The importance of molecular complexity in the design of screening libraries
- 303 Downloads
The one-dimensional model of Hann et al. (J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41(3):856–864) has been extended to include reverse binding and wrap-around interaction modes between the protein and ligand to explore the complete combinatorial matrix of molecular recognition. The cumulative distribution function of the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution has been used to calculate the probability of measuring the sensitivity of the interactions as the asymptotic limits of the distribution better describe the behavior of the interactions under experimental conditions. Based on our model, we hypothesized that molecules of lower complexity are preferred for target based screening campaigns, while augmenting such a library with moieties of moderate complexities maybe better suited for phenotypic screens. The validity of the hypothesis has been assessed via the analysis of the hit rate profiles for four ChemBL datasets for enzymatic and phenotypic screens.
KeywordsMolecular complexity Selectivity Sensitivity Intermolecular interaction
Shahul Nilar thanks Dr. Richard Lewis of the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research, Basel, Switzerland and Dr. Peter Gedeck of the Novartis Institute for Tropical Diseases, Singapore for critically reading the manuscript and providing helpful suggestions. Dr. Ivica Res’s help with some of the programming aspects of this work is gratefully acknowledged.
- 13.We use of the term “promiscuous” to describe unselective compounds that interact with a number of protein targetsGoogle Scholar
- 21.Taylor NR, Cleasby A, Singh O, Skarzynski T, Wonacott AJ, Smith PW, Sollis SL, Howes PD, Cherry PC, Bethell R, Colman P, Varghese J (1998) Dihydropyrancarboxamides related to zanamivir: a new series of inhibitors of influenza virus sialidases. 2. Crystallographic and molecular modeling study of complexes of 4-amino-4H-pyran-6-carboxamides and sialidase from influenza virus types A and B. J Med Chem 41(6):798–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Sneader W (1996) Drug prototypes and their exploitation. Wiley, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 30.Guner OF (2000) Pharmacophore perception, development and use in drug design. International University Line, La JollaGoogle Scholar
- 34.Howard S, Berdini V, Boulstridge JA, Carr MG, Cross DM, Curry J, Devine LA, Early TR, Fazal L, Gill AL, Heathcote M, Maman S, Matthews JE, McMenamin RL, Navarro EF, O’Brien MA, O’Reilly M, Rees DC, Reule M, Tisi D, Williams G, Vinkovi M, Wyatt PG (2009) Fragment-based discovery of the pyrazol-4-yl urea (AT9283), a multitargeted kinase inhibitor with potent aurora kinase activity. J Med Chem 52(2):379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Baker M (2013) Fragment based drug discovery grows up. Nat Rev Drug Disc 12(1):5–7Google Scholar
- 38.Smith A (2002) Screening for drug discovery: the leading question. Nature 418(6896):453–459Google Scholar
- 42.Grimme D, Gonzalez-Ruiz D, Gohlke H (2012) Computational strategies and challenges for targeting protein–protein interactions with small molecules. Physico-chemical and Computational Approaches to Drug Discovery. London, UK, Royal Society of Chemistry (2012)Google Scholar