Interaction Fingerprints and Their Applications to Identify Hot Spots

  • Andrés F. Marmolejo
  • José L. Medina-Franco
  • Marc Giulianotti
  • Karina Martinez-MayorgaEmail author
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1335)


Binding recognition is in the core of how nature controls processes in living cells, how enzyme–substrate binding leads to catalysis and how drugs modulate enzymes and receptors to convey a desirable physiological response. Thus, understanding binding recognition in a systematic manner is paramount, not only to understand biological processes but also to be able to design and discover new bioactive compounds. One such way to analyze binding interactions is through the development of binding interaction fingerprints. Here, we present the methodology to develop interaction fingerprints with three different software platforms along with two representative examples.

Key words

Protein–ligand interactions Interaction fingerprints Kinases Opioid receptors 



KMM acknowledge Institute of Chemistry and PAPIIT IA200513-2 for financial support. JLMF thanks the Department of Pharmacy, School of Chemistry at UNAM for support. This work was partially supported by the State of Florida, Executive Officer of the Governor’s Department of Economic Development.


  1. 1.
    Medina-Franco JL, Méndez-Lucio O, Martinez-Mayorga K (2014) Chapter one: the interplay between molecular modeling and chemoinformatics to characterize protein–ligand and protein–protein interactions landscapes for drug discovery. In: Tatyana K-C (ed) Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology, vol. 96. pp. 1–37. Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deng Z, Chuaqui C, Singh J (2003) Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein–ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem 47:337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewerton SC (2008) The use of protein–ligand interaction fingerprints in docking. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev 11(3):356–364Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Desaphy J, Raimbaud E, Ducrot P, Rognan D (2013) Encoding protein–ligand interaction patterns in fingerprints and graphs. J Chem Inf Model 53(3):623–637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seebeck B, Wagener M, Rarey M (2011) From activity cliffs to target-specific scoring models and pharmacophore hypotheses. ChemMedChem 6(9):1630–1639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Méndez-Lucio O, Kooistra AJ, Graaf CD, Bender A, Medina-Franco JL (2015) Analysing multitarget activity landscapes using protein–ligand interaction fingerprints: interaction cliffs. J Chem Inf Mod 55:251–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28(1):235–242PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    MOE: Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), version 2013.08, Chemical Computing Group Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada. In: Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), version 2013.2008, Chemical Computing Group Inc., Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
  9. 9.
    Maestro, version 9.3 (2012) Schrödinger, LLC: New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martinez-Mayorga K, Byler KG, Ramirez-Hernandez AI, Terrazas-Alvares DE (2015) Cruzain inhibitors: efforts made, current leads and a structural outlook of new hits. Drug Discov Today. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2015.02.004 (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrés F. Marmolejo
    • 1
  • José L. Medina-Franco
    • 2
  • Marc Giulianotti
    • 3
  • Karina Martinez-Mayorga
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Instituto de QuímicaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMexico CityMexico
  2. 2.Facultad de Química, Departamento de FarmaciaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoMéxico D. F.Mexico
  3. 3.Torrey Pines Institute for Molecular StudiesPort St. LucieUSA

Personalised recommendations