BACKGROUND: Immunoassays used for routine drug of abuse (DOA) and toxicology screening may be limited by cross-reacting compounds able to bind to the antibodies in a manner similar to the target molecule(s). To date, there has been little systematic investigation using computational tools to predict cross-reactive compounds. METHODS: Commonly used molecular similarity methods enabled calculation of structural similarity for a wide range of compounds (prescription and over-the-counter medications, illicit drugs, and clinically significant metabolites) to the target molecules of DOA/toxicology screening assays. We used various molecular descriptors (MDL public keys, functional class fingerprints, and pharmacophore fingerprints) and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient. These data were then compared with cross-reactivity data in the package inserts of immunoassays marketed for in vitro diagnostic use. Previously untested compounds that were predicted to have a high probability of cross-reactivity were tested. RESULTS: Molecular similarity calculated using MDL public keys and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient showed a strong and statistically significant separation between cross-reactive and non-cross-reactive compounds. This result was validated experimentally by discovery of additional cross-reactive compounds based on computational predictions. CONCLUSIONS: The computational methods employed are amenable toward rapid screening of databases of drugs, metabolites, and endogenous molecules and may be useful for identifying cross-reactive molecules that would be otherwise unsuspected. These methods may also have value in focusing cross-reactivity testing on compounds with high similarity to the target molecule(s) and limiting testing of compounds with low similarity and very low probability of cross-reacting with the assay.
BACKGROUND: Immunoassays used for routine drug of abuse (DOA) and toxicology screening may be limited by cross-reacting compounds able to bind to the antibodies in a manner similar to the target molecule(s). To date, there has been little systematic investigation using computational tools to predict cross-reactive compounds. METHODS: Commonly used molecular similarity methods enabled calculation of structural similarity for a wide range of compounds (prescription and over-the-counter medications, illicit drugs, and clinically significant metabolites) to the target molecules of DOA/toxicology screening assays. We used various molecular descriptors (MDL public keys, functional class fingerprints, and pharmacophore fingerprints) and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient. These data were then compared with cross-reactivity data in the package inserts of immunoassays marketed for in vitro diagnostic use. Previously untested compounds that were predicted to have a high probability of cross-reactivity were tested. RESULTS: Molecular similarity calculated using MDL public keys and the Tanimoto similarity coefficient showed a strong and statistically significant separation between cross-reactive and non-cross-reactive compounds. This result was validated experimentally by discovery of additional cross-reactive compounds based on computational predictions. CONCLUSIONS: The computational methods employed are amenable toward rapid screening of databases of drugs, metabolites, and endogenous molecules and may be useful for identifying cross-reactive molecules that would be otherwise unsuspected. These methods may also have value in focusing cross-reactivity testing on compounds with high similarity to the target molecule(s) and limiting testing of compounds with low similarity and very low probability of cross-reacting with the assay.
Authors: Jérôme Hert; Peter Willett; David J Wilton; Pierre Acklin; Kamal Azzaoui; Edgar Jacoby; Ansgar Schuffenhauer Journal: Org Biomol Chem Date: 2004-09-29 Impact factor: 3.876
Authors: Sean Ekins; Jeffrey S Johnston; Praveen Bahadduri; Vanessa M D'Souza; Abhijit Ray; Cheng Chang; Peter W Swaan Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2005-04-07 Impact factor: 4.200
Authors: Gyanu Lamichhane; Joel S Freundlich; Sean Ekins; Niluka Wickramaratne; Scott T Nolan; William R Bishai Journal: mBio Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 7.867
Authors: Christina D Martinez-Brokaw; Joshua B Radke; Joshua G Pierce; Alexandra Ehlers; Sean Ekins; Kelly E Wood; Jon Maakestad; Jacqueline A Rymer; Kenichi Tamama; Matthew D Krasowski Journal: BMC Clin Pathol Date: 2019-02-18