Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Brian K. Shoichet is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Brian K. Shoichet.


Nature | 2009

Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs

Michael J. Keiser; Vincent Setola; John J. Irwin; Christian Laggner; Atheir I. Abbas; Sandra J. Hufeisen; Niels H. Jensen; Michael B. Kuijer; Roberto R. Capela de Matos; Thuy B. Tran; Ryan Whaley; Richard A. Glennon; Jérôme Hert; Kelan L. Thomas; Douglas D. Edwards; Brian K. Shoichet; Bryan L. Roth

Although drugs are intended to be selective, at least some bind to several physiological targets, explaining side effects and efficacy. Because many drug–target combinations exist, it would be useful to explore possible interactions computationally. Here we compared 3,665 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved and investigational drugs against hundreds of targets, defining each target by its ligands. Chemical similarities between drugs and ligand sets predicted thousands of unanticipated associations. Thirty were tested experimentally, including the antagonism of the β1 receptor by the transporter inhibitor Prozac, the inhibition of the 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) transporter by the ion channel drug Vadilex, and antagonism of the histamine H4 receptor by the enzyme inhibitor Rescriptor. Overall, 23 new drug–target associations were confirmed, five of which were potent (<100 nM). The physiological relevance of one, the drug N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) on serotonergic receptors, was confirmed in a knockout mouse. The chemical similarity approach is systematic and comprehensive, and may suggest side-effects and new indications for many drugs.


Nature Biotechnology | 2007

Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry

Michael J. Keiser; Bryan L. Roth; Blaine N. Armbruster; Paul Ernsberger; John J. Irwin; Brian K. Shoichet

The identification of protein function based on biological information is an area of intense research. Here we consider a complementary technique that quantitatively groups and relates proteins based on the chemical similarity of their ligands. We began with 65,000 ligands annotated into sets for hundreds of drug targets. The similarity score between each set was calculated using ligand topology. A statistical model was developed to rank the significance of the resulting similarity scores, which are expressed as a minimum spanning tree to map the sets together. Although these maps are connected solely by chemical similarity, biologically sensible clusters nevertheless emerged. Links among unexpected targets also emerged, among them that methadone, emetine and loperamide (Imodium) may antagonize muscarinic M3, α2 adrenergic and neurokinin NK2 receptors, respectively. These predictions were subsequently confirmed experimentally. Relating receptors by ligand chemistry organizes biology to reveal unexpected relationships that may be assayed using the ligands themselves.


Nature | 2004

Virtual screening of chemical libraries.

Brian K. Shoichet

Virtual screening uses computer-based methods to discover new ligands on the basis of biological structures. Although widely heralded in the 1970s and 1980s, the technique has since struggled to meet its initial promise, and drug discovery remains dominated by empirical screening. Recent successes in predicting new ligands and their receptor-bound structures, and better rates of ligand discovery compared to empirical screening, have re-ignited interest in virtual screening, which is now widely used in drug discovery, albeit on a more limited scale than empirical screening.


Nature | 2012

Large Scale Prediction and Testing of Drug Activity on Side-Effect Targets

Eugen Lounkine; Michael J. Keiser; Steven Whitebread; Dmitri Mikhailov; Jacques Hamon; Jeremy L. Jenkins; Paul Lavan; Eckhard Weber; Allison K. Doak; Serge Côté; Brian K. Shoichet; Laszlo Urban

Discovering the unintended ‘off-targets’ that predict adverse drug reactions is daunting by empirical methods alone. Drugs can act on several protein targets, some of which can be unrelated by conventional molecular metrics, and hundreds of proteins have been implicated in side effects. Here we use a computational strategy to predict the activity of 656 marketed drugs on 73 unintended ‘side-effect’ targets. Approximately half of the predictions were confirmed, either from proprietary databases unknown to the method or by new experimental assays. Affinities for these new off-targets ranged from 1 nM to 30 μM. To explore relevance, we developed an association metric to prioritize those new off-targets that explained side effects better than any known target of a given drug, creating a drug–target–adverse drug reaction network. Among these new associations was the prediction that the abdominal pain side effect of the synthetic oestrogen chlorotrianisene was mediated through its newly discovered inhibition of the enzyme cyclooxygenase-1. The clinical relevance of this inhibition was borne out in whole human blood platelet aggregation assays. This approach may have wide application to de-risking toxicological liabilities in drug discovery.


Journal of Medicinal Chemistry | 2012

Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking

Michael M. Mysinger; Michael Carchia; John J. Irwin; Brian K. Shoichet

A key metric to assess molecular docking remains ligand enrichment against challenging decoys. Whereas the directory of useful decoys (DUD) has been widely used, clear areas for optimization have emerged. Here we describe an improved benchmarking set that includes more diverse targets such as GPCRs and ion channels, totaling 102 proteins with 22886 clustered ligands drawn from ChEMBL, each with 50 property-matched decoys drawn from ZINC. To ensure chemotype diversity, we cluster each target’s ligands by their Bemis–Murcko atomic frameworks. We add net charge to the matched physicochemical properties and include only the most dissimilar decoys, by topology, from the ligands. An online automated tool (http://decoys.docking.org) generates these improved matched decoys for user-supplied ligands. We test this data set by docking all 102 targets, using the results to improve the balance between ligand desolvation and electrostatics in DOCK 3.6. The complete DUD-E benchmarking set is freely available at http://dude.docking.org.


