CHEMGENIE: integration of chemogenomics data for applications in chemical biology

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 23, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 151-160

  Kutchukian, Peter S ^a   Chang, Charlie ^a   Fox, Sean J ^b   Cook, Erica ^c   Barnard, Richard ^a   Tellers, David ^a   Wang, Huijun ^a   Pertusi, Dante ^a   Glick, Meir ^a   Sheridan, Robert P ^a   Wallace, Iain M ^a   Wassermann, Anne Mai ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

^b QuickBase Inc   (United States)

^c BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGY; GENE INTERACTION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; FACTUAL DATABASE; GENOMICS; PHENOTYPE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; GENOMICS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHENOTYPE;

EID: 85030778666     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.09.004     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Wang, Y., et al. Evidence-based and quantitative prioritization of tool compounds in phenotypic drug discovery. Cell Chem. Biol. 23 (2016), 862–874.
2. Medina-Franco, J.L., et al. Shifting from the single to the multitarget paradigm in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 495–501.
3. Roider, H.G., et al. Drug2Gene: an exhaustive resource to explore effectively the drug–target relation network. BMC Bioinf., 15, 2014, 68.
4. Szklarczyk, D., et al. STITCH 5: augmenting protein-chemical interaction networks with tissue and affinity data. Nucleic Acids Res. 44 (2016), D380–D384.
5. Schreiber, S.L., Chemical genetics resulting from a passion for synthetic organic chemistry. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 6 (1998), 1127–1152.
6. Stockwell, B.R., Exploring biology with small organic molecules. Nature 432 (2004), 846–854.
7. Swinney, D.C., Anthony, J., How were new medicines discovered?. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10 (2011), 507–519.
8. Bowes, J., et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: the use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11 (2012), 909–922.
9. Olah, M., et al. WOMBAT and WOMBAT-PK: bioactivity databases for lead and drug discovery. Schreiber, S.L., (eds.) Chemical Biology: From Small Molecules to Systems Biology and Drug Design, 2007, Wiley-VCH, 760–786.
10. Bento, A.P., et al. The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update. Nucleic Acids Res. 42 (2014), D1083–D1090.
11. Wang, R., et al. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J. Med. Chem. 47 (2004), 2977–2980.
12. Pawson, A.J., et al. The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY: an expert-driven knowledgebase of drug targets and their ligands. Nucleic Acids Res. 42 (2014), D1098–D1106.
13. Howe, E.A., et al. BioAssay Research Database (BARD): chemical biology and probe-development enabled by structured metadata and result types. Nucleic Acids Res. 43 (2015), D1163–D1170.
14. Liu, Z.H., et al. Cross-mapping of protein – ligand binding data between ChEMBL and PDBbind. Mol. Inf. 34 (2015), 568–576.
15. Kogej, T., et al. Big pharma screening collections: more of the same or unique libraries? The AstraZeneca-Bayer Pharma AG case. Drug Discov. Today 18 (2013), 1014–1024.
16. Heller, S., et al. InChI — the worldwide chemical structure identifier standard. J. Cheminf., 5, 2013, 7.
17. Wheeler, D.L., et al. Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology. Nucleic Acids Res. 31 (2003), 28–33.
18. UniProt Consortium, UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 45 (2017), D158–D169.
19. Thomas, P.D., et al. PANTHER: a browsable database of gene products organized by biological function, using curated protein family and subfamily classification. Nucleic Acids Res. 31 (2003), 334–341.
20. Kanehisa, M., et al. Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Res. 42 (2014), D199–D205.
21. Ashburner, M., et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology: The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. Genet. 25 (2000), 25–29.
22. Bureeva, S., et al. Manual annotation of protein interactions. Methods Mol. Biol. 563 (2009), 75–95.
23. Namchuk, M.N., Finding the molecules to fuel chemogenomics. Targets 1 (2002), 125–129.
24. Mathias, S.L., et al. The CARLSBAD database: a confederated database of chemical bioactivities. Database, 2013, 2013 bat044.
25. Bemis, G.W., Murcko, M.A., The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39 (1996), 2887–2893.
