Aided Mol Des 12(6):583–595
Carlson HA (2002) Protein flexibility and drug design: how to hit a moving target. Curr Opin Chem Biol 6(4):447–452
Nikolsky Y, Nikolskaya T, Bugrim A (2005) Biological networks and analysis of experimental data in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 10(9):653–662
Gramatica R, Di Matteo T, Giorgetti S, Barbiani M, Bevec D, Aste T (2014) Graph theory enables drug repurposing—how a mathematical model can drive the discovery of hidden mechanisms of action. PLoS One 9(1):e84912
Clark M, Cramer RD, Van Opdenbosch N (1989) Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field. J Comput Chem 10(8):982–1012
Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ (2001) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 46(1–3):3–26
Burton HB (1970) Space/time trade-offs in hash coding with allowable errors. Commun ACM 13(7):422–426
Anderson E, Veith G, Weininger D (1987) SMILES: a line notation and computerized interpreter for chemical structures. In: Duluth, MN, U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth
Mysinger MM, Carchia M, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2012) Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J Med Chem 55(14):6582–6594
Tanimoto TT (1958) An elementary mathematical theory of classification and prediction. In: vol 0. IBM Internal Report
Bajusz D, Rácz A, Héberger K (2015) Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations? J Cheminform 7:20
Voigt JH, Bienfait B, Wang S, Nicklaus MC (2001) Comparison of the NCI open database with seven large chemical structural databases. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41(3):702–712
O’Boyle NM, Banck M, James CA, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison GR (2011) Open Babel: an open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform 3:33
Kawabata T (2011) Build-up algorithm for atomic correspondence between chemical structures. J Chem Inf Model 51(8):1775–1787
Kawabata T, Nakamura H (2014) 3D flexible alignment using 2D maximum common substructure: dependence of prediction accuracy on target-reference chemical similarity. J Chem Inf Model 54(7):1850–1863
Brylinski M (2013) Nonlinear scoring functions for similarity-based ligand docking and binding affinity prediction. J Chem Inf Model 53(11):3097–3112
Vilar S, Uriarte E, Santana L, Tatonetti NP, Friedman C (2013) Detection of drug–drug interactions by modeling interaction profile fingerprints. PLoS One 8(3):e58321
Rodgers AD, Zhu H, Fourches D, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2010) Modeling liver-related adverse effects of drugs using knearest neighbor quantitative structure-activity relationship method. Chem Res Toxicol 23(4):724–732
Hendlich M, Bergner A, Gunther J, Klebe G (2003) Relibase: design and development of a database for comprehensive analysis of protein–ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 326(2):607–620
Ertl P, Schuffenhauer A (2009) Estimation of synthetic accessibility score of drug-like molecules based on molecular complexity and fragment contributions. J Cheminform 1(1):8
Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC, Shrivastava S, Hassanali M, Stothard P, Chang Z, Woolsey J (2006) DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids Res 34(Database issue):D668–D672
WDI—Derwent World Drug Index, version 2007.04. http://www.thomsonreuters.com/
MDDR—MDL Drug Data Report, version 2007.2. http://lifesciences.thomsonreuters.com/prous
Valli M, dos Santos RN, Figueira LD, Nakajima CH, Castro-Gamboa I, Andricopulo AD, Bolzani VS (2013) Development of a natural products database from the biodiversity of Brazil. J Nat Prod 76(3):439–444
Gu J, Gui Y, Chen L, Yuan G, Lu HZ, Xu X (2013) Use of natural products as chemical library for drug discovery and network pharmacology. PLoS One 8(4):e62839
CRC Dictionary of Natural Products, v 15.1. http://dnp.chemnetbase.com
Reymond JL (2015) The chemical space project. Acc Chem Res 48(3):722–730
Kawai K, Nagata N, Takahashi Y (2014) De novo design of drug-like molecules by a fragment-based molecular evolutionary approach. J Chem Inf Model 54(1):49–56
Durrant JD, McCammon JA (2012) AutoClickChem: click chemistry in silico. PLoS Comput Biol 8(3):e1002397
Kutchukian PS, Lou D, Shakhnovich EI (2009) FOG: fragment optimized growth algorithm for the de novo generation of molecules occupying druglike chemical space. J Chem Inf Model 49(7):1630–1642
Bohacek R, McMartin C, Glunz P, Rich D (1999) Growmol, a de novo computer program, and its application to thermolysin and pepsin: results of the design and synthesis of a novel inhibitor. In: Truhlar D, Howe WJ, Hopfinger A, Blaney J, Dammkoehler R (eds) Rational drug design, vol 108. Springer, New York, pp 103–114
Bohm HJ (1992) The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 6(1):61–78
Miranker A, Karplus M (1991) Functionality maps of binding sites: a multiple copy simultaneous search method. Proteins 11(1):29–34
Gillet V, Johnson AP, Mata P, Sike S, Williams P (1993) SPROUT: a program for structure generation. J Comput Aided Mol Des 7(2):127–153
Ishchenko AV, Shakhnovich EI (2002) SMall Molecule Growth 2001 (SMoG2001): an improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J Med Chem 45(13):2770–2780
Huang Q, Li LL, Yang SY (2010) PhDD: a new pharmacophore-based de novo design method of drug-like molecules combined with assessment of synthetic accessibility. J Mol Graph Model 28(8):775–787
Virshup AM, Contreras-Garcia J, Wipf P, Yang W, Beratan DN (2013) Stochastic voyages into uncharted chemical space produce a representative library of all possible drug-like compounds. J Am Chem Soc 135(19):7296–7303