Journal of Molecular Biology | 2002

Evolution of an antibiotic resistance enzyme constrained by stability and activity trade-offs.

Xiaojun Wang; George Minasov; Brian K. Shoichet

Pressured by antibiotic use, resistance enzymes have been evolving new activities. Does such evolution have a cost? To investigate this question at the molecular level, clinically isolated mutants of the beta-lactamase TEM-1 were studied. When purified, mutant enzymes had increased activity against cephalosporin antibiotics but lost both thermodynamic stability and kinetic activity against their ancestral targets, penicillins. The X-ray crystallographic structures of three mutant enzymes were determined. These structures suggest that activity gain and stability loss is related to an enlarged active site cavity in the mutant enzymes. In several clinically isolated mutant enzymes, a secondary substitution is observed far from the active site (Met182-->Thr). This substitution had little effect on enzyme activity but restored stability lost by substitutions near the active site. This regained stability conferred an advantage in vivo. This pattern of stability loss and restoration may be common in the evolution of new enzyme activity.


Nature Chemical Biology | 2015

The promise and peril of chemical probes

C.H. Arrowsmith; James E. Audia; Christopher M. Austin; Jonathan B. Baell; Jonathan Bennett; Julian Blagg; C. Bountra; Paul E. Brennan; Peter J. Brown; Mark Edward Bunnage; Carolyn Buser-Doepner; Robert M. Campbell; Adrian Carter; Philip Cohen; Robert A. Copeland; Ben Cravatt; Jayme L. Dahlin; Dashyant Dhanak; A. Edwards; Mathias Frederiksen; Stephen V. Frye; Nathanael S. Gray; Charles E. Grimshaw; David Hepworth; Trevor Howe; Kilian Huber; Jian Jin; Stefan Knapp; Joanne Kotz; Ryan G. Kruger

Chemical probes are powerful reagents with increasing impacts on biomedical research. However, probes of poor quality or that are used incorrectly generate misleading results. To help address these shortcomings, we will create a community-driven wiki resource to improve quality and convey current best practice.


Nature Chemical Biology | 2011

Ligand discovery from a dopamine D3 receptor homology model and crystal structure

Jens Carlsson; Ryan G. Coleman; Vincent Setola; John J. Irwin; Hao Fan; Avner Schlessinger; Andrej Sali; Bryan L. Roth; Brian K. Shoichet

G-Protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) are intensely studied as drug targets and for their role in signaling. With the determination of the first crystal structures, interest in structure-based ligand discovery has increased. Unfortunately, most GPCRs lack experimental structures. The determination of the D3 receptor structure, and a community challenge to predict it, enabled a fully prospective comparison of ligand discovery from a modeled structure versus that of the subsequently released crystal structure. Over 3.3 million molecules were docked against a homology model, and 26 of the highest ranking were tested for binding. Six had affinities from 0.2 to 3.1μM. Subsequently, the crystal structure was released and the docking screen repeated. Of the 25 compounds selected, five had affinities from 0.3 to 3.0μM. One of the novel ligands from the homology model screen was optimized for affinity to 81nM. The feasibility of docking screens against modeled GPCRs more generally is considered.


Nature Protocols | 2006

A detergent-based assay for the detection of promiscuous inhibitors

Brian Y. Feng; Brian K. Shoichet

At micromolar concentrations, many small molecules self-associate into colloidal aggregates that non-specifically inhibit enzymes and other proteins. Here we describe a protocol for identifying aggregate-based inhibitors and distinguishing them from small molecules that inhibit via specific mechanisms. As a convenient proxy for promiscuous, aggregate-based inhibition, we monitor inhibition of β-lactamase in the absence and presence of detergent. Inhibition that is attenuated in the presence of detergent is characteristic of an aggregate-based mechanism. In the 96-well-format assay described here, about 200 molecules can be tested, in duplicate, per hour for detergent-dependent sensitivity. Furthermore, we also describe simple experiments that can offer additional confirmation of aggregate-based inhibition.


Proteins | 1999

Ligand solvation in molecular docking.

Brian K. Shoichet; Andrew R. Leach; Irwin D. Kuntz

Solvation plays an important role in ligand‐protein association and has a strong impact on comparisons of binding energies for dissimilar molecules. When databases of such molecules are screened for complementarity to receptors of known structure, as often occurs in structure‐based inhibitor discovery, failure to consider ligand solvation often leads to putative ligands that are too highly charged or too large. To correct for the different charge states and sizes of the ligands, we calculated electrostatic and non‐polar solvation free energies for molecules in a widely used molecular database, the Available Chemicals Directory (ACD). A modified Born equation treatment was used to calculate the electrostatic component of ligand solvation. The non‐polar component of ligand solvation was calculated based on the surface area of the ligand and parameters derived from the hydration energies of apolar ligands. These solvation energies were subtracted from the ligand‐receptor interaction energies. We tested the usefulness of these corrections by screening the ACD for molecules that complemented three proteins of known structure, using a molecular docking program. Correcting for ligand solvation improved the rankings of known ligands and discriminated against molecules with inappropriate charge states and sizes. Proteins 1999;34:4–16.

Collaboration


Dive into the Brian K. Shoichet's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John J. Irwin

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Bryan L. Roth

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Steven C. Almo

Albert Einstein College of Medicine

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Emilia Caselli

Case Western Reserve University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Fabio Prati

Case Western Reserve University

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Andrej Sali

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Irwin D. Kuntz

University of California

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge