Structural and Activity Profile Relationships Between Drug Scaffolds

Overview

Journal AAPS J

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2015 Feb 21

PMID 25697829

Citations 3

Authors

Ye Hu

Jurgen Bajorath

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Core structures of current drugs have been assembled and their structural relationships and activity profiles have been explored. Drug scaffolds were frequently involved in different types of structural relationships. In addition, a variety of activity profile relationships between structurally related drug scaffolds were detected, ranging from closely overlapping to distinct profiles. Furthermore, when structural and activity profile relationships of scaffolds from drugs and bioactive compounds were compared, systematic differences were detected. Consensus activity profiles were introduced as a new approach for the qualitative and quantitative assessment of activity similarity of structurally related drugs represented by the same scaffold. On the basis of consensus activity profiles, scaffolds representing drugs active against distinct targets can be distinguished from drugs having similar target profiles and target hypotheses can be derived for individual drugs. Given the results of our analysis, drug scaffolds have been systematically organized according to structural and activity profile criteria. Our scaffold sets and the associated information are made freely available.

Citing Articles

Diversity and Chemical Space Characterization of Inhibitors of the Epigenetic Target G9a: A Chemoinformatics Approach.

Cedillo-Gonzalez R, Medina-Franco J ACS Omega. 2023; 8(33):30694-30704.

PMID: 37636945 PMC: 10448660. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.3c04566.

Automatic Identification of Analogue Series from Large Compound Data Sets: Methods and Applications.

Naveja J, Vogt M Molecules. 2021; 26(17).

PMID: 34500724 PMC: 8433811. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26175291.

Cheminformatics analysis of the AR agonist and antagonist datasets in PubChem.

Hao M, Bryant S, Wang Y J Cheminform. 2016; 8:37.

PMID: 27398098 PMC: 4938998. DOI: 10.1186/s13321-016-0150-6.

References

Hu Y, Lounkine E, Bajorath J . Many approved drugs have bioactive analogs with different target annotations. AAPS J. 2014; 16(4):847-59. PMC: 4070249. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-014-9621-8. View

Hu Y, Bajorath J . High-resolution view of compound promiscuity. F1000Res. 2014; 2:144. PMC: 3799544. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.2-144.v2. View

Hu Y, Bajorath J . Many drugs contain unique scaffolds with varying structural relationships to scaffolds of currently available bioactive compounds. Eur J Med Chem. 2014; 76:427-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2014.02.040. View

Brown N, Jacoby E . On scaffolds and hopping in medicinal chemistry. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2006; 6(11):1217-29. DOI: 10.2174/138955706778742768. View

Hu Y, Bajorath J . Scaffold distributions in bioactive molecules, clinical trials compounds, and drugs. ChemMedChem. 2009; 5(2):187-90. DOI: 10.1002/cmdc.200900419. View

Hu Y, Bajorath J . How promiscuous are pharmaceutically relevant compounds? A data-driven assessment. AAPS J. 2012; 15(1):104-11. PMC: 3535109. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-012-9421-y. View

Hussain J, Rea C . Computationally efficient algorithm to identify matched molecular pairs (MMPs) in large data sets. J Chem Inf Model. 2010; 50(3):339-48. DOI: 10.1021/ci900450m. View

Hu Y, Stumpfe D, Bajorath J . Lessons learned from molecular scaffold analysis. J Chem Inf Model. 2011; 51(8):1742-53. DOI: 10.1021/ci200179y. View

Taylor R, MacCoss M, Lawson A . Rings in drugs. J Med Chem. 2014; 57(14):5845-59. DOI: 10.1021/jm4017625. View

10.

Lewell X, JUDD D, Watson S, Hann M . RECAP--retrosynthetic combinatorial analysis procedure: a powerful new technique for identifying privileged molecular fragments with useful applications in combinatorial chemistry. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1998; 38(3):511-22. DOI: 10.1021/ci970429i. View

11.

Wang J, Hou T . Drug and drug candidate building block analysis. J Chem Inf Model. 2009; 50(1):55-67. DOI: 10.1021/ci900398f. View

12.

Law V, Knox C, Djoumbou Y, Jewison T, Guo A, Liu Y . DrugBank 4.0: shedding new light on drug metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 42(Database issue):D1091-7. PMC: 3965102. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1068. View

13.

Muller G . Medicinal chemistry of target family-directed masterkeys. Drug Discov Today. 2003; 8(15):681-91. DOI: 10.1016/s1359-6446(03)02781-8. View

14.

Hu X, Hu Y, Vogt M, Stumpfe D, Bajorath J . MMP-Cliffs: systematic identification of activity cliffs on the basis of matched molecular pairs. J Chem Inf Model. 2012; 52(5):1138-45. DOI: 10.1021/ci3001138. View

15.

Ertl P . Intuitive ordering of scaffolds and scaffold similarity searching using scaffold keys. J Chem Inf Model. 2014; 54(6):1617-22. DOI: 10.1021/ci5001983. View

16.

Hu Y, Bajorath J . Rationalizing structure and target relationships between current drugs. AAPS J. 2012; 14(4):764-71. PMC: 3475854. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-012-9392-z. View

17.

Bento A, Gaulton A, Hersey A, Bellis L, Chambers J, Davies M . The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 42(Database issue):D1083-90. PMC: 3965067. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkt1031. View

18.

. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt) in 2010. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009; 38(Database issue):D142-8. PMC: 2808944. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkp846. View

19.

Xu Y, Johnson M . Using molecular equivalence numbers to visually explore structural features that distinguish chemical libraries. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2002; 42(4):912-26. DOI: 10.1021/ci025535l. View

20.

Cases M, Mestres J . A chemogenomic approach to drug discovery: focus on cardiovascular diseases. Drug Discov Today. 2009; 14(9-10):479-85. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2009.02.010. View