Comprehensive prediction of drug-protein interactions and side effects for the human proteome

Scientific Reports

Volumn 5, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Zhou, Hongyi ^a   Gao, Mu ^a   Skolnick, Jeffrey ^a  

^a GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG; PROTEIN; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEOME;

ADVERSE DRUG REACTION; HUMAN; METABOLISM;

DRUG-RELATED SIDE EFFECTS AND ADVERSE REACTIONS; HUMANS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; PROTEOME;

EID: 84930959848     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep11090     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Gao, M. & Skolnick, J. A Comprehensive Survey of Small-Molecule Binding Pockets in Proteins. Plos Comput. Biol. 9, e1003302 (2013).
2. Skolnick, J. & Gao, M. Interplay of physics and evolution in the likely origin of protein biochemical function. PNAS 110, 9344-9349 (2013).
3. von Eichborn, J. et al. PROMISCUOUS: a database for network-based drug-repositioning. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, D1060-1066 (2011).
4. Paolini, G., Shapland, R., van Hoorn, W., Mason, J. & Hopkins, A. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol. 24, 805-815 (2006).
5. Li, Y. & Jones, S. Drug repositioning for personalized medicine. Geome Med. 4, 27-50 (2012).
6. Arnott, S. in Oxford Handbook of Nucleic Acid Structure (ed S. Neidle) 1-38 (Oxford University Press, 1999).
7. Durbin, R. M. et al. A map of human genome variation from population scale sequencing. Nature 467, 1061-1073 (2010).
8. Wishart, D. et al. DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. . Nucl. Acid. Res. 34, D668-672 (2006).
9. Reardon, S. Project ranks billions of drug interactions. Nature 503, 449 (2013).
10. Gottlieb, A., Stein, G. Y., Ruppin, E. & Sharana, R. PREDICT: a method for inferring novel drug indications with application to personalized medicine. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 496-414 (2011).
11. Luo, H. et al. DRAR-CPI: a server for identifying drug repositioning potential and adverse drug reactions via the chemical-protein interactome. Nucl. Acid. Res. 39, W492-498 (2011).
12. Cheng, F. et al. Predicting of drug-target interactions and drug repositioning via network-based inference. Plos Comput. Biol. 8, e1002503 (2012).
13. Hurle, M. R. et al. Computational Drug Repositioning: From Data to Therapeutics. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 93, 335-341 (2013).
14. Loging, W., Rodriguez-Esteban, R., Hill, J., Freeman, T. & Miglietta, J. Cheminformatic/bioinformatic analysis of large corporate databases: Application to drug repurposing. Drug Discovery Today: Therapeutic Strategies 8, 109-116 (2011).
15. Sleigh, S. & Barton, C. Repurposing Strategies for Therapeutics. Pharm Med 24, 151-159 (2010).
16. Xu, K. & Cote, T. R. Database identifies FDA-approved drugs with potential to be repurposed for treatment of orphan diseases. Brief Bioinform. 12, 341-345 (2011).
17. Keiser, M. et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462, 175-181 (2009).
18. Kinnings, S. et al. Drug discovery using chemical systems biology: repositioning the safe medicine Comtan to treat multi-drug and extensively drug resistant tuberculosis. Plos Comput. Biol. 5, e1000423 (2009).
19. Campillos, M., Kuhn, M., Gavin, A., Jensen, L. & Bork, P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science 321, 263-266 (2008).
20. Chen, Y. & Zhi, D. Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43, 217-226 (2001).
21. Yamanishi, Y., Araki, M., Gutteridge, A. & Honda, W. Prediction of drug-target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces. Bioinformatics 24, i232-i240 (2008).
22. Blekley, K. & Yamanish, Y. Supervised prediction of drug-target interactions using bipartite local models. Bioinformatics 25, 2397-2403 (2009).
23. Yamanishi, Y., Kotera, M., Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. Drug-target interaction prediction from chemical, genomic and pharmacological data in an integrated framework. Bioinformatics 26, i246-i254 (2010).
24. Laarhoven, T. v., Nabuurs, S. & Marchioro, E. Gaussain interaction profile kernel for predicting drug-target interaction. Bioinformatics 27, 3036-3043 (2011).
25. Lounkine, E. et al. Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature 486, 361-368 (2012).
26. Kuhn, M. et al. STITCH 4: integration of protein-chemical interactions with user data. Nucl. Acid. Res. 42, D401-D407 (2014).
27. Laarhoven, T. v. & Marchioro, E. Predicting drug-target interactions for new drug compounds using a weighted nearest neighbor profile. Plos One 8, e66952 (2013).
28. Mei, J., Kwoh, C., Li, X. & Zheng, J. Drug-target interaction prediction by learning from local information and neighbors. Bioinformatics 29, 238-245 (2013).
29. Kim, R. & Skolnick, J. Assessment of programs for ligand binding affinity prediction. Journal of Computational Chemistry 29, 1316-1331 (2008).
30. Ballester, P. J. & Mitchell, J. B. O. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics 26, 1169-1175 (2010).
31. comb: A Threading/Structure-Based, Proteomic-Scale Virtual Ligand Screening Approach. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling 53, 230-240 (2013).
32. Srinivasan, B., Zhou, H., Kubanek, J. & Skolnick, J. Experimental validation of FINDSITEcomb virtual ligand screening results for eight proteins yields novel nanomolar and picomolar binders. Journal of Cheminformatics 6, 16-29 (2014).
33. Kuhn, M. et al. Systematic identification of proteins that elicit drug side effects. Mol. Syst Biol. 9, 663 (2013).
34. Iwata, H. et al. Inferring protein domains associated with drug side effects based on drug-target interaction network. BMC Systems Biology 7, S18 (2013).
35. Yamanishi, Y., Pauwels, E. & Kotera, M. Drug side-effect prediction based on the integration of chemical and biological spaces. J. Chem Inf. Model 52, 3284-3292 (2012).
36. Rogers, D. J. & Tanimoto, T. T. A Computer Program for Classifying Plants. Science 132, 1115-1118 (1960).
37. Patterson, D. E., Cramer, R. D., Ferguson, A. M., Clark, R. D. & Weinberger, L. E. Neighborhood Behavior: A Useful Concept for Validation of "Molecular Diversity" Descriptors. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 39, 3049-3059 (1996).
38. Maggiora, G., Vogt, M., Stumpfe, D. & Bajorath, J. Molecular Similarity in Medicinal Chemistry. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 57, 3186-3104 (2014).
39. Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J. & Shoichet, B. K. Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking. J. Med. Chem. 55, 6582-6594 (2012).
40. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. A scoring function for the automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 57, 702-710 (2004).
41. X: A Structure-Based, Small Molecule Virtual Screening Approach with Application to All Identified Human GPCRs. Molecular Pharmaceutics 9, 1775-1784 (2012).
42. Xu, J. & Zhang, Y. How significant is a protein structure similarity with TM-score = 0.5? Bioinformatics 26, 889-895 (2010).
43. Kuhn, M., Campillos, M., Letunic, I., Jensen, L. & Bork, P. A side effect resource to capture phenotypic effects of drugs. Mol. Syst Biol. 6, 343 (2010).
44. Cobanoglu, M. C., Liu, C., Hu, F., Oltvai, Z. N. & Bahar, I. Predicting Drug-Target Interactions Using Probabilistic Matrix Factorization. J Chem Inf Model 53, 3393-3409 (2013).
45. Huang, N., Brian, K. S. & Irwin, J. J. Benchmarking Sets for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem. 49, 6789-6801 (2006).
46. Brylinski, M. & Skolnick, J. FINDSITE: A threading-based method for ligand-binding site prediction and functional annotation. Proc Natl Acad Science 105, 129-134 (2008).
47. LHM: a threading-based approach to ligand homology modeling. PLoS computational biology 5, e1000405 (2009).
48. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. SPICKER: A Clustering Approach to Identify Near-Native Protein Folds Journal of Computational Chemistry 25, 865-871 (2004).
49. Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Automated structure prediction of weakly homologous proteins on genomic scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 101, 7594-7599 (2004).
50. Bernstein, F. C. et al. The Protein Data Bank: A Computer-based Archival File for Macromolecular Structures. J. Mol. Biol. 112, 535-542 (1977).
51. Gaulton, A. et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucl. Acid. Res. 40, D1100-1107 (2012).
52. Tanimoto, T. T. An elementary mathematical theory of classification and prediction. IBM Interanl Report (1958).
53. Anonymous. (Daylight Chemical Information Systems,Inc, Aliso Viejo, CA, 2007).
54. Willett, P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discovery Today 11, 1046-1053 (2006).
55. Pandit, S. & Skolnick, J. Fr-TM-align: a new protein structural alignment method based on fragment alignments and the TM-score. BMC Bioinformatics 9, 531-541 (2008).
56. Henikoff, S. & Henikoff, J. G. Amino Acid Substitution Matrices from Protein Blocks. PNAS 89, 10915-10919 (1992).
57. Gao, M. & Skolnick, J. APoc: large-scale identification of similar protein pockets. Bioinformatics 29, 597-604 (2013).
58. Gao, M. & Skolnick, J. The distribution of ligand-binding pockets around protein-protein interfaces suggests a general mechanism for pocket formation. PNAS 109, 3784-3789 (2012).
59. Vladimir, N. V. The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory. Springer, 1995. (Springer, 1995).