Literature DB >> 26295373

An Aggregation Advisor for Ligand Discovery.

John J Irwin1, Da Duan1, Hayarpi Torosyan1, Allison K Doak1, Kristin T Ziebart1, Teague Sterling1, Gurgen Tumanian1, Brian K Shoichet1.   

Abstract

Colloidal aggregation of organic molecules is the dominant mechanism for artifactual inhibition of proteins, and controls against it are widely deployed. Notwithstanding an increasingly detailed understanding of this phenomenon, a method to reliably predict aggregation has remained elusive. Correspondingly, active molecules that act via aggregation continue to be found in early discovery campaigns and remain common in the literature. Over the past decade, over 12 thousand aggregating organic molecules have been identified, potentially enabling a precedent-based approach to match known aggregators with new molecules that may be expected to aggregate and lead to artifacts. We investigate an approach that uses lipophilicity, affinity, and similarity to known aggregators to advise on the likelihood that a candidate compound is an aggregator. In prospective experimental testing, five of seven new molecules with Tanimoto coefficients (Tc's) between 0.95 and 0.99 to known aggregators aggregated at relevant concentrations. Ten of 19 with Tc's between 0.94 and 0.90 and three of seven with Tc's between 0.89 and 0.85 also aggregated. Another three of the predicted compounds aggregated at higher concentrations. This method finds that 61 827 or 5.1% of the ligands acting in the 0.1 to 10 μM range in the medicinal chemistry literature are at least 85% similar to a known aggregator with these physical properties and may aggregate at relevant concentrations. Intriguingly, only 0.73% of all drug-like commercially available compounds resemble the known aggregators, suggesting that colloidal aggregators are enriched in the literature. As a percentage of the literature, aggregator-like compounds have increased 9-fold since 1995, partly reflecting the advent of high-throughput and virtual screens against molecular targets. Emerging from this study is an aggregator advisor database and tool ( http://advisor.bkslab.org ), free to the community, that may help distinguish between fruitful and artifactual screening hits acting by this mechanism.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26295373      PMCID: PMC4646424          DOI: 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.5b01105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Chem        ISSN: 0022-2623            Impact factor:   7.446


  47 in total

1.  Development of a virtual screening method for identification of "frequent hitters" in compound libraries.

Authors:  Olivier Roche; Petra Schneider; Jochen Zuegge; Wolfgang Guba; Manfred Kansy; Alexander Alanine; Konrad Bleicher; Franck Danel; Eva-Maria Gutknecht; Mark Rogers-Evans; Werner Neidhart; Henri Stalder; Michael Dillon; Eric Sjögren; Nader Fotouhi; Paul Gillespie; Robert Goodnow; William Harris; Phil Jones; Mikio Taniguchi; Shinji Tsujii; Wolfgang von der Saal; Gerd Zimmermann; Gisbert Schneider
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2002-01-03       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening.

Authors:  Susan L McGovern; Emilia Caselli; Nikolaus Grigorieff; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  A detergent-based assay for the detection of promiscuous inhibitors.

Authors:  Brian Y Feng; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 13.491

Review 4.  How many drug targets are there?

Authors:  John P Overington; Bissan Al-Lazikani; Andrew L Hopkins
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 84.694

5.  A high-throughput screen for aggregation-based inhibition in a large compound library.

Authors:  Brian Y Feng; Anton Simeonov; Ajit Jadhav; Kerim Babaoglu; James Inglese; Brian K Shoichet; Christopher P Austin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-04-21       Impact factor: 7.446

6.  New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays.

Authors:  Jonathan B Baell; Georgina A Holloway
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 7.446

7.  Learning from PAINful lessons.

Authors:  Daniel A Erlanson
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2015-02-24       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Colloidal aggregation and the in vitro activity of traditional Chinese medicines.

Authors:  Da Duan; Allison K Doak; Lyudmila Nedyalkova; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  ACS Chem Biol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 5.100

9.  A pharmacological organization of G protein-coupled receptors.

Authors:  Henry Lin; Maria F Sassano; Bryan L Roth; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2013-01-06       Impact factor: 28.547

10.  Colloidal aggregation affects the efficacy of anticancer drugs in cell culture.

Authors:  Shawn C Owen; Allison K Doak; Pascal Wassam; Molly S Shoichet; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  ACS Chem Biol       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 5.100

View more
  108 in total

1.  Ligand-observed NMR techniques to probe RNA-small molecule interactions.

Authors:  David R Calabrese; Colleen M Connelly; John S Schneekloth
Journal:  Methods Enzymol       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 1.600

2.  The Ecstasy and Agony of Assay Interference Compounds.

Authors:  Courtney Aldrich; Carolyn Bertozzi; Gunda I Georg; Laura Kiessling; Craig Lindsley; Dennis Liotta; Kenneth M Merz; Alanna Schepartz; Shaomeng Wang
Journal:  ACS Med Chem Lett       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 4.345

3.  Structure-Promiscuity Relationship Puzzles-Extensively Assayed Analogs with Large Differences in Target Annotations.

Authors:  Ye Hu; Swarit Jasial; Erik Gilberg; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 4.009

4.  Predicting protein-ligand affinity with a random matrix framework.

Authors:  Alpha A Lee; Michael P Brenner; Lucy J Colwell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-11-16       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Identification of novel Trypanosoma cruzi prolyl oligopeptidase inhibitors by structure-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Hugo de Almeida; Vincent Leroux; Flávia Nader Motta; Philippe Grellier; Bernard Maigret; Jaime M Santana; Izabela Marques Dourado Bastos
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-10-21       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 6.  Inhibitors and chemical probes for molecular chaperone networks.

Authors:  Jason E Gestwicki; Hao Shao
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 5.157

7.  Dark chemical matter in public screening assays and derivation of target hypotheses.

Authors:  Swarit Jasial; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  Medchemcomm       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 3.597

8.  A structure-activity relationship study of ABCC2 inhibitors.

Authors:  Gloria Wissel; Feng Deng; Pavel Kudryavtsev; Leo Ghemtio; Peter Wipf; Henri Xhaard; Heidi Kidron
Journal:  Eur J Pharm Sci       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 4.384

9.  Leveraging Colloidal Aggregation for Drug-Rich Nanoparticle Formulations.

Authors:  Ahil N Ganesh; Jennifer Logie; Christopher K McLaughlin; Benjamin L Barthel; Tad H Koch; Brian K Shoichet; Molly S Shoichet
Journal:  Mol Pharm       Date:  2017-05-19       Impact factor: 4.939

10.  Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of 3-Arylindazoles as Selective MEK4 Inhibitors.

Authors:  Kristine K Deibler; Gary E Schiltz; Matthew R Clutter; Rama K Mishra; Purav P Vagadia; Matthew O'Connor; Mariam Donny George; Ryan Gordon; Graham Fowler; Raymond Bergan; Karl A Scheidt
Journal:  ChemMedChem       Date:  2019-02-19       Impact factor: 3.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.