ImmtorLig_DB: repertoire of virtually screened small molecules against immune receptors to bolster host immunity

Abstract

Host directed therapies to boost immunity against infection are gaining considerable impetus following the observation that use of antibiotics has become a continuous source for the emergence of drug resistant strains of pathogens. Receptors expressed by the cells of immune system play a cardinal role in initiating sequence of events necessary to ameliorate many morbid conditions. Although, ligands for the immune receptors are available; but their use is limited due to complex structure, synthesis and cost-effectiveness. Virtual screening (VS) is an integral part of chemoinformatics and computer-aided drug design (CADD) and aims to streamline the process of drug discovery. ImmtorLig_DB is a repertoire of 5000 novel small molecules, screened from ZINC database and ranked using structure based virtual screening (SBVS) against 25 immune receptors which play a pivotal role in defending and initiating the activation of immune system. Consequently, in the current study, small molecules were screened by docking on the essential domains present on the receptors expressed by cells of immune system. The screened molecules exhibited efficacious binding to immune receptors, and indicated a possibility of discovering novel small molecules. Other features of ImmtorLig_DB include information about availability, clustering analysis, and estimation of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) properties of the screened small molecules. Structural comparisons indicate that predicted small molecules may be considered novel. Further, this repertoire is available via a searchable graphical user interface (GUI) through http://bioinfo.imtech.res.in/bvs/immtor/.

Introduction

Discovering small molecules that are pharmacologically active due to their ability to allosterically modulate the biological function of a protein, qualify the definition of ‘lead compounds’. Further, some of these small molecules possessing desirable characteristics of stability, solubility, effective functional groups, non-toxic and devoid of any undesirable side effects are successfully termed as molecules that have ‘drug like’ properties1. Among the major challenges of drug discovery is the identification of small molecules that satisfy the above criteria. Advancements in chemoinformatics and Computer-Aided Drug Designing (CADD) have revolutionized the process of drug discovery into a fast, cost effective, and reliable approach. Further, such approaches are reasonably much more efficient in terms of screening of small molecules that can act as lead compounds against biological targets2,3. An integral part of this computer aided method is the origin of algorithmic approach termed as ‘Virtual Screening’ (VS) that dates back to years of 1970, but has become popular in the late 1990’s4,5. Such techniques for identifying pharmacologically active molecules have further gained thrust with the emergence of high throughput, freely available, user-friendly docking software and databases, and the evolution of in silico approaches6,7. The algorithmic approach of virtual screening can be subdivided into two strategies; Ligand-Based Virtual Screening (LBVS) and Structure-Based Virtual Screening (SBVS)8,9,10. During LBVS process, pharmacophore mapping is employed on molecules that are known to bind to biological targets for identifying potentially novel pharmacophore hits, using similarity searching approach. Such chemical similarity search in terms of identifying molecules with akin shape and configuration is performed against a database11,12. On the other hand, SBVS encompasses a modeling approach, wherein binding interactions via protein ligand docking of small molecules, housed in a particular database is performed on its biological target (receptor protein)13. Both the approaches are followed up using ranking algorithms that employ scoring functions to shortlist potential ligands, and defining their affinity for its receptor site14.

Traditionally, G-Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) have been the target for identifying small molecules using combination of high throughput and virtual screening approaches15. Such strategies have been successful in identifying novel compounds or reducing the side effects of drugs by modifying the existing scaffold16,17. Interestingly, various methods including computational approaches have been used in identifying novel small molecules that target immune receptors, like pattern recognition receptors (PRRs)18,19,20,21, intracellular adhesion molecules22,23,24, and cytokines25,26,27,28. Relatively economical and high-speed algorithmic approaches like SBVS can screen millions of small molecules without the need of their physical existence13. Such algorithmic approaches have become an indispensable armamentarium for discovering novel drugs. There are several success stories, against GPCRs29,30 of identification of novel molecules by virtual screening. We were inspired by the aforementioned strategies and therefore screened small molecules for array of immune receptors, which play pivotal role during morbid pathological conditions. Furthermore, the available immunomodulatory therapies targeting the immune receptors include fusion and recombinant proteins, monoclonal antibodies, adjuvants and immune conjugates, vaccines, and gene therapies31. Majority of such biologics targeting immune receptors are more complex than small molecules or generic drugs. These involve complex production facilities and high cost of manufacture, shorter shelf life and specialized storage requirements. This inevitably results in variable immunogenicity and efficacy that may be attributed to product formulation process and host related factors32,33,34,35,36.

