Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design

, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 919–926 | Cite as

Design of an activity landscape view taking compound-based feature probabilities into account



Activity landscapes (ALs) of compound data sets are rationalized as graphical representations that integrate similarity and potency relationships between active compounds. ALs enable the visualization of structure–activity relationship (SAR) information and are thus computational tools of interest for medicinal chemistry. For AL generation, similarity and potency relationships are typically evaluated in a pairwise manner and major AL features are assessed at the level of compound pairs. In this study, we add a conditional probability formalism to AL design that makes it possible to quantify the probability of individual compounds to contribute to characteristic AL features. Making this information graphically accessible in a molecular network-based AL representation is shown to further increase AL information content and helps to quickly focus on SAR-informative compound subsets. This feature probability-based AL variant extends the current spectrum of AL representations for medicinal chemistry applications.


Activity landscape design Molecular networks SAR visualization Landscape features Conditional feature probabilities Per-compound contributions 



The authors thank Dr. Dilyana Dimova for providing activity landscape models using alternative similarity measures and Dr. Ye Hu for help with data sets. B.Z. is supported by the China Scholarship Council.


  1. 1.
    Wassermann AM, Wawer M, Bajorath J (2010) Activity landscape representations for structure–activity relationship analysis. J Med Chem 53(23):8209–8223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stumpfe D, Bajorath J (2012) Methods for SAR visualization. RSC Adv 2(2):369–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Iyer P, Stumpfe D, Vogt M, Bajorath J, Maggiora GM (2013) Activity landscapes, information theory, and structure–activity relationships. Mol Inf 32(5–6):421–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wawer M, Peltason L, Weskamp N, Tecketrup A, Bajorath J (2008) Structure–activity relationship anatomy by network-like similarity graphs and local structure–activity relationship indices. J Med Chem 51(19):6075–6084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peltason L, Iyer P, Bajorath J (2010) Rationalizing three-dimensional activity landscapes and the influence of molecular representations on landscape topology and the formation of activity cliffs. J Chem Inf Model 50(6):1021–1033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stumpfe D, Bajorath J (2012) Exploring activity cliffs in medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 55(7):2932–2942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stumpfe D, Hu Y, Dimova D, Bajorath J (2014) Recent progress in understanding activity cliffs and their utility in medicinal chemistry. J Med Chem 57(1):18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vogt M, Iyer P, Maggiora GM, Bajorath J (2013) Conditional probabilities of activity landscape features for individual compounds. J Chem Inf Model 53(7):1602–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM (1998) Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38(6):983–996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers D, Hahn M (2010) Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 50(5):742–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, Light Y, McGlinchey S, Michalovich D, Al-Lazikani B, Overington JP (2012) ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res 40(Database issue):D1100–D1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    OEChem TKv 2013 April (2013) OpenEye Scientific Software Inc, Santa Fe, New MexicoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life Science Informatics, B-IT, LIMES Program Unit Chemical Biology and Medicinal ChemistryRheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-UniversitätBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations