Abstract
Purpose
The growing amount of heterogeneous bioactivity data requires effective strategies to assess the promiscuity/selectivity of small-molecules and aid drug discovery. In the current study, we aim to evaluate the potential of assay profiles (APs, i.e., unique combinations of assay-related features describing how activity determinations were performed and reported) in molecular promiscuity analysis.
Methods
Using PubChem bioactivity data, we computed for all Molecular Libraries Small Molecule Repository (MLSMR library) compounds the frequency of hits score (FoH, i.e., the ratio between the number of times the compound was found active and the number of times it was tested), which were subsequently fit into 32 theoretical APs. The promiscuity of drugs and non-drugs was compared at different levels of test results.
Results
We found 8 dominant APs, indicating that compounds tested in more than ten assays (or against ten targets) and found active at least once tend to reach near to maximum hit rates in scientific literature and confirmatory assays (e.g., 95% of the drugs show FoH scores >0.93). Primary and high-throughput screening testing results in very low hit rates (e.g., 95% of the compounds show FoH scores <0.11), promoting a different perspective of promiscuity. In general, drugs exert higher promiscuity compared to non-drugs. Targets and classes of drugs are also discussed within the main APs.
Conclusion
APs contain relevant features and are suited for big data promiscuity analysis. The activity data of the main APs are freely available on www.chembioinf.ro.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- AID:
-
PubChem bioassay identification
- APs:
-
Assay profiles
- CID:
-
PubChem compound identification
- FoH:
-
Frequency of hits score
- GI:
-
Frequency of hits score
- HTS:
-
High-throughput screening
- PD:
-
Promiscuity degree
- SL:
-
Scientific literature
- T:
-
Number of test results
References
Simeonov A, Jadhav A, Thomas CJ, Wang Y, Huang R, Southall NT, et al. Fluorescence spectroscopic profiling of compound libraries. J Med Chem. 2008;51(8):2363–71.
Hopkins AL, Mason JS, Overington JP. Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2006;16(1):127–36.
Baell JB, Holloway GA. New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J Med Chem. 2010;53(7):2719–40.
Jadhav A, Ferreira RS, Klumpp C, Mott BT, Austin CP, Inglese J, et al. Quantitative analyses of aggregation, autofluorescence, and reactivity artifacts in a screen for inhibitors of a thiol protease. J Med Chem. 2010;53(1):37–51.
Seidler J, McGovern SL, Doman TN, Shoichet BK. Identification and prediction of promiscuous aggregating inhibitors among known drugs. J Med Chem. 2003;46(21):4477–86.
McGovern SL, Helfand BT, Feng B, Shoichet BK. A specific mechanism of nonspecific inhibition. J Med Chem. 2003;46(20):4265–72.
McGovern SL, Caselli E, Grigorieff N, Shoichet BK. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J Med Chem. 2002;45(8):1712–22.
Austin CP, Brady LS, Insel TR, Collins FS. NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative. Science. 2004;306(5699):1138–9.
Auld DS, Southall NT, Jadhav A, Johnson RL, Diller DJ, Simeonov A, et al. Characterization of chemical libraries for luciferase inhibitory activity. J Med Chem. 2008;51(8):2372–86.
Jasial S, Hu Y, Bajorath J. Determining the degree of promiscuity of extensively assayed compounds. PLoS One. 2016;11(4):e0153873.
Gilberg E, Jasial S, Stumpfe D, Dimova D, Bajorath J. Highly promiscuous small molecules from biological screening assays include many pan-assay interference compounds but also candidates for polypharmacology. J Med Chem. 2016;59(22):10285–90.
Hu Y, Gupta-Ostermann D, Bajorath J. Exploring compound promiscuity patterns and multi-target activity spaces. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2014;9:e201401003.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. High-resolution view of compound promiscuity. F1000Res. 2013;2:144.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. Compound promiscuity: what can we learn from current data? Drug Discov Today. 2013;18(13–14):644–50.
Gaulton A, Hersey A, Nowotka M, Bento AP, Chambers J, Mendez D, et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(D1):D945–D54.
Wang Y, Bryant SH, Cheng T, Wang J, Gindulyte A, Shoemaker BA, et al. PubChem BioAssay: 2017 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45(D1):D955–D63.
Dahlin JL, Nissink JW, Strasser JM, Francis S, Higgins L, Zhou H, et al. PAINS in the assay: chemical mechanisms of assay interference and promiscuous enzymatic inhibition observed during a sulfhydryl-scavenging HTS. J Med Chem. 2015;58(5):2091–113.
