Loading…

Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity

We benchmarked the ability of comparative computational approaches to correctly discriminate protein pairs sharing a common active ligand (positive protein pairs) from protein pairs with no common active ligands (negative protein pairs). Since the target and the off-targets of a drug share at least...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of chemical information and modeling 2016-09, Vol.56 (9), p.1734-1745
Main Authors:	Chen, Yu-Chen, Tolbert, Robert, Aronov, Alex M, McGaughey, Georgia, Walters, W. Patrick, Meireles, Lidio
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Subjects:	Amino Acid Sequence Benchmarking Binding sites Computational Biology Correlation analysis Ligands Models, Molecular Protein Conformation Proteins Proteins - chemistry Proteins - metabolism
Citations:	Items that this one cites Items that cite this one
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

cited_by	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273
cites	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273
container_end_page	1745
container_issue	9
container_start_page	1734
container_title	Journal of chemical information and modeling
container_volume	56
creator	Chen, Yu-Chen Tolbert, Robert Aronov, Alex M McGaughey, Georgia Walters, W. Patrick Meireles, Lidio
description	We benchmarked the ability of comparative computational approaches to correctly discriminate protein pairs sharing a common active ligand (positive protein pairs) from protein pairs with no common active ligands (negative protein pairs). Since the target and the off-targets of a drug share at least a common ligand, i.e., the drug itself, the prediction of positive protein pairs may help identify off-targets. We evaluated representative protein-centric and ligand-centric approaches, including (1) 2D and 3D ligand similarity, (2) several measures of protein sequence similarity in conjunction with different sequence sources (e.g., full protein sequence versus binding site residues), and (3) a newly described pocket shape similarity and alignment program called SiteHopper. While the sequence-based alignment of pocket residues achieved the best overall performance, SiteHopper outperformed sequence-based approaches for unrelated proteins with only 20–30% pocket residue identity. Analogously, among ligand-centric approaches, path-based fingerprints achieved the best overall performance, but ROCS-based ligand shape similarity outperformed path-based fingerprints for structurally dissimilar ligands (Tanimoto 25%–40%). A significant drop in recognition performance was observed for ligand-centric approaches when PDB ligands were used instead of ChEMBL ligands. Finally, we analyzed the relationship between pocket shape and ligand shape in our data set and found that similar ligands tend to bind to similar pockets while similar pockets may accept a range of different-shaped ligands.
doi_str_mv	10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00118
format	article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1823908040</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4208037771</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9LwzAUx4Mobk7vniTgxcM6k7ZJm6MMf8HAQR14C2mazIz-mEkr7L83dd0Ogqf34H2-3_ceXwCuMZphFOJ7Id1sI001ozlCGKcnYIxJzAJG0cfpoSeMjsCFcxuEoojR8ByMwoQQlkZ4DOzSqsLI1jQ1bDRc2qZVpoZLYayD2aewpl7DeVNVfv7gsW8FF2Yt6sLBletnB0WmvjpVSzWFWWs72XbWt54bcJiZypTert1dgjMtSqeuhjoBq6fH9_lLsHh7fp0_LAIRI9oGES10mKuIoTyPGZY5RoUQMsSJ1pgKoggptEyIjiKS5Ej7z2RBMAlV7IkwiSbgbu-7tY2_zbW8Mk6qshS1ajrHcRp68xTFyKO3f9BN09naX9dTlOGUJNRTaE9J2zhnleZbayphdxwj3ufBfR68z4MPeXjJzWDc5ZUqjoJDAB6Y7oFf6XHpf34_0eiXQQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826918576</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity</title><source>American Chemical Society:Jisc Collections:American Chemical Society Read & Publish Agreement 2022-2024 (Reading list)</source><creator>Chen, Yu-Chen ; Tolbert, Robert ; Aronov, Alex M ; McGaughey, Georgia ; Walters, W. Patrick ; Meireles, Lidio</creator><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yu-Chen ; Tolbert, Robert ; Aronov, Alex M ; McGaughey, Georgia ; Walters, W. Patrick ; Meireles, Lidio</creatorcontrib><description>We benchmarked the ability of comparative computational approaches to correctly discriminate protein pairs sharing a common active ligand (positive protein pairs) from protein pairs with no common active ligands (negative protein pairs). Since the target and the off-targets of a drug share at least a common ligand, i.e., the drug itself, the prediction of positive protein pairs may help identify off-targets. We evaluated representative protein-centric and ligand-centric approaches, including (1) 2D and 3D ligand similarity, (2) several measures of protein sequence similarity in conjunction with different sequence sources (e.g., full protein sequence versus binding site residues), and (3) a newly described pocket shape similarity and alignment program called SiteHopper. While the sequence-based alignment of pocket residues achieved the best overall performance, SiteHopper outperformed sequence-based approaches for unrelated proteins with only 20–30% pocket residue identity. Analogously, among ligand-centric approaches, path-based fingerprints achieved the best overall performance, but ROCS-based ligand shape similarity outperformed path-based fingerprints for structurally dissimilar ligands (Tanimoto 25%–40%). A significant drop in recognition performance was observed for ligand-centric approaches when PDB ligands were used instead of ChEMBL ligands. Finally, we analyzed the relationship between pocket shape and ligand shape in our data set and found that similar ligands tend to bind to similar pockets while similar pockets may accept a range of different-shaped ligands.