» Articles » PMID: 39204097

Do Molecular Fingerprints Identify Diverse Active Drugs in Large-Scale Virtual Screening? (No)

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Chemistry
Date 2024 Aug 29
PMID 39204097
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Computational approaches for small-molecule drug discovery now regularly scale to the consideration of libraries containing billions of candidate small molecules. One promising approach to increased the speed of evaluating billion-molecule libraries is to develop succinct representations of each molecule that enable the rapid identification of molecules with similar properties. Molecular fingerprints are thought to provide a mechanism for producing such representations. Here, we explore the utility of commonly used fingerprints in the context of predicting similar molecular activity. We show that fingerprint similarity provides little discriminative power between active and inactive molecules for a target protein based on a known active-while they may sometimes provide some enrichment for active molecules in a drug screen, a screened data set will still be dominated by inactive molecules. We also demonstrate that high-similarity actives appear to share a scaffold with the query active, meaning that they could more easily be identified by structural enumeration. Furthermore, even when limited to only active molecules, fingerprint similarity values do not correlate with compound potency. In sum, these results highlight the need for a new wave of molecular representations that will improve the capacity to detect biologically active molecules based on their similarity to other such molecules.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the Binding Potential and Stability of Drug-like Compounds with the Monkeypox Virus VP39 Protein Using Molecular Dynamics Simulations and Free Energy Analysis.

Hassan A, Gattan H, Faizo A, Alruhaili M, Alharbi A, Bajrai L Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2025; 17(12.

PMID: 39770459 PMC: 11728677. DOI: 10.3390/ph17121617.

References
1.
Barbosa F, Horvath D . Molecular similarity and property similarity. Curr Top Med Chem. 2004; 4(6):589-600. DOI: 10.2174/1568026043451186. View

2.
Maggiora G . On outliers and activity cliffs--why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model. 2006; 46(4):1535. DOI: 10.1021/ci060117s. View

3.
Rohrer S, Baumann K . Maximum unbiased validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on PubChem bioactivity data. J Chem Inf Model. 2009; 49(2):169-84. DOI: 10.1021/ci8002649. View

4.
O Hagan S, Swainston N, Handl J, Kell D . A 'rule of 0.5' for the metabolite-likeness of approved pharmaceutical drugs. Metabolomics. 2015; 11(2):323-339. PMC: 4342520. DOI: 10.1007/s11306-014-0733-z. View

5.
Venkatraman V . FP-ADMET: a compendium of fingerprint-based ADMET prediction models. J Cheminform. 2021; 13(1):75. PMC: 8479898. DOI: 10.1186/s13321-021-00557-5. View