Summary
We describe an integrated system that brings together predictive chemical analyses based on compound structure, knowledge bases of chemogenomics data associating compounds to biological, pharmacological and toxicological properties, and a systems biology functional data analysis and network reconstruction approach, to provide an in silico evaluation of the possible effects of xenobiotics on biological systems. We demonstrate the combination of drug and xenobiotic metabolism prediction, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models and structural similarity searching to generate a list of similar compounds to, and possible targets for novel compounds. These lists of compounds and proteins are mapped to functional ontologies such as gene-disease associations, biological processes, and mechanisms of toxicity, and can be used to reconstruct biological networks linking together the component nodes into biologically-meaningful clusters. Thus, an assessment of biological effects can be made early in the discovery and development process that can be used to prioritize the best compounds for additional testing or development, or to direct efforts in medicinal chemistry to improve compound activity profiles.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ekins, S., Bugrim, A., Nikolsky, Y., and Nikolskya, T. (2005) Systems biology: applications in drug discovery. In: Gad, S. C. (ed.) Drug Discovery Handbook. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, pp. 123–183.
Nikolsky, Y., Nikolskaya, T., and Bugrim, A. (2005) Biological networks and analysis of experimental data in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 10, 653–662.
Richard, A. M., Yang, C., and Judson, R. S. (2008) Toxicity data informatics: supporting a new paradigm for toxicity prediction. Toxicol. Mech. Methods 18, 103–118.
Bender, A., Young, D. W., Jenkins, J. L., et al. (2007) Chemogenomic data analysis: prediction of small-molecule targets and the advent of biological fingerprint. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 10, 719–731.
Young, D. W., Bender, A., Hoyt, J., et al. (2008) Integrating high-content screening and ligand-target prediction to identify mechanism of action. Nat. Chem. Biol. 4, 59–68.
Ekins, S., Andreyev, S., Ryabov, A., et al. (2006) A combined approach to drug metabolism and toxicity assessment. Drug Metab. Dispos. 34, 495–503.
Ekins, S., Bugrim, A., Brovold, L., et al. (2006) Algorithms for network analysis in systems-ADME/Tox using the MetaCore and MetaDrug platforms. Xenobiotica 36, 877–901.
Herrmann, M. L., Schleyerbach, R., and Kirschbaum, B. J. (2000) Leflunomide: an immunomodulatory drug for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. Immunopharmacology 47, 273–289.
Etienne, F., Resnick, L., Sagher, D., Brot, N., and Weissbach, H. (2003) Reduction of sulindac to its active metabolite, sulindac sulfide: assay and role of the methionine sulfoxide reductase system. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 312, 1005–1010.
Murrell, G. A. and Rapeport, W. G. (1986) Clinical pharmacokinetics of allopurinol. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 11, 343–353.
Smith, S. J. (1994) Cardiovascular toxicity of antihistamines. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 111, 348–354.
Humphreys, W. G. (2007) Drug metabolism research as an integral part of the drug discovery process. In: Zhang, D., Zhu, M., and Humphreys, W. G. (eds.) Drug Metabolism in Drug Design and Development. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken, pp. 239–260.
Rusinko, A. III, Farmen, M. W., Lambert, C. G., Brown, P. L., and Young, S. S. (1999) Analysis of a large structure/biological activity data set using recursive partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39, 1017–1026.
Blower, P. E. and Cross, K. P. (2006) Decision tree methods in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 6, 31–39.
Willett, P., Winterman, V., and Bawden, D. (1986) Implementation of nearest-neighbor searching in an online chemical structure search system. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 26, 36–41.
Matter, H. (1997) Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 40, 1219–1229.
Khatri, P. and Draghici, S. (2005) Ontological analysis of gene expression data: current tools, limitations, and open problems. Bioinformatics 21, 3587–3595.
Ekins, S., Nikolsky, Y., Bugrim, A., Kirillov, E., and Nikolskaya, T. (2007) Pathway mapping tools for analysis of high content data. Methods Mol. Biol. 356, 319–350.
Shipitsin, M., Campbell, L. L., Argani, P., et al. (2007) Molecular definition of breast tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Cell 11, 259–273.
Lipinski, C. A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B. W., and Feeney, P. J. (2001) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 46, 3–26.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Humana Press, a part of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Brennan, R.J., Nikolskya, T., Bureeva, S. (2009). Network and Pathway Analysis of Compound–Protein Interactions. In: Jacoby, E. (eds) Chemogenomics. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 575. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-274-2_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60761-274-2_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-60761-273-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-60761-274-2
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols