| Literature DB >> 33431020 |
Pranav Shah1, Vishal B Siramshetty1, Alexey V Zakharov1, Noel T Southall1, Xin Xu1, Dac-Trung Nguyen2.
Abstract
Over the last few decades, chemists have become skilled at designing compounds that avoid cytochrome P (CYP) 450 mediated metabolism. Typical screening assays are performed in liver microsomal fractions and it is possible to overlook the contribution of cytosolic enzymes until much later in the drug discovery process. Few data exist on cytosolic enzyme-mediated metabolism and no reliable tools are available to chemists to help design away from such liabilities. In this study, we screened 1450 compounds for liver cytosol-mediated metabolic stability and extracted transformation rules that might help medicinal chemists in optimizing compounds with these liabilities. In vitro half-life data were collected by performing in-house experiments in mouse (CD-1 male) and human (mixed gender) cytosol fractions. Matched molecular pairs analysis was performed in conjunction with qualitative-structure activity relationship modeling to identify chemical structure transformations affecting cytosolic stability. The transformation rules were prospectively validated on the test set. In addition, selected rules were validated on a diverse chemical library and the resulting pairs were experimentally tested to confirm whether the identified transformations could be generalized. The validation results, comprising nearly 250 library compounds and corresponding half-life data, are made publicly available. The datasets were also used to generate in silico classification models, based on different molecular descriptors and machine learning methods, to predict cytosol-mediated liabilities. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic in silico effort to address cytosolic enzyme-mediated liabilities.Entities:
Keywords: Cytosol stability; Machine learning; Matched molecular pairs; Qualitative-structure activity relationship; Xenobiotic metabolism
Year: 2020 PMID: 33431020 PMCID: PMC7140498 DOI: 10.1186/s13321-020-00426-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cheminform ISSN: 1758-2946 Impact factor: 5.514
Reproducibility across different experiments
| Compound | # Repeatsa | t1/2 (mean ± SD)/category | t1/2 (mean ± SD)/category |
|---|---|---|---|
| Buspirone | 17 | >120 min/High | >120 min/High |
| Antipyrine | 17 | >120 min/High | >120 min/High |
| Famciclovir | 17 | 9.5 ± 3.2 min/Low | 10.0 ± 3.1 min/Low |
| Carbazeran | 17 | >120 min/High | 3.5 ± 1.8 min/Low |
at1/2 values of the control compounds across 17 plates were measured by UHPLC/HRMS. t1/2 categories: < 10 min: low; > 30 min: high
bNo SD values provided if all replicate t1/2 values exceeded 120 min
Fig. 1A schematic representation of the study methodology
Fig. 2a Distribution of training set compounds from human and mouse datasets. b Overlap of substrates across datasets
Fig. 3Distribution of training set compounds on the basis of molecular properties
Fig. 4Statistics on the MMPs obtained using the prospective training sets
Fig. 5Distribution of transforms from human and mouse datasets based on frequency
MMP transforms that demonstrated opposite behavior in human and mouse cytosol fractions
Cross-validation results
| Descriptor | Methoda | AUC-ROC | BACC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOE | BayesNet—DU | 0.81 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.79 |
| RF—MU | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.79 | 0.76 | |
| SVM—DU | 0.85 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.76 | |
| RDKit | BayesNet | 0.79 | 0.73 | 0.61 | 0.85 |
| RF—MU | 0.86 | 0.78 | 0.78 | 0.78 | |
| SVM—DU | 0.83 | 0.77 | 0.83 | 0.72 | |
| QNA | BayesNet—MU | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.75 |
| RF—MU | 0.83 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.78 | |
| SVM—DU | 0.85 | 0.80 | 0.80 | 0.80 |
aDU and MU stand for diversity under-sampling and multiple under-sampling, respectively
External validation results
| Descriptor | Method | AUC-ROC | BACC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOE | BayesNet | 0.62 | 0.60 | 0.75 | 0.45 |
| RF | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.63 | 0.66 | |
| SVM—MU | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.35 | 0.86 | |
| RDKit | BayesNet | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.50 | 0.64 |
| RF—MU | 0.68 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.52 | |
| SVM—MU | 0.62 | 0.54 | 0.15 | 0.94 | |
| QNA | BayesNet | 0.63 | 0.62 | 0.63 | 0.60 |
| RF—DU | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.25 | 0.89 | |
| SVM—MU | 0.60 | 0.57 | 0.63 | 0.52 | |
| Graphs | GCNN | 0.48 | 0.53 | 0.38 | 0.68 |
A summary of the effects of the MMPs selected for external validationa
aT—transforms are based on human data; t—transforms are based on mouse data
Compound pairs from the in-house library that exemplify the effects of experimentally validated MMP transforms
Esters and amides among the substrates ( t1/2< 60 min) in the training set
| Dataset | # Substrates | Amide matches (% substrates) | Ester matches (% substrates) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human | 505 | 14 (2.8%) | 11 (2.2%) |
| Mouse | 235 | 8 (3.4%) | 4 (1.7%) |
Stability data for the training set compounds involved in ‘positive’ and ‘no shift’ transformations
| Transform ID | # Training examples | Avg. t1/2 [min] (left) | Avg. t1/2 [min] (right) | Avg. of Δ t1/2 [min] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2 | 53 | 20.7 ± 33.4 | 83.0 ± 47.0 | 32.0 |
| T4 | 3 | 20.8 ± 9.8 | 116.2 ± 6.6 | 94.9 |
| T5 | 1 | 19.2 ± 0.0 | > 120.0 | N/A |
| T6 | 3 | 24.4 ± 5.1 | > 120.0 | 95.5 |
| T7 | 2 | 4.0 ± 0.0 | 96.7 ± 33.0 | 89.7 |
The geometric mean of Δ t1/2 is provided in addition to the average of t1/2 of compounds on left and right