Abstract
Compound promiscuity refers to the ability of small molecules to specifically interact with multiple targets, which represents the origin of polypharmacology. Promiscuity is thought to be a widespread characteristic of pharmaceutically relevant compounds. Yet, the degree of promiscuity among active compounds from different sources remains uncertain. Here, we report a thorough analysis of compound promiscuity on the basis of more than 1,000 PubChem confirmatory bioassays, which yields an upper-limit assessment of promiscuity among active compounds. Because most PubChem compounds have been tested in large numbers of assays, data sparseness has not been a limiting factor for the current analysis. We have determined that there is an overall likelihood of ∼50% of an active PubChem compound to interact with two or more targets. The probability to interact with more than five targets is reduced to 7.6%. On average, an active PubChem compound was found to interact with ∼2.5 targets. Moreover, if only activities consistently detected in all assays available for a given target were considered, this ratio was further reduced to ∼2.3 targets per compound. For comparison, we have also analyzed high-confidence activity data from ChEMBL, the major public repository of compounds from medicinal chemistry, and determined that an active ChEMBL compound interacted on average with only ∼1.5 targets. Taken together, our results indicate that the degree of compound promiscuity is lower than often assumed.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS, Hopkins AL. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(7):805–15. doi:10.1038/nbt1228.
Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN, Ernsberger P, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(2):197–206. doi:10.1038/nbt1284.
Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4(11):682–90. doi:10.1038/nchembio.118.
Mestres J, Gregori-Puigjane E, Valverde S, Sole RV. Data completeness—the achilles heel of drug–target networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(9):983–4. doi:10.1038/nbt0908-983.
Knight ZA, Lin H, Shokat KM. Targeting the cancer kinome through polypharmacology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(2):130–7. doi:10.1038/nrc2787.
Merino A, Bronowska AK, Jackson DB, Cahill DJ. Drug profiling: knowing where it hits. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15(17–18):749–56. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2010.06.006.
Xie L, Xie L, Kinnings SL, Bourne PE. Novel computational approaches to polypharmacology as a means to define responses to individual drugs. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012;52:361–79. doi:10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010611-134630.
Jalencas X, Mestres J. On the origins of drug polypharmacology. Med Chem Commun. 2013;4(1):80–7. doi:10.1039/C2MD20242E.
Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin AC, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008;321(5886):263–6. doi:10.1126/science.1158140.
Lounkine E, Keiser MJ, Whitebread S, Mikhailov D, Hamon J, Jenkins JL, et al. Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature. 2012;486(7403):361–7. doi:10.1038/nature11159.
Wang Y, Xiao J, Suzek TO, Zhang J, Wang J, Zhou Z, et al. PubChem’s BioAssay database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D400–12. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr1132.
Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(D1):D1100–7. doi:10.1093/nar/gkr777.
Knox C, Law V, Jewison T, Liu P, Ly S, Frolkis A, et al. DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for ‘omics’ research on drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D1035–41. doi:10.1093/nar/gkq1126.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. Many structurally related drugs bind different targets whereas distinct drugs display significant target overlap. RSC Adv. 2012;2(8):3481–9. doi:10.1039/C2RA01345B.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. Growth of ligand-target interaction data in ChEMBL is associated with increasing and activity measurement-dependent compound promiscuity. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52(10):2550–8. doi:10.1021/ci3003304.
Hu Y, Bajorath J. How promiscuous are pharmaceutically relevant compounds? a data-driven assessment. AAPS J. 2013;15(1):104–11. doi:10.1208/s12248-012-9421-y.
Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem. 1996;39(15):2887–93. doi:10.1021/jm9602928.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
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 15, 808–815 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-013-9488-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-013-9488-0