As a part of the present study, we are preparing central repertoire; ImmtorLig_DB using online SBVS pipeline software to screen a collection of small molecules for an array of receptors that are expressed by the cells of the immune system and play a cardinal role in bolstering the immune system against pathogens. As indicated in literature13,37,38, we addressed the major requirements for a successful SBVS to ensure quality and quantity of the screened small molecules. In the final part of study, we have utilized clustering and binning approach to determine the structural relatedness of the molecules that bind to a particular immune receptor and estimated ADME properties of each screened small molecule. ImmtorLig_DB with 5000 screened small molecules against an array of immune receptors can help a community of researchers with little or no background of chemoinformatics in exploring potential novel ligands to target immune receptors. Consequently, it will expedite the process of drug discovery.

Methodology

Establishing 3D structure of the immune receptor

Success of SBVS depends upon quality of the target structure13 and literature studies supported use of crystal structures with resolution less than 3.5 Å, as an optimum criteria for algorithms like SBVS38,39. In the present study, high resolution X-ray structures having resolution less than 3.5 Å were either obtained for virtual screening or were used as a template for homology modeling from Protein Data Bank (PDB). The databank was screened to shortlist the available crystal structures of the following immune receptors of human: (i) innate receptors: toll like receptors (TLR-1/TLR-2, TLR-4/MD-2, TLR-2/TLR-6), mincle; (ii) major histocompatibility complex 1 and 2 (MHC-I, MHC-II); (iii) co-stimulatory molecules CD28, CD40, CD80, CD86; (iv) co-inhibitory molecules: CTLA-4, PD-L1, Tim-3, decoy receptor, Fas ligand, Fas receptor; iv) cytokines: IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23; (v) adhesion molecules: ICAM, VCAM, CEACAM1. Further, templates were selected from available crystal structures in PDB to perform homology modeling for predicting 3D structure of immune receptors, whose crystal structures did not meet the above criteria. Multi-chain modeling approach was employed for deducing the heterodimer structures and monomeric forms. For this, online server, HOMCOS 1.0 (http://homcos.pdbj.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?LANG=en)40 was employed to screen and list the similar PDB templates and then modeling was performed employing Modeller version 9.1741. Protein homology modeling web server CPHmodels 3.2 (http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/services/CPHmodels/)42 was used to predict structure for some immune receptors. Such receptors whose structures were predicted prior to screening of ligands were highlighted in the database. In addition, receptor preparation involving protonation of amino acids, optimizing hydrogen bonds, assigning partial charges, relieving steric clashes in the structure were performed prior to virtual screening steps13. Structures were visualized using PyMol (http://www.pymol.org).

Delineating or predicting ligand binding site for immune receptors

Ligand binding sites typically have concave cavity on the receptor molecule that has appropriate amino acid residues, where potential drug may bind43. Such sites can be the active sites of an enzyme, where receptor is formed with other moieties or the essential amino acid residues motifs that are necessary for functioning of the receptor13,43. The present study used the information obtained from co-crystallized structures of bound biological or synthetic ligand of the immune receptors in identifying structure motifs that are important for carrying out physiological function. This was achieved by using PyMol and highlighting and listing the interacting amino acid residues within the 4 Å region of the co-crystallized ligand. In past, such an approach in designing novel ligands have been successfully employed for GPCRs44. In silico prediction of ligand binding sites was carried out for immune receptors that were not co-crystallized with biological or synthetic ligand, using PocketPickker (CLIPPERS) feature available in Blaster Dock version 1.6.045 or CASTp46 (Computed Atlas of Surface Topography of proteins) server (http://sts.bioe.uic.edu/castp/).