Whitty A. Growing PAINS in academic drug discovery. Future Med Chem. 2011;3(7):797–801.
Azzaoui K, Hamon J, Faller B, Whitebread S, Jacoby E, Bender A, et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem. 2007;2(6):874–80.
Yang JJ, Ursu O, Lipinski CA, Sklar LA, Oprea TI, Bologa CG. Badapple: promiscuity patterns from noisy evidence. J Cheminform. 2016;8:29.
Avram SI, Pacureanu LM, Bora A, Crisan L, Avram S, Kurunczi L. ColBioS-FlavRC: a collection of bioselective flavonoids and related compounds filtered from high-throughput screening outcomes. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54(8):2360–70.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. Entering the ‘big data’ era in medicinal chemistry: molecular promiscuity analysis revisited. Future Sci OA 2017;3(2):FSO179.
Hu Y, Jasial S, Gilberg E, Bajorath J. Structure-promiscuity relationship puzzles-extensively assayed analogs with large differences in target annotations. AAPS J. 2017;19(3):856–64.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. What is the likelihood of an active compound to be promiscuous? Systematic assessment of compound promiscuity on the basis of PubChem confirmatory bioassay data. AAPS J. 2013;15(3):808–15.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. How promiscuous are pharmaceutically relevant compounds? A data-driven assessment. AAPS J. 2013;15(1):104–11.
Kim S, Thiessen PA, Bolton EE, Chen J, Fu G, Gindulyte A, et al. PubChem substance and compound databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(D1):D1202–13.
PubChem database. 2016. Available from: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Schreiber SL, Kotz JD, Li M, Aube J, Austin CP, Reed JC, et al. Advancing biological understanding and therapeutics discovery with small-molecule probes. Cell. 2015;161(6):1252–65.
ChEMBL version 22_1 (https://doi.org/10.6019/CHEMBL.database.22.1). 2017. Available from: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/.
ChemAxon JChem API package, version 16.9.12.0, ChemAxon Ltd. 2016. Available from: http://www.chemaxon.com
National Center for Biotechnology Information. 2016. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
Sievers F, Wilm A, Dineen D, Gibson TJ, Karplus K, Li W, et al. Fast, scalable generation of high-quality protein multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega. Mol Syst Biol. 2011;7:539.
Murtagh F, Legendre P. Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: which algorithms implement Ward’s criterion? J Classif. 2014;31(3):274–95.
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, version 3.2.3. 2015. Available from: http://www.R-projectorg/
UniProt Consortium. Reorganizing the protein space at the Universal Protein Resource (UniProt). Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:D71–5.
Avram S, Bora A, Halip L, Curpan R. Modeling Kinase Inhibition Using Highly Confident Data Sets. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58(5):957–67.
Zhang X, Crespo A, Fernandez A. Turning promiscuous kinase inhibitors into safer drugs. Trends Biotechnol. 2008;26(6):295–301.
Davis MI, Hunt JP, Herrgard S, Ciceri P, Wodicka LM, Pallares G, et al. Comprehensive analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(11):1046–51.
Metz JT, Johnson EF, Soni NB, Merta PJ, Kifle L, Hajduk PJ. Navigating the kinome. Nat Chem Biol. 2011;7(4):200–2.
Anastassiadis T, Deacon SW, Devarajan K, Ma H, Peterson JR. Comprehensive assay of kinase catalytic activity reveals features of kinase inhibitor selectivity. Nat Biotechnol. 2011;29(11):1039–45.
Venny, OJ. An interactive tool for comparing lists with Venn’s diagrams. 2007–2015. Available from: http://bioinfogp.cnb.csic.es/tools/venny/index.html
Senger MR, Fraga CA, Dantas RF, Silva FP Jr. Filtering promiscuous compounds in early drug discovery: is it a good idea? Drug Discov Today. 2016;21(6):868–72.
Acknowledgments and Disclosures
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNCS−UEFISCDI, project number PN-II-RU-TE-2014-4-0422 and Romanian Academy, Institute of Chemistry Timişoara, project number 1.2.4/2018. All of the authors are indebted to ChemAxon Ltd. for providing access to their software.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Avram, S., Curpan, R., Bora, A. et al. Enhancing Molecular Promiscuity Evaluation Through Assay Profiles. Pharm Res 35, 240 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-018-2523-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-018-2523-1