Annotation of Allosteric Compounds to Enhance Bioactivity Modeling for Class A GPCRs

Proteins often have both orthosteric and allosteric binding sites. Endogenous ligands, such as hormones and neurotransmitters, bind to the orthosteric site, while synthetic ligands may bind to orthosteric or allosteric sites, which has become a focal point in drug discovery. Usually, such allosteric modulators bind to a protein noncompetitively with its endogenous ligand or substrate. The growing interest in allosteric modulators has resulted in a substantial increase of these entities and their features such as binding data in chemical libraries and databases. Although this data surge fuels research focused on allosteric modulators, binding data is unfortunately not always clearly indicated as being allosteric or orthosteric. Therefore, allosteric binding data is difficult to retrieve from databases that contain a mixture of allosteric and orthosteric compounds. This decreases model performance when statistical methods, such as machine learning models, are applied. In previous work we generated an allosteric data subset of ChEMBL release 14. In the current study an improved text mining approach is used to retrieve the allosteric and orthosteric binding types from the literature in ChEMBL release 22. Moreover, convolutional deep neural networks were constructed to predict the binding types of compounds for class A G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs). Temporal split validation showed the model predictiveness with Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC) = 0.54, sensitivity allosteric = 0.54, and sensitivity orthosteric = 0.94. Finally, this study shows that the inclusion of accurate binding types increases binding predictions by including them as descriptor (MCC = 0.27 improved to MCC = 0.34; validated for class A GPCRs, trained on all GPCRs). Although the focus of this study is mainly on class A GPCRs, binding types for all protein classes in ChEMBL were obtained and explored. The data set is included as a supplement to this study, allowing the reader to select the compounds and binding types of interest.Medicinal Chemistr

Are there physicochemical differences between allosteric and competitive ligands?

<div><p>Previous studies have compared the physicochemical properties of allosteric compounds to non-allosteric compounds. Those studies have found that allosteric compounds tend to be smaller, more rigid, more hydrophobic, and more drug-like than non-allosteric compounds. However, previous studies have not properly corrected for the fact that some protein targets have much more data than other systems. This generates concern regarding the possible skew that can be introduced by the inherent bias in the available data. Hence, this study aims to determine how robust the previous findings are to the addition of newer data. This study utilizes the Allosteric Database (ASD v3.0) and ChEMBL v20 to systematically obtain large datasets of both allosteric and competitive ligands. This dataset contains 70,219 and 9,511 unique ligands for the allosteric and competitive sets, respectively. Physically relevant compound descriptors were computed to examine the differences in their chemical properties. Particular attention was given to removing redundancy in the data and normalizing across ligand diversity and varied protein targets. The resulting distributions only show that allosteric ligands tend to be more aromatic and rigid and do not confirm the increase in hydrophobicity or difference in drug-likeness. These results are robust across different normalization schemes.</p></div

Are there physicochemical differences between allosteric and competitive ligands?

Previous studies have compared the physicochemical properties of allosteric compounds to non-allosteric compounds. Those studies have found that allosteric compounds tend to be smaller, more rigid, more hydrophobic, and more drug-like than non-allosteric compounds. However, previous studies have not properly corrected for the fact that some protein targets have much more data than other systems. This generates concern regarding the possible skew that can be introduced by the inherent bias in the available data. Hence, this study aims to determine how robust the previous findings are to the addition of newer data. This study utilizes the Allosteric Database (ASD v3.0) and ChEMBL v20 to systematically obtain large datasets of both allosteric and competitive ligands. This dataset contains 70,219 and 9,511 unique ligands for the allosteric and competitive sets, respectively. Physically relevant compound descriptors were computed to examine the differences in their chemical properties. Particular attention was given to removing redundancy in the data and normalizing across ligand diversity and varied protein targets. The resulting distributions only show that allosteric ligands tend to be more aromatic and rigid and do not confirm the increase in hydrophobicity or difference in drug-likeness. These results are robust across different normalization schemes

Are there physicochemical differences between allosteric and competitive ligands? - Fig 4

<p>The distribution of protein targets for the allosteric (A) and competitive (B) compounds.</p