Dark chemical matter as a promising starting point for drug lead discovery

Nature Chemical Biology

Volumn 11, Issue 12, 2015, Pages 958-966

  Wassermann, Anne Mai ^a,d   Lounkine, Eugen ^a   Hoepfner, Dominic ^b   Le Goff, Gaelle ^a   King, Frederick J ^a,c   Studer, Christian ^b   Peltier, John M ^a   Grippo, Melissa L ^a   Prindle, Vivian ^c   Tao, Jianshi ^c   Schuffenhauer, Ansgar ^b   Wallace, Iain M ^a   Chen, Shanni ^a   Krastel, Philipp ^b   Cobos Correa, Amanda ^b   Parker, Christian N ^b   Davies, John W ^a   Glick, Meir ^a,e  

^a NOVARTIS INSTITUTES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^b Novartis Institute for BioMedical Research Basel   (Switzerland)

^c GENOMICS INSTITUTE OF THE NOVARTIS RESEARCH FOUNDATION   (United States)

^d PFIZER INC   (United States)

^e MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL COMPOUND; DARK CHEMICAL MATTER; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; ANTIFUNGAL AGENT;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRYPTOCOCCUS NEOFORMANS; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; FOLLOW UP; GENE EXPRESSION; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; NONHUMAN; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; REPORTER GENE; YEAST; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; DRUG EFFECTS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TEST; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANTIFUNGAL AGENTS; CRYPTOCOCCUS NEOFORMANS; DRUG DISCOVERY; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84947778063     PISSN: 15524450     EISSN: 15524469     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nchembio.1936     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Macarron, R. et al. Impact of high-throughput screening in biomedical research. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 188-195 (2011).
2. Austin, C.P., Brady, L.S., Insel, T.R. & Collins, F.S. NIH Molecular Libraries Initiative. Science 306, 1138-1139 (2004).
3. Dobson, C.M. Chemical space and biology. Nature 432, 824-828 (2004).
4. Krier, M., Bret, G. & Rognan, D. Assessing the scaffold diversity of screening libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 512-524 (2006).
5. Chuprina, A., Lukin, O., Demoiseaux, R., Buzko, A. & Shivanyuk, A. Drug- and lead-likeness, target class, and molecular diversity analysis of 7.9 million commercially available organic compounds provided by 29 suppliers. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 470-479 (2010).
6. Bickerton, G.R., Paolini, G.V., Besnard, J., Muresan, S. & Hopkins, A.L. Quantifying the chemical beauty of drugs. Nat. Chem. 4, 90-98 (2012).
7. Lipinski, C.A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B.W. & Feeney, P.J. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46, 3-26 (2001).
8. Petrone, P.M. et al. Rethinking molecular similarity: comparing compounds on the basis of biological activity. ACS Chem. Biol. 7, 1399-1409 (2012).
9. Petrone, P.M. et al. Biodiversity of small molecules - a new perspective in screening set selection. Drug Discov. Today 18, 674-680 (2013).
10. Wawer, M.J. et al. Toward performance-diverse small-molecule libraries for cell-based phenotypic screening using multiplexed high-dimensional profiling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 10911-10916 (2014).
11. Wang, Y. et al. PubChem's BioAssay Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D400-D412 (2012).
12. Wang, Y. et al. PubChem BioAssay: 2014 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D1075-D1082 (2014).
13. Oprea, T.I. et al. A crowdsourcing evaluation of the NIH chemical probes. Nat. Chem. Biol. 5, 441-447 (2009).
14. Durstenfeld, R. Algorithm 235: Random permutation. Commun. ACM 7, 420 (1964).
15. Nissink, J.W.M. & Blackburn, S. Quantification of frequent-hitter behavior based on historical high-throughput screening data. Future Med. Chem. 6, 1113-1126 (2014).
16. Kenseth, J.R. & Coldiron, S.J. High-throughput characterization and quality control of small-molecule combinatorial libraries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 8, 418-423 (2004).
17. Gleeson, M.P., Hersey, A., Montanari, D. & Overington, J. Probing the links between in vitro potency, ADMET and physicochemical parameters. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 197-208 (2011).
18. Azzaoui, K. et al. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem 2, 874-880 (2007).
19. Rogers, D. & Hahn, M. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 742-754 (2010).
20. Stumpfe, D., Hu, Y., Dimova, D. & Bajorath, J. Recent progress in understanding activity cliffs and their utility in medicinal chemistry. J. Med. Chem. 57, 18-28 (2014).
21. Dimova, D., Hu, Y. & Bajorath, J. Matched molecular pair analysis of small molecule microarray data identifies promiscuity cliffs and reveals molecular origins of extreme compound promiscuity. J. Med. Chem. 55, 10220-10228 (2012).
22. Breinbauer, R., Manger, M., Scheck, M. & Waldmann, H. Natural product guided compound library development. Curr. Med. Chem. 9, 2129-2145 (2002).
23. King, F.J. et al. Pathway reporter assays reveal small molecule mechanisms of action. J. Assoc. Lab. Autom. 14, 374-382 (2009).
24. Nigsch, F. et al. Determination of minimal transcriptional signatures of compounds for target prediction. EURASIP J. Bioinform. Syst. Biol. 2012, 2 (2012).
25. Hoepfner, D. et al. High-resolution chemical dissection of a model eukaryote reveals targets, pathways and gene functions. Microbiol. Res. 169, 107-120 (2014).
26. Glerum, D.M., Shtanko, A., Tzagoloff, A., Gorman, N. & Sinclair, P.R. Cloning and identification of HEM14, the yeast gene for mitochondrial protoporphyrinogen oxidase. Yeast 12, 1421-1425 (1996).
27. Lee, A.Y. et al. Mapping the cellular response to small molecules using chemogenomic fitness signatures. Science 344, 208-211 (2014).
28. Camadro, J.M., Matringe, M., Scalla, R. & Labbe, P. Kinetic studies on protoporphyrinogen oxidase inhibition by diphenyl ether herbicides. Biochem. J. 277, 17-21 (1991).
29. Qin, X. et al. Structural insight into human variegate porphyria disease. FASEB J. 25, 653-664 (2011).
30. Hamon, J. et al. In vitro safety pharmacology profiling: what else beyond hERG? Future Med. Chem. 1, 645-665 (2009).
31. Watkins, R.E. et al. The human nuclear xenobiotic receptor PXR: structural determinants of directed promiscuity. Science 292, 2329-2333 (2001).
32. Gaulton, A. et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, D1100-D1107 (2012).
33. Rose, P.W. et al. The RCSB Protein Data Bank: views of structural biology for basic and applied research and education. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D345-D356 (2015).
34. Pletnev, I. et al. InChIKey collision resistance: an experimental testing. J. Cheminform. 4, 39 (2012).
35. Weininger, D. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 28, 31-36 (1988).
36. Bemis, G.W. & Murcko, M.A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39, 2887-2893 (1996).
37. Yan, B. et al. Quality control in combinatorial chemistry: determination of the quantity, purity, and quantitative purity of compounds in combinatorial libraries. J. Comb. Chem. 5, 547-559 (2003).
38. Gaugaz, F.Z. et al. The impact of cyclopropane configuration on the biological activity of cyclopropyl-epothilones. ChemMedChem 9, 2227-2232 (2014).
39. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of filamentous fungi (approved standard) 2nd edn., MA38-A2 (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA, 2008).
40. Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. Reference method for broth dilution antifungal susceptibility testing of yeast (approved standard) 3rd edn., M27-A3 (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, Wayne, Pennsylvania, USA, 2008).