Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry


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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Comparing similar and dissimilar ligand sets to that of DHFR.
Figure 2: Similarity maps for 246 enzymes and receptors.
Figure 3: Comparison of sequence and ligand-based protein similarity.
Figure 4: Testing the off-target activities of methadone, loperamide, and emetine.


  1. 1

    Roth, B.L., Sheffler, D.J. & Kroeze, W.K. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 353–359 (2004).

  2. 2

    Kroeze, W.K., Kristiansen, K. & Roth, B.L. Molecular biology of serotonin receptors structure and function at the molecular level. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2, 507–528 (2002).

  3. 3

    Ebert, B., Andersen, S. & Krogsgaard-Larsen, P. Ketobemidone, methadone and pethidine are non-competitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists in the rat cortex and spinal cord. Neurosci. Lett. 187, 165–168 (1995).

  4. 4

    Callahan, R.J., Au, J.D., Paul, M., Liu, C. & Yost, C.S. Functional inhibition by methadone of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors expressed in Xenopus oocytes: stereospecific and subunit effects. Anesth. Analg. 98, 653–659 (2004).

  5. 5

    Krueger, K.E. Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptors: a second site of action for benzodiazepines. Neuropsychopharmacology 4, 237–244 (1991).

  6. 6

    Finlayson, K., Witchel, H.J., McCulloch, J. & Sharkey, J. Acquired QT interval prolongation and HERG: implications for drug discovery and development. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 500, 129–142 (2004).

  7. 7

    Schreiber, S.L. Small molecules: the missing link in the central dogma. Nat. Chem. Biol. 1, 64–66 (2005).

  8. 8

    Johnson, M.A. & Maggiora, G.M. Concepts and applications of molecular similarity. (Wiley, New York; 1990).

  9. 9

    Matter, H. Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: a validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 40, 1219–1229 (1997).

  10. 10

    Whittle, M., Gillet, V.J., Willett, P., Alex, A. & Loesel, J. Enhancing the effectiveness of virtual screening by fusing nearest neighbor lists: a comparison of similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 1840–1848 (2004).

  11. 11

    Willett, P. Searching techniques for databases of two- and three-dimensional chemical structures. J. Med. Chem. 48, 4183–4199 (2005).

  12. 12

    Paolini, G.V., Shapland, R.H.B. & v Hoorn, W.P. Mason, J.S. & Hopkins, A.L. Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 805–815 (2006).

  13. 13

    Vieth, M. et al. Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1697, 243–257 (2004).

  14. 14

    Izrailev, S. & Farnum, M.A. Enzyme classification by ligand binding. Proteins 57, 711–724 (2004).

  15. 15

    Bender, A. et al. “Bayes affinity fingerprints” improve retrieval rates in virtual screening and define orthogonal bioactivity space: when are multitarget drugs a feasible concept? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 2445–2456 (2006).

  16. 16

    Nidhi, Glick, M., Davies, J.W. & Jenkins, J.L. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category Bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 1124–1133 (2006).

  17. 17

    Steindl, T.M., Schuster, D., Laggner, C. & Langer, T. Parallel screening: a novel concept in pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 2146–2157 (2006).

  18. 18

    Schuffenhauer, A., Floersheim, P., Acklin, P. & Jacoby, E. Similarity metrics for ligands reflecting the similarity of the target proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 391–405 (2003).

  19. 19

    Horvath, D. & Jeandenans, C. Neighborhood behavior of in silico structural spaces with respect to in vitro activity spaces-a novel understanding of the molecular similarity principle in the context of multiple receptor binding profiles. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 680–690 (2003).

  20. 20

    Altschul, S.F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E.W. & Lipman, D.J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990).

  21. 21

    Karlin, S. & Altschul, S.F. Methods for assessing the statistical significance of molecular sequence features by using general scoring schemes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87, 2264–2268 (1990).

  22. 22

    Pearson, W.R. Empirical statistical estimates for sequence similarity searches. J. Mol. Biol. 276, 71–84 (1998).

  23. 23

    Sheridan, R.P. & Miller, M.D. A Method for Visualizing Recurrent Topological Substructures in Sets of Active Molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38, 915–924 (1998).

  24. 24

    Bradshaw, J. & Sayle, R.A. Some thoughts on significant similarity and sufficient diversity. Presented at the 1997 EuroMUG meeting, 7–8 October 7–8, 1997, Verona, Italy. < Bradshaw/Significant_Similarity/Significant_Similarity.html>.

  25. 25

    Hert, J. et al. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44, 1177–1185 (2004).

  26. 26

    Hert, J. et al. New methods for ligand-based virtual screening: use of data fusion and machine learning to enhance the effectiveness of similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 462–470 (2006).

  27. 27

    Altschul, S.F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).

  28. 28

    Sheridan, R.P. & Kearsley, S.K. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov. Today 7, 903–911 (2002).

  29. 29

    Goodman, L.S., Gilman, A., Brunton, L.L., Lazo, J.S. & Parker, K.L. Goodman & Gilman's The Pharmacological Basis Of Therapeutics, edn. 11 (McGraw-Hill, New York; 2006).

  30. 30

    Cleves, A.E. & Jain, A.N. Robust ligand-based modeling of the biological targets of known drugs. J. Med. Chem. 49, 2921–2938 (2006).

  31. 31

    DRUGDEX (see Methadone) (Thomson Micromedex, Greenwood Village, Colorado, 2006). <>.

  32. 32

    de Vos, J.W., Geerlings, P.J., van den Brink, W., Ufkes, J.G. & van Wilgenburg, H. Pharmacokinetics of methadone and its primary metabolite in 20 opiate addicts. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 48, 361–366 (1995).

  33. 33

    DRUGDEX (see Emetine) (Thomson Micromedex, Greenwood Village, Colorado; 2006). <>

  34. 34

    Kojima, S., Ikeda, M. & Kamikawa, Y. Loperamide inhibits tachykinin NK3-receptor-triggered serotonin release without affecting NK2-receptor-triggered serotonin release from guinea pig colonic mucosa. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 98, 175–180 (2005).

  35. 35

    MDL Drug Data Report, 2006.1 (MDL Information Systems Inc., San Leandro, CA, 2006).

  36. 36

    Schuffenhauer, A. et al. An ontology for pharmaceutical ligands and its application for in silico screening and library design. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 947–955 (2002).

  37. 37

    International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Nomenclature Committee & Webb, E.C. Enzyme Nomenclature 1992: Recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee of the International Union Of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology on the Nomenclature and Classification of Enzymes (Academic Press, San Diego; 1992).

  38. 38

    James, C., Weininger, D. & Delany, J. Daylight Theory Manual (Daylight Chemical Information Systems Inc., Mission Viejo, CA; 1992–2005).

  39. 39

    Willett, P. Similarity and Clustering in Chemical Information Systems (Research Studies Press; Wiley, Letchworth, Hertfordshire, England; New York; 1987).

  40. 40

    Brown, R.D. & Martin, Y.C. Use of structure Activity data to compare structure-based clustering methods and descriptors for use in compound selection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sc.i 36, 572–584 (1996).

  41. 41

    Chen, X. & Reynolds, C.H. Performance of similarity measures in fragment-based similarity searching: comparison of structural descriptors and similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42, 1407–1414 (2002).

  42. 42

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T. & Peterson, P. SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python. (2001). <>.

  43. 43

    Kruskal, J. On the shortest spanning subtree and the traveling salesman problem. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 7, 48–50 (1956).

  44. 44

    Shannon, P. et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 13, 2498–2504 (2003).

  45. 45

    Pavlidis, P. & Noble, W.S. Matrix2png: a utility for visualizing matrix data. Bioinformatics 19, 295–296 (2003).