Identification of small molecules for the target receptor by DOCK Blaster

An important prerequisite for a virtual screening algorithm is its ability to access a database of drug like compounds. The cataloging and number of entries in such databases are major benchmarks that dictate the performance and subsequent outcome of VS algorithms, both in terms of quality and quantity10,37. Screening process was initiated by docking over 30 million small molecules from ZINC database on a specified flexible ligand binding sites of respective targets. The small molecule sampling scheme has been set to “finer” that uses 55 “hots spots” and narrower bins along with “normal” scoring scheme utilizing standard AMBER 94 partial atomic charges on protein. The ranking score for each conformation is a combination of Van der waals forces (Vdw) and Electrostatic interaction (ES), corrected by partial ligand desolvation (Desolv) to obtain the free energy of binding (∆G). Based on the values of ∆G, top 200 small molecules were identified for each immune target and these were subjected to 100 steps simplex rigid body minimization47.

The above stated screening process was performed using the automated interface of DOCK Blaster version 1.6.0 (http://blaster.docking.org/)47 that has a pipeline of six modules, namely parser, scrutinizer, preparer, calibrator, docker, and assessor modules. These include identifying the receptor, resolving disorders, protonation and scoring grid assignment, computing scoring parameters, screening specified ZINC database subset over multiple CPUs, and preparation of results.

Clustering analysis of array of small molecules that binds to immune receptors

Small molecules screened for each immune receptor were clustered in bins and then distributed over a scatter plot. The intent was to establish the structural relatedness of the molecules by finding a common molecular scaffold across the screened small molecules using ChemMine Tool (http://chemmine.ucr.edu/)48. The simplified molecular-input line-entry system (SMILES) for each small molecule was imported into the workbench of ChemMine Tool followed by binning into the cluster and 3D multidimensional scaling (MDS). The cutoff similarity score was defined at 0.4 (Tanimoto coefficient) for both of these.

Establishing basic ADME properties for screened small molecules

Computational approaches are among the fastest methods for evaluating efficacy of the potential drugs49. SwissADME (http://www.swissadme.ch) computed ADME properties of the small molecules, by providing SMILES as the input. Following ADME parameters were computed: (i) physicochemical properties viz; molecular weight, number of heavy atoms, aromatic heavy atoms, fraction Csp3, rotatable bonds, hydrogen bond acceptors, hydrogen bond donor, molar refractivity, and Topological Polar Surface Area (TPSA); (ii) lipophilicity is computed using five different predictive models based on partition coefficient between n-octanol and water (log Po/w). A consensus log Po/w computed using arithmetic mean of the five models is also provided; (iii) water solubility is computed using three different models viz; ESOL, Ali, and SILICOS-IT; (iv) pharmacokinetics parameters such as GI absorption, BBB permeability, Pgp (permeability glycoprotein) substrate, inhibitor of five isoforms of cytochromes P450 (CYP) [CYP1A2, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A4], and skin permeation; (v) drug-likeness is predicted using filters like Lipinski, Ghose, Veber, Egan, Muegge, and bioavailability score calculation; (vi) medicinal chemistry, including structural alerts like PAINS and Brenk alert, leadlikeness, and synthetic accessibility analysis of the ligands49.

Cataloging top 200 small molecules for each target protein into a database

The collected data of virtually screened small molecules were ranked according to their binding affinity, empirically measured in terms of free energy of binding (∆G) against the immune receptors. Further, for each small molecule screened, availability information, clustering analysis and the predicted ADME properties were accordingly cataloged in the form of a searchable database. The Entity Relationship (ER) diagram, depicting the flow of information among fields of ImmtorLig_DB was also created.

Structural comparison of virtually screened small molecules

In silico screen ligands of TLR-4/MD-2 and ICAM were subjected to structural molecular similarity comparison with the experimentally tested ligands of the same receptors. A list of these tested ligands was retrieved from PubChem50. This structural comparison of screened small molecules was performed using the text based biophysical properties and intermolecular similarities comparison protocol proposed by Vidal et al.,51. Also, all the small molecules screened were compared among themselves based on values of Tanimoto coefficient. The coefficient values were in the range from 0 to 1, with 1 depicting complete identity and 0 indicating no similarity.

