Literature DB >> 27571164

Understanding Cytotoxicity and Cytostaticity in a High-Throughput Screening Collection.

Lewis H Mervin1, Qing Cao2, Ian P Barrett3, Mike A Firth3, David Murray4, Lisa McWilliams4, Malcolm Haddrick4, Mark Wigglesworth4, Ola Engkvist5, Andreas Bender1.   

Abstract

While mechanisms of cytotoxicity and cytostaticity have been studied extensively from the biological side, relatively little is currently understood regarding areas of chemical space leading to cytotoxicity and cytostasis in large compound collections. Predicting and rationalizing potential adverse mechanism-of-actions (MoAs) of small molecules is however crucial for screening library design, given the link of even low level cytotoxicity and adverse events observed in man. In this study, we analyzed results from a cell-based cytotoxicity screening cascade, comprising 296 970 nontoxic, 5784 cytotoxic and cytostatic, and 2327 cytostatic-only compounds evaluated on the THP-1 cell-line. We employed an in silico MoA analysis protocol, utilizing 9.5 million active and 602 million inactive bioactivity points to generate target predictions, annotate predicted targets with pathways, and calculate enrichment metrics to highlight targets and pathways. Predictions identify known mechanisms for the top ranking targets and pathways for both phenotypes after review and indicate that while processes involved in cytotoxicity versus cytostaticity seem to overlap, differences between both phenotypes seem to exist to some extent. Cytotoxic predictions highlight many kinases, including the potentially novel cytotoxicity-related target STK32C, while cytostatic predictions outline targets linked with response to DNA damage, metabolism, and cytoskeletal machinery. Fragment analysis was also employed to generate a library of toxicophores to improve general understanding of the chemical features driving toxicity. We highlight substructures with potential kinase-dependent and kinase-independent mechanisms of toxicity. We also trained a cytotoxic classification model on proprietary and public compound readouts, and prospectively validated these on 988 novel compounds comprising difficult and trivial testing instances, to establish the applicability domain of models. The proprietary model performed with precision and recall scores of 77.9% and 83.8%, respectively. The MoA results and top ranking substructures with accompanying MoA predictions are available as a platform to assess screening collections.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27571164     DOI: 10.1021/acschembio.6b00538

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ACS Chem Biol        ISSN: 1554-8929            Impact factor:   5.100


  6 in total

1.  Naïve Bayesian Models for Vero Cell Cytotoxicity.

Authors:  Alexander L Perryman; Jimmy S Patel; Riccardo Russo; Eric Singleton; Nancy Connell; Sean Ekins; Joel S Freundlich
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Modelling compound cytotoxicity using conformal prediction and PubChem HTS data.

Authors:  Fredrik Svensson; Ulf Norinder; Andreas Bender
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 3.524

3.  Extending in Silico Protein Target Prediction Models to Include Functional Effects.

Authors:  Lewis H Mervin; Avid M Afzal; Lars Brive; Ola Engkvist; Andreas Bender
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-06-11       Impact factor: 5.810

4.  Contrasting the impact of cytotoxic and cytostatic drug therapies on tumour progression.

Authors:  Jani V Anttila; Mikhail Shubin; Johannes Cairns; Florian Borse; Qingli Guo; Tommi Mononen; Ignacio Vázquez-García; Otto Pulkkinen; Ville Mustonen
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-11-18       Impact factor: 4.475

5.  Orthologue chemical space and its influence on target prediction.

Authors:  Lewis H Mervin; Krishna C Bulusu; Leen Kalash; Avid M Afzal; Fredrik Svensson; Mike A Firth; Ian Barrett; Ola Engkvist; Andreas Bender
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 6.937

6.  Revealing cytotoxic substructures in molecules using deep learning.

Authors:  Henry E Webel; Talia B Kimber; Silke Radetzki; Martin Neuenschwander; Marc Nazaré; Andrea Volkamer
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-04-16       Impact factor: 3.686

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.