Evaluation of kinetic parameters of drug-target binding, kon, koff, and residence time (RT), in addition to the traditional in vitro parameter of affinity is receiving increasing attention in the... Show moreEvaluation of kinetic parameters of drug-target binding, kon, koff, and residence time (RT), in addition to the traditional in vitro parameter of affinity is receiving increasing attention in the early stages of drug discovery. Target binding kinetics emerges as a meaningful concept for the evaluation of a ligand's duration of action and more generally drug efficacy and safety. We report the biological evaluation of a novel series of spirobenzo-oxazinepiperidinone derivatives as inhibitors of the human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1, SLC29A1). The compounds were evaluated in radioligand binding experiments, i.e., displacement, competition association, and washout assays, to evaluate their affinity and binding kinetic parameters. We also linked these pharmacological parameters to the compounds' chemical characteristics, and learned that separate moieties of the molecules governed target affinity and binding kinetics. Among the 29 compounds tested, 28 stood out with high affinity and a long residence time of 87 min. These findings reveal the importance of supplementing affinity data with binding kinetics at transport proteins such as hENT1. Show less
Liu, X.; Ye, K.; Vlijmen, H. van; IJzerman, A.P.; Westen, G.J.P. van 2023
Rational drug design often starts from specific scaffolds to which side chains/substituents are added or modified due to the large drug-like chemical space available to search for novel drug-like... Show moreRational drug design often starts from specific scaffolds to which side chains/substituents are added or modified due to the large drug-like chemical space available to search for novel drug-like molecules. With the rapid growth of deep learning in drug discovery, a variety of effective approaches have been developed for de novo drug design. In previous work we proposed a method named DrugEx, which can be applied in polypharmacology based on multi-objective deep reinforcement learning. However, the previous version is trained under fixed objectives and does not allow users to input any prior information (i.e. a desired scaffold). In order to improve the general applicability, we updated DrugEx to design drug molecules based on scaffolds which consist of multiple fragments provided by users. Here, a Transformer model was employed to generate molecular structures. The Transformer is a multi-head self-attention deep learning model containing an encoder to receive scaffolds as input and a decoder to generate molecules as output. In order to deal with the graph representation of molecules a novel positional encoding for each atom and bond based on an adjacency matrix was proposed, extending the architecture of the Transformer. The graph Transformer model contains growing and connecting procedures for molecule generation starting from a given scaffold based on fragments. Moreover, the generator was trained under a reinforcement learning framework to increase the number of desired ligands. As a proof of concept, the method was applied to design ligands for the adenosine A2A receptor (A2AAR) and compared with SMILES-based methods. The results show that 100% of the generated molecules are valid and most of them had a high predicted affinity value towards A2AAR with given scaffolds. Show less
Bongers, B.J.; Gorostiola González, M.; Wang, X.; Vlijmen, H. van; Jespers, W.; Gutiérrez-de-Terán, H.; ... ; Westen, G.J.P. van 2022
G Protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the most frequently exploited drug target family, moreover they are often found mutated in cancer. Here we used a dataset of mutations found in patient... Show moreG Protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are the most frequently exploited drug target family, moreover they are often found mutated in cancer. Here we used a dataset of mutations found in patient samples derived from the Genomic Data Commons and compared it to the natural human variance as exemplified by data from the 1000 genomes project. We explored cancer-related mutation patterns in all GPCR classes combined and individually. While the location of the mutations across the protein domains did not differ significantly in the two datasets, a mutation enrichment in cancer patients was observed among class-specific conserved motifs in GPCRs such as the Class A "DRY" motif. A Two-Entropy Analysis confirmed the correlation between residue conservation and cancer-related mutation frequency. We subsequently created a ranking of high scoring GPCRs, using a multi-objective approach (Pareto Front Ranking). Our approach was confirmed by re-discovery of established cancer targets such as the LPA and mGlu receptor families, but also discovered novel GPCRs which had not been linked to cancer before such as the P2Y Receptor 10 (P2RY10). Overall, this study presents a list of GPCRs that are amenable to experimental follow up to elucidate their role in cancer. Show less
Sydow, D.; Burggraaff, L.; Szengel, A.; Vlijmen, H. van; IJzerman, A.P.; Westen, G.J.P. van; Volkamer, A. 2019
Target deconvolution is a vital initial step in preclinical drug development to determine research focus and strategy. In this respect, computational target prediction is used to identify the most... Show moreTarget deconvolution is a vital initial step in preclinical drug development to determine research focus and strategy. In this respect, computational target prediction is used to identify the most probable targets of an orphan ligand or the most similar targets to a protein under investigation. Applications range from the fundamental analysis of the mode-of-action over polypharmacology or adverse effect predictions to drug repositioning. Here, we provide a review on published ligand- and target-based as well as hybrid approaches for computational target prediction, together with current limitations and future directions. Show less
