What is the likelihood of an active compound to be promiscuous? Systematic assessment of compound promiscuity on the basis of pubchem confirmatory bioassay data

AAPS Journal

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 808-815

  Hu, Ye ^a   Bajorath, Jürgen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

active compounds; activity measurements; compound promiscuity; confirmatory assays; polypharmacology; screening data; targets

Indexed keywords

ALKALINE PHOSPHATASE; APELIN RECEPTOR; GLUCOSYLCERAMIDASE; OPIATE RECEPTOR; REDUCED NICOTINAMIDE ADENINE DINUCLEOTIDE PHOSPHATE OXIDASE 1;

ARTICLE; BIOASSAY; CHEMICAL INTERACTION; CHEMICAL REACTION; EQUILIBRIUM CONSTANT; IC 50; PROBABILITY;

BIOLOGICAL ASSAY; DATABASES, CHEMICAL; DATABASES, FACTUAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROBABILITY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84879794647     PISSN: 15507416     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-013-9488-0     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Paolini GV, Shapland RHB, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS, Hopkins AL. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24(7):805-15. doi: 10.1038/nbt1228.
2. Keiser MJ, Roth BL, Armbruster BN, Ernsberger P, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(2):197-206. doi: 10.1038/nbt1284.
3. Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nat Chem Biol. 2008;4(11):682-90. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.118.
4. Mestres J, Gregori-Puigjane E, Valverde S, Sole RV. Data completeness - the achilles heel of drug-target networks. Nat Biotechnol. 2008;26(9):983-4. doi: 10.1038/nbt0908-983.
5. Knight ZA, Lin H, Shokat KM. Targeting the cancer kinome through polypharmacology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(2):130-7. doi: 10.1038/nrc2787.
6. Merino A, Bronowska AK, Jackson DB, Cahill DJ. Drug profiling: knowing where it hits. Drug Discov Today. 2010;15(17-18):749-56. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.06.006.
7. Xie L, Xie L, Kinnings SL, Bourne PE. Novel computational approaches to polypharmacology as a means to define responses to individual drugs. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2012;52:361-79. doi: 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010611-134630.
8. Jalencas X, Mestres J. On the origins of drug polypharmacology. Med Chem Commun. 2013;4(1):80-7. doi: 10.1039/C2MD20242E.
9. Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin AC, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008;321(5886):263-6. doi: 10.1126/science.1158140.
10. Lounkine E, Keiser MJ, Whitebread S, Mikhailov D, Hamon J, Jenkins JL, et al. Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature. 2012;486(7403):361-7. doi: 10.1038/nature11159.
11. Wang Y, Xiao J, Suzek TO, Zhang J, Wang J, Zhou Z, et al. PubChem's BioAssay database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D400-12. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr1132.
12. Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(D1):D1100-7. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkr777.
13. Knox C, Law V, Jewison T, Liu P, Ly S, Frolkis A, et al. DrugBank 3.0: a comprehensive resource for 'omics' research on drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(Database issue):D1035-41. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkq1126.
14. Hu Y, Bajorath J. Many structurally related drugs bind different targets whereas distinct drugs display significant target overlap. RSC Adv. 2012;2(8):3481-9. doi: 10.1039/C2RA01345B.
15. Hu Y, Bajorath J. Growth of ligand-target interaction data in ChEMBL is associated with increasing and activity measurement-dependent compound promiscuity. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52(10):2550-8. doi: 10.1021/ci3003304.
16. Hu Y, Bajorath J. How promiscuous are pharmaceutically relevant compounds? a data-driven assessment. AAPS J. 2013;15(1):104-11. doi: 10.1208/s12248-012-9421-y.
17. Bemis GW, Murcko MA. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J Med Chem. 1996;39(15):2887-93. doi: 10.1021/jm9602928.