Bridging Structure- and Ligand-Based Virtual Screening through Fragmented Interaction Fingerprint.

Ligand-based virtual screening (LBVS) and structure-based virtual screening (SBVS), and their combinations, are frequently conducted in modern drug discovery campaigns. As a form of combination, an amalgamation of methods from ligand- and structure-based information, termed hybrid VS approaches, has been extensively investigated such as using interaction fingerprints (IFPs) in combination with machine learning (ML) models. This approach has the potential to prioritize active compounds in terms of protein-ligand binding and ligand structural characteristics, which is assumed to be difficult using either one of the approaches. Herein, we present an IFP, named the fragmented interaction fingerprint (FIFI), for hybrid VS approaches. FIFI is constructed from the extended connectivity fingerprint atom environments of a ligand proximal to the protein residues in the binding site. Each unique ligand substructure within each amino acid residue is encoded as a bit in FIFI while retaining sequence order. From the retrospective evaluation of activity prediction using a limited number and variety of active compounds for six biological targets, FIFI consistently showed higher prediction accuracy than that using previously proposed IFPs. For the same data sets, the screening performance of LBVS, SBVS sequential VS, parallel VS, and other hybrid VS approaches was investigated. Compared to these approaches, FIFI in combination with ML showed overall stable and high prediction accuracy, except for one target: the kappa opioid receptor, where the extended connectivity fingerprint combined with ML models showed better performance than other approaches by wide margins.

Scaffold-Hopped Compound Identification by Ligand-Based Approaches with a Prospective Affinity Test.

Scaffold-hopped (SH) compounds are bioactive compounds structurally different from known active compounds. Identifying SH compounds in the ligand-based approaches has been a central issue in medicinal chemistry, and various molecular representations of scaffold hopping have been proposed. However, appropriate representations for SH compound identification remain unclear. Herein, the ability of SH compound identification among several representations was fairly evaluated based on retrospective validation and prospective demonstration. In the retrospective validation, the combinations of two screening algorithms and four two- and three-dimensional molecular representations were compared using controlled data sets for the early identification of SH compounds. We found that the combination of the support vector machine and extended connectivity fingerprint with bond diameter 4 (SVM-ECFP4) and SVM and the rapid overlay of chemical structures (SVM-ROCS) showed a relatively high performance. The compounds that were highly ranked by SVM-ROCS did not share substructures with the active training compounds, while those ranked by SVM-ECFP4 were mostly recombinant. In the prospective demonstration, 93 SH compounds were prepared by screening the Namiki database using SVM-ROCS, targeting ABL1 inhibitors. The primary screening using surface plasmon resonance suggested five active compounds; however, in the competitive binding assays with adenosine triphosphate, no hits were found.

Ligand-based approaches to activity prediction for the early stage of structure-activity-relationship progression.

The retrospective evaluation of virtual screening approaches and activity prediction models are important for methodological development. However, for fair comparison, evaluation data sets must be carefully prepared. In this research, we compiled structure-activity-relationship matrix-based data sets for 15 biological targets along with many diverse inactive compounds, assuming the early stage of structure-activity-relationship progression. To use a large number of diverse inactive compounds and a limited number of active compounds, similarity profiles (SPs) are proposed as a set of molecular descriptors. Using these highly imbalanced data sets, we evaluated various approaches including SPs, under-sampling, support vector machine (SVM), and message passing neural networks. We found that for the under-sampling approaches, cluster-based sampling is better than random sampling. For virtual screening, SPs with inactive reference compounds and the under-sampling SVM also perform well. For classification, SPs with many inactive references performed as well as the under-sampling SVM trained on a balanced data set. Although the performance of SPs and the under-sampling SVM were comparable, SPs with many inactive references were preferable for selecting structurally distinct compounds from the active training compounds.