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1549-9596</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1549-960X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00118</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27559831</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Chemical Society</publisher><subject>Amino Acid Sequence ; Benchmarking ; Binding sites ; Computational Biology ; Correlation analysis ; Ligands ; Models, Molecular ; Protein Conformation ; Proteins ; Proteins - chemistry ; Proteins - metabolism</subject><ispartof>Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2016-09, Vol.56 (9), p.1734-1745</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society</rights><rights>Copyright American Chemical Society Sep 26, 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,786,790,27957,27958</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27559831$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yu-Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tolbert, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aronov, Alex M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGaughey, Georgia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walters, W. Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meireles, Lidio</creatorcontrib><title>Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity</title><title>Journal of chemical information and modeling</title><addtitle>J. Chem. Inf. Model</addtitle><description>We benchmarked the ability of comparative computational approaches to correctly discriminate protein pairs sharing a common active ligand (positive protein pairs) from protein pairs with no common active ligands (negative protein pairs). Since the target and the off-targets of a drug share at least a common ligand, i.e., the drug itself, the prediction of positive protein pairs may help identify off-targets. We evaluated representative protein-centric and ligand-centric approaches, including (1) 2D and 3D ligand similarity, (2) several measures of protein sequence similarity in conjunction with different sequence sources (e.g., full protein sequence versus binding site residues), and (3) a newly described pocket shape similarity and alignment program called SiteHopper. While the sequence-based alignment of pocket residues achieved the best overall performance, SiteHopper outperformed sequence-based approaches for unrelated proteins with only 20–30% pocket residue identity. Analogously, among ligand-centric approaches, path-based fingerprints achieved the best overall performance, but ROCS-based ligand shape similarity outperformed path-based fingerprints for structurally dissimilar ligands (Tanimoto 25%–40%). A significant drop in recognition performance was observed for ligand-centric approaches when PDB ligands were used instead of ChEMBL ligands. Finally, we analyzed the relationship between pocket shape and ligand shape in our data set and found that similar ligands tend to bind to similar pockets while similar pockets may accept a range of different-shaped ligands.</description><subject>Amino Acid Sequence</subject><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>Binding sites</subject><subject>Computational Biology</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Ligands</subject><subject>Models, Molecular</subject><subject>Protein Conformation</subject><subject>Proteins</subject><subject>Proteins - chemistry</subject><subject>Proteins - metabolism</subject><issn>1549-9596</issn><issn>1549-960X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc9LwzAUx4Mobk7vniTgxcM6k7ZJm6MMf8HAQR14C2mazIz-mEkr7L83dd0Ogqf34H2-3_ceXwCuMZphFOJ7Id1sI001ozlCGKcnYIxJzAJG0cfpoSeMjsCFcxuEoojR8ByMwoQQlkZ4DOzSqsLI1jQ1bDRc2qZVpoZLYayD2aewpl7DeVNVfv7gsW8FF2Yt6sLBletnB0WmvjpVSzWFWWs72XbWt54bcJiZypTert1dgjMtSqeuhjoBq6fH9_lLsHh7fp0_LAIRI9oGES10mKuIoTyPGZY5RoUQMsSJ1pgKoggptEyIjiKS5Ej7z2RBMAlV7IkwiSbgbu-7tY2_zbW8Mk6qshS1ajrHcRp68xTFyKO3f9BN09naX9dTlOGUJNRTaE9J2zhnleZbayphdxwj3ufBfR68z4MPeXjJzWDc5ZUqjoJDAB6Y7oFf6XHpf34_0eiXQQ</recordid><startdate>20160926</startdate><enddate>20160926</enddate><creator>Chen, Yu-Chen</creator><creator>Tolbert, Robert</creator><creator>Aronov, Alex M</creator><creator>McGaughey, Georgia</creator><creator>Walters, W. Patrick</creator><creator>Meireles, Lidio</creator><general>American Chemical Society</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7SR</scope><scope>7U5</scope><scope>8BQ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>JG9</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160926</creationdate><title>Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity</title><author>Chen, Yu-Chen ; Tolbert, Robert ; Aronov, Alex M ; McGaughey, Georgia ; Walters, W. Patrick ; Meireles, Lidio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Amino Acid Sequence</topic><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>Binding sites</topic><topic>Computational Biology</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Ligands</topic><topic>Models, Molecular</topic><topic>Protein Conformation</topic><topic>Proteins</topic><topic>Proteins - chemistry</topic><topic>Proteins - metabolism</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Chen, Yu-Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tolbert, Robert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aronov, Alex M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McGaughey, Georgia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Walters, W. Patrick</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meireles, Lidio</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineered Materials Abstracts</collection><collection>Solid State and Superconductivity Abstracts</collection><collection>METADEX</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of chemical information and modeling</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Chen, Yu-Chen</au><au>Tolbert, Robert</au><au>Aronov, Alex M</au><au>McGaughey, Georgia</au><au>Walters, W. Patrick</au><au>Meireles, Lidio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity</atitle><jtitle>Journal of chemical information and modeling</jtitle><addtitle>J. Chem. Inf. Model</addtitle><date>2016-09-26</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1734</spage><epage>1745</epage><pages>1734-1745</pages><issn>1549-9596</issn><eissn>1549-960X</eissn><notes>ObjectType-Article-1</notes><notes>SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1</notes><notes>ObjectType-Feature-2</notes><notes>content type line 23</notes><abstract>We benchmarked the ability of comparative computational approaches to correctly discriminate protein pairs sharing a common active ligand (positive protein pairs) from protein pairs with no common active ligands (negative protein pairs). Since the target and the off-targets of a drug share at least a common ligand, i.e., the drug itself, the prediction of positive protein pairs may help identify off-targets. We evaluated representative protein-centric and ligand-centric approaches, including (1) 2D and 3D ligand similarity, (2) several measures of protein sequence similarity in conjunction with different sequence sources (e.g., full protein sequence versus binding site residues), and (3) a newly described pocket shape similarity and alignment program called SiteHopper. While the sequence-based alignment of pocket residues achieved the best overall performance, SiteHopper outperformed sequence-based approaches for unrelated proteins with only 20–30% pocket residue identity. Analogously, among ligand-centric approaches, path-based fingerprints achieved the best overall performance, but ROCS-based ligand shape similarity outperformed path-based fingerprints for structurally dissimilar ligands (Tanimoto 25%–40%). A significant drop in recognition performance was observed for ligand-centric approaches when PDB ligands were used instead of ChEMBL ligands. Finally, we analyzed the relationship between pocket shape and ligand shape in our data set and found that similar ligands tend to bind to similar pockets while similar pockets may accept a range of different-shaped ligands.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Chemical Society</pub><pmid>27559831</pmid><doi>10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00118</doi><tpages>12</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 1549-9596
ispartof	Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2016-09, Vol.56 (9), p.1734-1745
issn	1549-9596 1549-960X
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1823908040
source	American Chemical Society:Jisc Collections:American Chemical Society Read & Publish Agreement 2022-2024 (Reading list)
subjects	Amino Acid Sequence Benchmarking Binding sites Computational Biology Correlation analysis Ligands Models, Molecular Protein Conformation Proteins Proteins - chemistry Proteins - metabolism
title	Prediction of Protein Pairs Sharing Common Active Ligands Using Protein Sequence, Structure, and Ligand Similarity
url	http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-09-23T01%3A37%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prediction%20of%20Protein%20Pairs%20Sharing%20Common%20Active%20Ligands%20Using%20Protein%20Sequence,%20Structure,%20and%20Ligand%20Similarity&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20chemical%20information%20and%20modeling&rft.au=Chen,%20Yu-Chen&rft.date=2016-09-26&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1734&rft.epage=1745&rft.pages=1734-1745&rft.issn=1549-9596&rft.eissn=1549-960X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00118&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E4208037771%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a406t-36df2be390bb491cb10daac217ff16a5e55dfc75f3357b0f962cd5152e47ff273%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826918576&rft_id=info:pmid/27559831&rfr_iscdi=true