Tresadern, G.; Trabanco, A.A.; Pérez-Benito, L.; Overington, J.P.; Vlijmen, H. van; Westen, G.J.P. van 2017
Proteochemometric modeling (PCM) is a computational approach that can be considered an extension of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, where a single model incorporates... Show moreProteochemometric modeling (PCM) is a computational approach that can be considered an extension of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, where a single model incorporates information for a family of targets and all the associated ligands instead of modeling activity versus one target. This is especially useful for situations where bioactivity data exists for similar proteins but is scarce for the protein of interest. Here we demonstrate the application of PCM to identify allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) receptors. Given our long-running interest in modulating mGlu receptor function we compiled a matrix of compound-target bioactivity data. Some members of the mGlu family are well explored both internally and in the public domain, while there are much fewer examples of ligands for other targets such as the mGlu7 receptor. Using a PCM approach mGlu7 receptor hits were found. In comparison to conventional single target modeling the identified hits were more diverse, had a better confirmation rate, and provide starting points for further exploration. We conclude that the robust structure–activity relationship from well explored target family members translated to better quality hits for PCM compared to virtual screening (VS) based on a single target. Show less
Background While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking of descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the... Show moreBackground While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking of descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current work a total of 13 different protein descriptor sets have been compared with respect to their behavior in perceiving similarities between amino acids. The descriptor sets included in the study are Z-scales (3 variants), VHSE, T-scales, ST-scales, MS-WHIM, FASGAI and BLOSUM, and a novel protein descriptor set termed ProtFP (4 variants). We investigate to which extent descriptor sets show collinear as well as orthogonal behavior via principal component analysis (PCA). Results In describing amino acid similarities, MSWHIM, T-scales and ST-scales show related behavior, as do the VHSE, FASGAI, and ProtFP (PCA3) descriptor sets. Conversely, the ProtFP (PCA5), ProtFP (PCA8), Z-Scales (Binned), and BLOSUM descriptor sets show behavior that is distinct from one another as well as both of the clusters above. Generally, the use of more principal components (>3 per amino acid, per descriptor) leads to a significant differences in the way amino acids are described, despite that the later principal components capture less variation per component of the original input data. Conclusion In this work a comparison is provided of how similar (and differently) currently available amino acids descriptor sets behave when converting structure to property space. The results obtained enable molecular modelers to select suitable amino acid descriptor sets for structure-activity analyses, e.g. those showing complementary behavior. Show less
Background While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current... Show moreBackground While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current work a total of 13 amino acid descriptor sets have been benchmarked with respect to their ability of establishing bioactivity models. The descriptor sets included in the study are Z-scales (3 variants), VHSE, T-scales, ST-scales, MS-WHIM, FASGAI, BLOSUM, a novel protein descriptor set (termed ProtFP (4 variants)), and in addition we created and benchmarked three pairs of descriptor combinations. Prediction performance was evaluated in seven structure-activity benchmarks which comprise Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) dipeptidic inhibitor data, and three proteochemometric data sets, namely (1) GPCR ligands modeled against a GPCR panel, (2) enzyme inhibitors (NNRTIs) with associated bioactivities against a set of HIV enzyme mutants, and (3) enzyme inhibitors (PIs) with associated bioactivities on a large set of HIV enzyme mutants. Results The amino acid descriptor sets compared here show similar performance (<0.1 log units RMSE difference and <0.1 difference in MCC), while errors for individual proteins were in some cases found to be larger than those resulting from descriptor set differences ( > 0.3 log units RMSE difference and >0.7 difference in MCC). Combining different descriptor sets generally leads to better modeling performance than utilizing individual sets. The best performers were Z-scales (3) combined with ProtFP (Feature), or Z-Scales (3) combined with an average Z-Scale value for each target, while ProtFP (PCA8), ST-Scales, and ProtFP (Feature) rank last. Conclusions While amino acid descriptor sets capture different aspects of amino acids their ability to be used for bioactivity modeling is still – on average – surprisingly similar. Still, combining sets describing complementary information consistently leads to small but consistent improvement in modeling performance (average MCC 0.01 better, average RMSE 0.01 log units lower). Finally, performance differences exist between the targets compared thereby underlining that choosing an appropriate descriptor set is of fundamental for bioactivity modeling, both from the ligand- as well as the protein side. Show less