  46. 46

    Rost, B. Enzyme function less conserved than anticipated. J. Mol. Biol. 318, 595–608 (2002).

  47. 47

    Roth, B.L. et al. Salvinorin A: a potent naturally occurring nonnitrogenous kappa opioid selective agonist. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 11934–11939 (2002).

  48. 48

    Davies, M.A., Compton-Toth, B.A., Hufeisen, S.J., Meltzer, H.Y. & Roth, B.L. The highly efficacious actions of N-desmethylclozapine at muscarinic receptors are unique and not a common property of either typical or atypical antipsychotic drugs: is M1 agonism a pre-requisite for mimicking clozapine's actions? Psychopharmacology (Berl.) 178, 451–460 (2005).

  49. 49

    Chelala, J.L., Kilani, A., Miller, M.J., Martin, R.J. & Ernsberger, P. Muscarinic receptor binding sites of the M4 subtype in porcine lung parenchyma. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 83, 200–207 (1998).

  50. 50

    Takeda, Y. et al. Ligand binding kinetics of substance P and neurokinin A receptors stably expressed in Chinese hamster ovary cells and evidence for differential stimulation of inositol 1,4,5-trisphosphate and cyclic AMP second messenger responses. J. Neurochem. 59, 740–745 (1992).

  51. 51

    Wozniak, M. & Limbird, L.E. The three alpha 2-adrenergic receptor subtypes achieve basolateral localization in Madin-Darby canine kidney II cells via different targeting mechanisms. J. Biol. Chem. 271, 5017–5024 (1996).

Download references


Supported by GM71896 (to B.K.S. and J.J.I.), Training Grant GM67547, a National Science Foundation graduate fellowship (to M.J.K.), the National Institute of Mental Health Psychoactive Drug Screening Program (B.L.R. and P.E.) and F32-GM074554 (to B.N.A.). We are grateful to Mark von Zastrow, Eswar Narayanan, Paul Valiant and Michael Mysinger for many thoughtful suggestions and to Jerome Hert, Veena Thomas and Kristin Coan for reading this manuscript. We also thank Elsevier MDL for use of the MDDR, and Daylight for the Daylight toolkit.

Author information




J.J.I., B.K.S. and M.J.K. developed the ideas for SEA, M.J.K. wrote the SEA algorithms and undertook the calculations reported here, with some assistance from J.J.I. B.L.R. and P.E. performed the methadone assays, B.N.A. performed the emetine and loperamide assays, and B.K.S. and M.J.K. wrote the manuscript with editorial review from J.J.I. and B.L.R.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to John J Irwin or Brian K Shoichet.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Figure 1

Statistical model fits for MDDR. (PDF 405 kb)

Supplementary Figure 2

Set recovery in database search after TC-chemotype filtering. (PDF 72 kb)

Supplementary Figure 3

Set recovery in database search with progressive random removal of compounds from query set. (PDF 72 kb)

Supplementary Figure 4

Set recovery in database search over 246 MDDR classes. (PDF 79 kb)

Supplementary Figure 5

Choice of threshold parameter. (PDF 171 kb)

Supplementary Figure 6

PSI-BLAST heat map of MDDR activity class target protein sequences compared against themselves. (PDF 964 kb)

Supplementary Figure 7

SEA heat map of MDDR activity classes compared against themselves. (PDF 579 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Expanded statistics for Table 1 and Table 2. (PDF 114 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

MDDR unrelated orphans. (PDF 71 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

Rankings of the correct MDDR activity class for each PubChem MeSH pharmacological action set by SEA and by MPS. (PDF 86 kb)

Supplementary Table 4

Loperamide and emetine functional assay data. (PDF 84 kb)

Supplementary Table 5

SEA statistical model fits. (PDF 91 kb)

Supplementary Methods (PDF 115 kb)

Supplementary Data (ZIP 1653 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keiser, M., Roth, B., Armbruster, B. et al. Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry. Nat Biotechnol 25, 197–206 (2007).

Download citation

Further reading