Results

Selection of high resolution structure of immune receptors

High resolution crystal structures of human immune receptors were obtained from PDB for the following: TLR-1/TLR-2, TLR-4/MD-2, MHC-I, MHC-II, CD28, CD40, CD80, CD86, CTLA-4, PD-L1, decoy receptor, Fas ligand, IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23, ICAM, VCAM and CEACAM1. Further, templates from PDBIDs- 3A79, 3WH2, 5DZL, and 3TJE were selected for performing homology modeling of immune receptors viz; TLR-2/TLR-6, mincle, Tim-3, and Fas receptor. A template of PDBID 3A79 was used for modeling the heterodimeric structure of TLR-2/TLR-6, employing a crystal structure of mus musculus TLR-2/TLR-6. Homology modeling using Modeller version 9.17 was used to predict the heterodimeric structure of TLR-2/TLR-6, and monomeric form of Fas receptor. Similarly, CPH models server was used for modeling the structure of mincle and Tim-3. The crystal or predicted structures, along with their resolution for the immune receptor are presented in Fig. 1.

Figure 1
figure1

High resolution crystal structures and homology models of the immune receptors. 3D structures of following immune receptors; (i) innate receptors: toll like receptors (TLR-1/TLR-2, TLR-4/MD-2, TLR-2/TLR-6), mincle; (ii) major histocompatibility complex 1 and 2 (MHC-I, MHC-II); (iii) co-stimulatory molecules CD28, CD40, CD80, CD86; (iv) co-inhibitory molecules: CTLA-4, PD-L1, Tim-3, decoy receptor, Fas ligand, Fas receptor; iv) cytokines: IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-17, IL-23; (v) adhesion molecules: ICAM, VCAM, CEACAM1. PDB code of the crystal structures and its resolution are appropriately indicated for the immune receptors. Blue colour are indicative of the ligand binding site, around which small molecules were screened. Crystal or the predicted structures were visualised using PyMol.

Further, following PDB crystal structures 2Z7X, 3FXI, 4ZRV, 3UPR, 1FV1, 5DMJ, 3BIK, 5L36, 1M48, 4YDY, 4CNI, 4QHU, and 3D85 were available as co-crystals with their respective biological or synthetic ligand. This enabled identifying putative ligand binding sites in the immune receptors viz; TLR-1/TLR-2, TLR-4/MD2, MHC-I, MHC-II, CD40, PD-LI, decoy, Fas ligand, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-17, and IL-23. Also, the structures of templates with PDB IDs, 3A79, 3WH2, and 3TJE used for modeling TLR-2/TLR-6, mincle, and Fas receptor were available in complex with their biological or synthetic ligands, assisting in identifying the amino acid residues in the ligand binding cavity (Fig. 2).

Figure 2
figure2

Essential domains of immune receptors considered as ligand binding site. PDB code of crystal structure or template used in modeling immune receptors are accordingly mentioned. The ligand binding sites were defined by the residues located within 4 Å of any atom of ligand in the co-crystal structures. In silico prediction server, PocketPickker (CLIPPERS) or CASTp were employed to predict the largest binding groove on the immune receptors that were not co-crystallized with any ligand.

Virtual screening for small molecules was performed on essential binding motifs of the receptors

The ligand binding sites for selected immune receptors were directly obtained from the co-crystallized structure of biological or synthetic ligands and their receptors. In addition, services of in silico servers, PocketPickker (CLIPPERS) or CASTp were utilized to identify the largest binding pocket present on the surface of immune receptors in case information about the ligand binding site could not be acquired from the available crystal structures. PocketPickker (CLIPPERS) was utilized to identify the largest binding groove on PDB IDs- 1YJD, 3BX7, 1IAM, 1VCA, and 5DLZ that were of immune receptors CD28, CTLA-4, ICAM, VCAM, and CECAM, respectively. Similarly, CASTp was used for CD80, CD86 and IL-1β, having the PDB IDs- 1DRN, 1NCN, 2NVN respectively, in addition to identifying the binding groove of predicted structure of Tim-3. Figures 1 and 2 depicts PDB ID for specifying the immune receptors and also contains the information about ligand binding sites where virtually screened small molecules were docked. Amino acid residues in the ligand binding sites of the immune receptors are indicated in the Supplementary Table 1.

Two hundred high affinity small molecules were screened for each immune receptor

The screening of small molecules present in ZINC database was achieved by ranking the docking scores, obtained in terms of free energy of binding (∆G) after performing docking. Subsequently, average docking score of top 200 screened small molecules revealed high efficacy for selected immune receptors as compared to rest of the molecules (Fig. 3). The average free energy of binding, ∆G for the small molecules binding innate receptors viz; TLR-1/TLR-2, TLR-4/MD-2, TLR-2/TLR-6, and mincle were −32.822, −47.899, −34.309, and −79.193 kcal/mol, respectively. For first signal viz; MHC-I and MHC-II, the average ∆G for small molecules was −29.127 and −32.562 kcal/mol, respectively. For co-stimulatory molecules viz; CD28, CD40, CD80, and CD86, the average ∆G for the small molecules was −42.072, −24.312, −35.384, and −47.12 kcal/mol, respectively. For co-inhibitory molecules viz; CTLA-4, PD-L1, Tim-3, decoy receptor, Fas-L and Fas-R, average ∆G for the small molecules was −27.177, −42.854, −41.129, −43.255, −33.977, and −37.761 kcal/mol, respectively. For cytokines viz; IL-1β, IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IL-17, and IL-23, average ∆G for the small molecules was −39.953, −39.198, −46.717, −40.907, −63.766, and −29.487 kcal/mol, respectively. For adhesion molecules viz; ICAM, VCAM, and CECAM, average ∆G of small molecules was −39.442, −36.147, and −24.054 kcal/mol, respectively. Thus, strong efficacies of the screened small molecules for the immune receptors are revealed by the negative value of average free energy of binding (∆G) obtained via docking process.

Figure 3
figure3

Small molecules that were screened exhibited strong efficacy for their representative receptors. Figure depicts average free energy of binding (ΔG value) along with the standard deviation for screened 200 small molecules against their respective immune receptors.

Clustering analysis reveals structural resemblance among the small molecules binding an immune receptor

Clustering analysis is a powerful tool for comparing chemical structures of molecules that reveals degree of structural similarities by identifying common molecular scaffolds48. Further, such common scaffold can be an indicative of bioactive profile of the molecule or its physicochemical properties, consequently correlating structural features with biological activities48. The present study performed Multi Dimensional Scaling (MDS) and clustering on the entire group of small molecules, binding to a particular immune receptor. The output obtained is in the form of a three dimensional scatter plot where individual dot represents a small molecule (Fig. 4). Each dot in the 3D scatter plot represents individual small molecule and the distance among dots reveals the degree of similarity among molecules. More packed bunches show more structural relatedness among the screened small molecules, and using the cursor of mouse, zinc ID of the corresponding small molecule can be viewed on the scatter plot in ImmtorLig_DB. Also, binning of cluster also helped to obtain the structural diversity among the collection of small molecules binding a particular immune receptor. We distributed the array of small molecules screened for an immune receptor into various similarity groups (or bins), with each bin having varied number of small molecules. All individual bins and the group of small molecules along with their zinc IDs for a particular immune receptor are available in ImmtorLig_DB. The representative structure from the largest bin, for each immune receptor is shown in Fig. 5.

Figure 4
figure4

Multidimensional scaling suggests structural semblance. Clustering analysis was performed on the small molecules to obtain 3D scatter plot. Individual dots represent position of the ligands in a virtual space and distance among the dots reveals degree of relatedness. Confined dots in a form of dense bunches indicate the high degree of structural similarity among the screened small molecules.

Figure 5
figure5

Representative structure of small molecules from largest bin for individual immune receptors. Binning performed with Tanimoto similarity coefficient cut off of 0.4 on the small molecules resulted in multiple bins having varied number of molecules. Representative small molecules from the largest bin for each of the 25 immune receptors are shown here.

