Chemogenomics pp 225-247 | Cite as

Network and Pathway Analysis of Compound–Protein Interactions

  • Richard J. Brennan
  • Tatiana Nikolskya
  • Svetlana Bureeva
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 575)

Summary

We describe an integrated system that brings together predictive chemical analyses based on compound structure, knowledge bases of chemogenomics data associating compounds to biological, pharmacological and toxicological properties, and a systems biology functional data analysis and network reconstruction approach, to provide an in silico evaluation of the possible effects of xenobiotics on biological systems. We demonstrate the combination of drug and xenobiotic metabolism prediction, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models and structural similarity searching to generate a list of similar compounds to, and possible targets for novel compounds. These lists of compounds and proteins are mapped to functional ontologies such as gene-disease associations, biological processes, and mechanisms of toxicity, and can be used to reconstruct biological networks linking together the component nodes into biologically-meaningful clusters. Thus, an assessment of biological effects can be made early in the discovery and development process that can be used to prioritize the best compounds for additional testing or development, or to direct efforts in medicinal chemistry to improve compound activity profiles.

Key words

Structural similarity search Target prediction Functional analysis Pathway analysis Network reconstruction 

References

  1. 1.
    Ekins, S., Bugrim, A., Nikolsky, Y., and Nikolskya, T. (2005) Systems biology: applications in drug discovery. In: Gad, S. C. (ed.) Drug Discovery Handbook. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, pp. 123–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nikolsky, Y., Nikolskaya, T., and Bugrim, A. (2005) Biological networks and analysis of experimental data in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10, 653–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richard, A. M., Yang, C., and Judson, R. S. (2008) Toxicity data informatics: supporting a new paradigm for toxicity prediction. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 18, 103–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bender, A., Young, D. W., Jenkins, J. L., et al. (2007) Chemogenomic data analysis: prediction of small-molecule targets and the advent of biological fingerprint. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 10, 719–731.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Young, D. W., Bender, A., Hoyt, J., et al. (2008) Integrating high-content screening and ligand-target prediction to identify mechanism of action. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 59–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ekins, S., Andreyev, S., Ryabov, A., et al. (2006) A combined approach to drug metabolism and toxicity assessment. Drug Metab. Dispos. 34, 495–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ekins, S., Bugrim, A., Brovold, L., et al. (2006) Algorithms for network analysis in systems-ADME/Tox using the MetaCore and MetaDrug platforms. Xenobiotica 36, 877–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrmann, M. L., Schleyerbach, R., and Kirschbaum, B. J. (2000) Leflunomide: an immunomodulatory drug for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. Immunopharmacology 47, 273–289.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Etienne, F., Resnick, L., Sagher, D., Brot, N., and Weissbach, H. (2003) Reduction of sulindac to its active metabolite, sulindac sulfide: assay and role of the methionine sulfoxide reductase system. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 312, 1005–1010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Murrell, G. A. and Rapeport, W. G. (1986) Clinical pharmacokinetics of allopurinol. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 11, 343–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith, S. J. (1994) Cardiovascular toxicity of antihistamines. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 111, 348–354.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Humphreys, W. G. (2007) Drug metabolism research as an integral part of the drug discovery process. In: Zhang, D., Zhu, M., and Humphreys, W. G. (eds.) Drug Metabolism in Drug Design and Development. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, pp. 239–260.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rusinko, A. III, Farmen, M. W., Lambert, C. G., Brown, P. L., and Young, S. S. (1999) Analysis of a large structure/biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 1017–1026.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Blower, P. E. and Cross, K. P. (2006) Decision tree methods in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 6, 31–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willett, P., Winterman, V., and Bawden, D. (1986) Implementation of nearest-neighbor searching in an online chemical structure search system. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 26, 36–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matter, H. (1997) Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 40, 1219–1229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khatri, P. and Draghici, S. (2005) Ontological analysis of gene expression data: current tools, limitations, and open problems. Bioinformatics 21, 3587–3595.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ekins, S., Nikolsky, Y., Bugrim, A., Kirillov, E., and Nikolskaya, T. (2007) Pathway mapping tools for analysis of high content data. Methods Mol. Biol. 356, 319–350.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Shipitsin, M., Campbell, L. L., Argani, P., et al. (2007) Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 11, 259–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., and Feeney, P. J. (2001) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46, 3–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard J. Brennan
    • 1
  • Tatiana Nikolskya
    • 1
  • Svetlana Bureeva
    • 1
  1. 1.GeneGo Inc.EncinitasUSA

Personalised recommendations