A simple mathematical approach to the analysis of polypharmacology and polyspecificity data

Gerry Maggiora, Vijay Gokhale
2017 F1000Research  
There many possible types of drug-target interactions, because there are a surprising number of ways in which drugs and their targets can associate with one another. These relationships are expressed as polypharmacology and polyspecificity. Polypharmacology is the capability of a given drug to exhibit activity with respect to multiple drug targets, which are not necessarily in the same activity class. Adverse drug reactions ('side effects') are its principal manifestation, but polypharmacology
more » ... s also playing a role in the repositioning of existing drugs for new therapeutic indications. Polyspecificity, on the other hand, is the capability of a given target to exhibit activity with respect to multiple, structurally dissimilar drugs. That these concepts are closely related to one another is, surprisingly, not well known. It will be shown in this work that they are, in fact, mathematically related to one another and are in essence 'two sides of the same coin'. Hence, information on polypharmacology provides equivalent information on polyspecificity, and . vice versa Networks are playing an increasingly important role in biological research. Drug-target networks, in particular, are made up of drug nodes that are linked to specific target nodes if a given drug is active with respect to that target. Such networks provide a graphic depiction of polypharmacology and polyspecificity. However, by their very nature they can obscure information that may be useful in their interpretation and analysis. This work will show how such latent information can be used to determine bounds for the degrees of polypharmacology and polyspecificity, and how to estimate other useful features associated with the lack of completeness of most drug-target datasets. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 6. Achenbach J, Tiikkainen P, Franke L, et al.: Computational tools for polypharmacology and repurposing. Future Med Chem. 2011; 3(8): 961-968. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Pérez-Nueno VI, Souchet M, Karaboga AS, et al.: GESSE: Predicting drug side effects from drug-target relationships. J Chem Inf Model. 2015; 55(9): 1804-1823. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 8. Lounkine E, Keiser MJ, Whitebread S, et al.: Large-scale prediction and testing of drug activity on side-effect targets. Nature. 2012; 486(7403): 361-367. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 9. Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin AC, et al.: Drug target identification using sideeffect similarity. Science. 2008; 321(5886): 263-266. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 10. Kuhn M, Campillos M, Letunic I, et al.: A side effect resource to capture phenotypic effects of drugs. Mol Syst Biol. 2010; 6: 343. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 13. Van Regenmortel MH: Specificity, polyspecificity, and heterospecificity of antibody-antigen recognition. J Mol Recog. 2014; 27(11): 627-639. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Young DD, Jockush S, Turro NJ, et al.: Synthetase polyspecificity as a tool to modulate protein function. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2011; 21(24): 7502-7504. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 15. Martinez L, Arnaud O, Henin E, et al.: Understanding polyspecificity within the substrate-binding cavity of the human multidrug resistance P-glycoprotein. FEBS J. 2014; 281(3): 673-682. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 16. Lyons JA, Parker JL, Solcan N, et al.: Structural basis for polyspecificity in the POT family of proton-coupled oligopeptide transporters. EMBO Rep. 2014; 15(8): 886-893. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 17. Lytvynenko I, Brill S, Oswald C, et al.: Molecular basis of polyspecificity of the small multidrug resistance efflux pump AbeS from Acinetobacter baumannii. J Mol Biol. 2016; 428(3): 644-657. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 18. Esser L, Zhou F, Pluchino KM, et al.: Structures of the multidrug transporter P-glycoprotein reveal asymmetric ATP binding and the mechanism of polyspecificity. J Biol Chem. 2017; 292(2): 446-461. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 19. Blass BE: Basic Principles of Drug Discovery and Development. Academic Press, New York. 2015. Reference Source 20. Brown N, Ed: Scaffold Hopping in Medicinal Chemistry. Wiley-VCH, New York. 2014. Publisher Full Text 21. Saha R, Tanwar O, Alam NM, et al.: Pharmacophore based virtual screening, synthesis and SAR of novel inhibitors of Mycobacterium sulfotransferase. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2015; 25(3): 701-707. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 22. Iyer P, Stumpfe D, Vogt M, et al.: Activity Landscapes, Information Theory, and Structure -Activity Relationships. Mol Inform. 2013; 32(5-6): 421-430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 23. Maggiora GM: Introduction to molecular similarity and chemical space. In Foodinformatics: Applications of Chemical Information to Food Chemistry. Martinez-Mayorga K, Medina-Franco JL, Eds. Springer International Publishing Switzerland; 2014; 1-81. Publisher Full Text 24. Law V, Knox C, Djoumbou Y, et al.: DrugBank 4.0: shedding new light on drug metabolism. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(Database issue): D1091-D1097. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 25. Szklarczyk D, Santos A, von Mering C, et al.: STITCH 5: augmenting proteinchemical interaction networks with tissue and affinity data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(D1): D380-D384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 26. Olah M, Rad R, Ostopovici L, et al.: WOMBAT and WOMBAT-PK: Bioactivity Databases for Lead and Drug Discovery. In Chemical Biology: From Small Molecules to Systems Biology and Drug Design. Schreiber SL, Kapoor T, Wess G, Eds., John Wiley & Sons, New York; 2008; 760-786. Publisher Full Text 27. Kim S, Thiessen PA, Bolton EE, et al.: PubChem Substance and Compound databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(D1): D1202-D1213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 28. Liu T, Lin Y, Wen X, et al.: BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007; 35(Database issue): D198-D201. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 29. Gaulton A, Hersey A, Nowotka M, et al.: The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017; 45(D1): D945-D954. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 30. Tym JE, Mitsopoulos C, Coker EA, et al.: canSAR: an updated cancer research and drug discovery knowledgebase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016; 44(D1): D938-D943. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 31. von Eichborn J, Murgueitio MS, Dunkel M, et al.: PROMISCUOUS: a database for network-based drug-repositioning. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011; 39(Database issue): D1060-D1066. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 32. Günther S, Kuhn M, Dunkel M, et al.: SuperTarget and Matador: resources for exploring drug-target relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 2008; 36(Database issue): D919-D922. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 33. Jasial S, Hu Y, Bajorath J: Determining the degree of promiscuity of extensively assayed compounds. PLoS One. 2016; 11(4): e0153873. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 34. Hu Y, Gupta-Osterman D, Bajorath J: Exploring compound promiscuity patterns and multi-target activity spaces. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2014; 9(13): e201401003. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 35. Hu Y, Bajorath J: How promiscuous are pharmaceutically relevant compounds? A data-driven assessment. AAPS J. 2013; 15(1): 104-111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 36. Hu Y, Bajorath J: Exploring molecular promiscuity from a ligand and target perspective. 26(9): 983-984. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 38. Santos R, Ursu O, Gaulton A, et al.: A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017; 16(1): 19-34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 39. Klotz IM, Rosenberg RM: Chemical Thermodynamics: Basic Concepts and Methods. 7 th Edition. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 2008. Publisher Full Text 40. Milletti F, Vulpetti A: Predicting polypharmacology by binding site similarity: from kinases to the protein universe. J Chem Inf Model. 2010; 50(8): 1418-1431. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 41. Moya-García AA, Ranea JA: Insights into polypharmacology from drug-domain associations. Bioinformatics. 2013; 29(16): 1934-1937. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 42. Moya-Garcia AA, Dawson NL, Kruger FA, et al.: Structural and functional view of polypharmacology. Preprint posted online 18 March 2016 (not peer reviewed). 2017. Publisher Full Text 43. Bareller S, Sterling T, O'Meara MJ, et al.: The recognition of identical ligands by unrelated proteins. ACS Chem Biol. 2015; 10(12): 2772-2784. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 44. Kahraman A, Morris RJ, Laskowski RA, et al.: Shape variation in protein binding pockets and their ligands. J Mol Biol. 2007; 368(1): 283-301. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 45. Kahraman A, Morris RJ, Laskowski RA, et al.: On the diversity of physicochemical environments experienced by identical ligands in binding pockets of unrelated proteins. Proteins. 2010; 78(5): 1120-1136. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 46. Sturm N, Desaphy J, Quinn RJ, et al.: Structural insights into the molecular basis of the ligand promiscuity. J Chem Inf Model. 2012; 52(9): 2410-2421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 47. Ehrt C, Brinkjost T, Koch O: Impact of Binding Site Comparisons on Medicinal Chemistry and Rational Molecular Design. J Med Chem. 2016; 59(9): 4121-4151. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 48. Matthews BW: Protein-DNA interaction. No code for recognition. Nature. 1988; 335(6188): 294-295. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
doi:10.12688/f1000research.11517.1 pmid:28690829 pmcid:PMC5482344 fatcat:c3sz3e2m3fhzndkwzyclhjufnm