ADME properties reveal drug likeness of the small molecule binding immune receptor

Estimation of ADME properties of potential drug leads is suggested prior to performing experimental assays, thus reducing the failure rates and saving of resources49. For 5000 screened small molecules, SwissADME enabled the prediction of major physiochemical properties, lipophilicity, water solubility, phyarmacokinetics, drug likeness, medicinal chemistry and the obtained results are presented in Supplementary Table 2. ImmtorLig_DB provides access to ADME properties for each ligand from database or separately view the entire list of properties for the group of ligands binding each type of the immune receptors. Majority of small molecule screened for each immune receptor were positive for all five drug likeness filter, as revealed by the maximum number of elements existing within the intersection of all 5 sets of filters (Fig. 6).

Figure 6
figure6

Five rule based filters reveals drug likness of the screened small molecules. Numbers of small molecules belonging to a particular set are shown in Venn diagram. Blue, red, brown, yellow, and green colour sets represent Lipinski, Ghose, Veber, Egan and Muegge drug likeness filter, respectively.

Overall architecture of the ImmtorLig_DB

The cataloguing and schema of ImmtorLig_DB is depicted in Fig. 7 and the entity relationship diagram is presented in Supplementary Fig. 1. The database was built on Apache HTTP server and MySql server 1.8.3-5. The front-end of ImmtorLig_DB was developed using HTML, PHP, and Javascript while MySql was engaged for back-end architecture. GUI based and searchable database is freely accessible through http://bioinfo.imtech.res.in/bvs/immtor/.

Figure 7
figure7

Overall architecture employed for ImmtorLig_DB. The graphical schematic representation of overall approach followed for collecting and analyzing the data of 5000 small molecules that were screened for 25 immune receptors.

Asserting the novelty of virtually screened ligands

To explore the possibility that we obtained novel chemical structures among the virtually screened molecules, we have compared these with experimentally known and tested ligands of the receptors available in PubChem database50. Figure 8A is a heatmap representation of the degree of SMILES fragment based similarity between the prospective ligands obtained from virtual screening and the experimentally tested ligands from PubChem for the receptors TLR-4/MD-2 and ICAM. The color range in the heatmap is based on the Tanimoto coefficient values ranging from 0 to 1 calculated using the method of Vidal et al.,51. Thus, a value towards 1 or the orange/red color shade indicates near identity between SMILES string representations of two compounds while a value towards 0 or the yellow/green shade represents low similarity between the compared SMILES strings. Figure 8A shows a dominant occurrence of yellow/green shades indicating that a low similarity value range is observed for virtually screened compounds against PubChem compounds. Further, all virtually screened small molecules were structurally compared among themselves based on their Tanimoto coefficient and results of this comparison are presented in Fig. 8B. Majority of the small molecules i.e. 99.8% had Tanimoto coefficient values upto 0.5 and only 0.2% exhibited relatively high structural similar threshold of 0.5 to 1. In other words, the screened molecules themselves represent a structurally diverse repertoire. Thus, cataloged virtually screened small molecules in ImmtorLig_DB may be novel, and are structurally different from the experimentally tested ligands of the immune receptors.

Figure 8
figure8

Structure based virtual screening indicates novelty for the small molecules. Based on the Tanimoto coefficient values, the structural relatedness among the screened small molecules were computed. The scale ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 signifies no similarity and 1 represents complete identity. (A) Heat map depicts the structural comparison between experimentally tested ligands available in PubChem and virtually screened small molecules for the immune receptors- TLR-4/MD-2 and ICAM. (B) Pie chart represents structural similarity among five thousand screened molecules, where 98.2% of small molecules had Tanimoto coefficient up to 0.3.

Discussion

Traditionally, GPCRs have been target for identifying small molecules using the combination of high throughput and virtual screening. Such approaches have been successful in identifying novel compounds or reduce the side effects of existing drugs by modifying the scaffolds15,16,17,52. Interestingly, computational approaches have been successfully applied in identifying novel molecules against immune receptors like TLR, ICAM, and cytokines18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,53.

