Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,042

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Common Mechanism Underlying Promiscuous Inhibitors from Virtual and High-Throughput Screening

Open access
McGovern, Susan L., Caselli, Emilia, Grigorieff, Nikolaus, Shoichet, Brian K.·2002·Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
DOI 10.1021/jm010533y
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

High-throughput and virtual screening are widely used to discover novel leads for drug design. On examination, many screening hits appear non-drug-like: they act noncompetitively, show little relationship between structure and activity, and have poor selectivity. Attempts to develop these peculiar molecules into viable leads are often futile, and much time can be wasted on the characterization of these "phony" hits. Despite their common occurrence, the mechanism of action of these promiscuous molecules remains unknown. To investigate this problem, 45 diverse screening hits were studied. Fifteen of these were previously reported as inhibitors of various receptors, including beta-lactamase, malarial protease, dihydrofolate reductase, HIV Tar RNA, thymidylate synthase, kinesin, insulin receptor, tyrosine kinases, farnesyltransferase, gyrase, prions, triosephosphate isomerase, nitric oxide synthase, phosphoinositide 3-kinase, and integrase; 30 were from an in-house screening library of a major pharmaceutical company. In addition to their original targets, 35 of these 45 compounds were shown to inhibit several unrelated model enzymes. These 35 screening hits included compounds, such as fullerenes, dyes, and quercetin, that have repeatedly shown activity against diverse targets. When tested against the model enzymes, the compounds showed time-dependent but reversible inhibition that was dramatically attenuated by albumin, guanidinium, or urea. Surprisingly, increasing the concentration of the model enzymes 10-fold largely eliminated inhibition, despite a 1000-fold excess of inhibitor; a well-behaved competitive inhibitor did not show this behavior. One model to explain these observations was that the active form of the promiscuous inhibitors was an aggregate of many individual molecules. To test this hypothesis, light scattering and electron microscopy experiments were performed. The nonspecific inhibitors were observed to form particles of 30-400 nm diameter by both techniques. In control experiments, a well-behaved competitive inhibitor and an inactive dye-like molecule were not observed to form aggregates. Consistent with the hypothesis that the aggregates are the inhibitory species, the particle size and IC(50) values of the promiscuous inhibitors varied monotonically with ionic strength; a competitive inhibitor was unaffected by changes in ionic strength. Unexpectedly, aggregate formation appears to explain the activity of many nonspecific inhibitors and may account for the activity of many promiscuous screening hits. Molecules acting via this mechanism may be widespread in drug discovery screening databases. Recognition of these compounds may improve screening results in many areas of pharmaceutical interest.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jm010533y

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 1,042

Metadata

Authors
McGovern, S. L., Caselli, E., Grigorieff, N., & Shoichet, B. K.
Venue
Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2002-03-09
Volume
45
Issue
8
Pages
1712-1722
ISSN
  • 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-4804
DOI
10.1021/jm010533y
OpenAlex
W2127287358
Cited by
1,042
References
31
FWCI
53.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.