26. Rogers, D., Hahn, M., Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), 742–754.
27. Weininger, D., Smiles, a Chemical Language and Information-System. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 28 (1988), 31–36.
28. Nidhi, et al. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), 1124–1133.
29. Lounkine, E., et al. Chemometric applications of naïve Bayesian models in drug discovery. Bajorath, J., (eds.) Chemoinformatics for Drug Discovery, 2013, John Wiley & Sons, 131–148.
30. Brown, F.K., et al. The evolution of drug design at Merck Research Laboratories. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 31 (2017), 255–266.
31. Bender, A., et al. ‘Bayes affinity fingerprints’ improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: When are multitarget drugs a feasible concept?. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), 2445–2456.
32. Sheridan, R.P., et al. Similarity to molecules in the training set is a good discriminator for prediction accuracy in QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), 1912–1928.
33. Bolser, D.M., et al. MetaBase—the wiki-database of biological databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 40 (2012), D1250–D1254.
34. Ma, J., et al. Deep neural nets as a method for quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55 (2015), 263–274.
35. Ramsundar, B., et al. Massively Multitask Networks for Drug Discovery. 2015, Cornell University Library.
36. Polyakov, V.R., et al. Enrichment analysis for discovering biological associations in phenotypic screens. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54 (2014), 377–386.
37. Mervin, L.H., et al. Understanding cytotoxicity and cytostaticity in a high-throughput screening collection. ACS Chem. Biol. 11 (2016), 3007–3023.
38. Wassermann, A.M., et al. The opportunities of mining historical and collective data in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 20 (2015), 422–434.
39. Bornot, A., et al. The role of historical bioactivity data in the deconvolution of phenotypic screens. J. Biomol. Screen. 19 (2014), 696–706.
40. Kuhn, M., et al. Systematic identification of proteins that elicit drug side effects. Mol Syst Biol., 9, 2013, 663.
41. Wassermann, A.M., et al. Composition and applications of focus libraries to phenotypic assays. Front. Pharmacol., 5, 2014, 164.
42. Frye, S.V., The art of the chemical probe. Nat. Chem. Biol. 6 (2010), 159–161.
43. Eggert, U.S., The why and how of phenotypic small-molecule screens. Nat. Chem. Biol. 9 (2013), 206–209.
44. Thurnher, M., et al. Novel aspects of mevalonate pathway inhibitors as antitumor agents. Clin. Cancer Res. 18 (2012), 3524–3531.
45. Cheng, A.C., et al. Analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity using a thermodynamics-based partition index. J. Med. Chem. 53 (2010), 4502–4510.
46. Graczyk, P.P., Gini coefficient: a new way to express selectivity of kinase inhibitors against a family of kinases. J. Med. Chem. 50 (2007), 5773–5779.
47. Uitdehaag, J.C., Zaman, G.J., A theoretical entropy score as a single value to express inhibitor selectivity. BMC Bioinf., 12, 2011, 94.
48. Smyth, L.A., Collins, I., Measuring and interpreting the selectivity of protein kinase inhibitors. J. Chem. Biol. 2 (2009), 131–151.
49. Lounkine, E., et al. Chemotography for multi-target SAR analysis in the context of biological pathways. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 20 (2012), 5416–5427.
50. Butcher, R.A., Schreiber, S.L., Using genome-wide transcriptional profiling to elucidate small-molecule mechanism. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 9 (2005), 25–30.
51. Bray, M.A., et al. Cell Painting, a high-content image-based assay for morphological profiling using multiplexed fluorescent dyes. Nat. Protoc., 11, 2016 1757–1174.
52. Gustafsdottir, S.M., et al. Multiplex cytological profiling assay to measure diverse cellular states. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e80999.
53. Ong, S.E., et al. Identifying the proteins to which small-molecule probes and drugs bind in cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 106 (2009), 4617–4622.
54. Mohr, S.E., et al. RNAi screening comes of age: improved techniques and complementary approaches. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15 (2014), 591–600.
55. Doudna, J.A., Charpentier, E., Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 346, 2014, 1258096.