Immune receptors in the present study have been associated with many abnormalities, which range from autoimmunity, cancer, and developmental disorders. Major implications of identifying small molecules against the immune receptors of present study can be summarized in Table 1. The available therapeutic interventions targeting these immune receptors include immune adjuvant therapy, antibodies, and synthetic ligand based treatments. The demerits of such therapies include high manufacturing cost and specialized storage conditions, which make them difficult for mass production thereby leading to non availibility for the masses32,33,34,35,36. Small molecules have the ability to influence the activity of their receptor, thus, altering biological activity of the protein. Mechanism that explains this intrinsic change in the activity of a protein or receptor is the ability of the molecule to influence protein-protein interaction54,55

Table 1 Association of the immune receptors in context with the human diseases and list of available therapies in form of biologic drugs that target the immune receptors.

. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify small molecules that can be utilized as therapeutics, which are cheap and easy to manufacture in bulk and requires less stringent storage conditions.

Traditional approaches of identifying such novel small molecules from a chemical library, using expensive and laborious trial-error experimental assays have shown limited success3. Conversely with advancement in structural proteomics, in silico techniques, and high throughput algorithms, computer aided drug design has enabled tailoring of molecules against user specified target proteins. An approach like SBVS incorporate an armamentarium benefits that include56,57,58: i) time and cost reduction during the screening process, ii) a much larger chemical space can be virtually screened, thus significantly increasing the chances of finding novel small molecules, iii) moreover, such libraries need not be physically assessed as the initial approach does not depend on the experimental assays, iv) relatively simple in terms of the requirement of resources and manpower, iv) desirable ligands against a user specified target receptors can be screened, even if crystal structure of the receptor protein is not available. However, during the process of virtual screening of small molecules using algorithms, attrition rates and false positives are substantial challenges59.

Empirically, molecules binding a protein in the grooves which contain the catalytically important amino acids involved in carrying out the signal transduction process, have been implicated in altering the biological activity of that protein60. Therefore, the present study of virtual screening was performed on the ligand binding sites of the 25 immune receptors, thus creating a repertoire of 5000 small molecules that exhibits efficacious binding, and distinctive drug likeness.

Considering the novelity among virtually screened ligands, the mission of ImmtorLig_DB is to expedite the endeavour of scientists working in the field of immunology with the aim of discovering new drugs, as the therapeutic intervention for an assortment of morbid diseases. ImmtorLig_DB can serve as a ideal platform for understanding drug-target interactions that can be used in a compuational model to predict either small molecules or substructure fingerprint information of these. The present study, along with other widely used resources as discussed by Chen et al. can assist in developing such learning based computational models61 that shall employ neural network, support vector machines etc. for predicting small molecule and their putative immune targets. In addition to these techniques, random forest can also be used62 and further deep learning algorithms can make such methods more robust and effective for making predictions, as proposed by Wang et al.,63. This database is designed in a searchable and user friendly manner that will accelerate researchers across the globe with little or no prior knowledge or experience of virtual screening, chemoinformatics, or CADD in analyzing the lead compounds cataloged and to test the efficacy of these drugs. For this, the availability for each ligand mentioned in the database is to ensure a hassle free access of the ligands whose Zinc ID has been provided in the database.

Conclusion

ImmtorLig_DB is a repository of 5000 small molecules binding to twenty five important immune receptors that seminally cortribute to morbidity and mortality of many human diseases. Two hundred small molecules have been virtually screened based on free energy of binding (∆G) for each of the immune targets. Majority of these small molecules are high affinity binders as revealed by their negative ∆G values. This repertoire includes potential novel chemical structures against immunological receptors as suggested by low structural similarity of virtually screened small molecules among themseleves as well as with experimentally tested ligands of TLR-4/MD-2 and ICAM. Clustering and binning analysis along with estimation of ADME properties of small molecules are additional features of this repertoire. In essence, ImmtorLig_DB can serve as an effective resource in the development of small molecule based therapeutic intervention for immune receptors.

References

  1. 1.

    Muegge, I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med. Res. Rev. 23, 302–21 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Song, C. M., Lim, S. J. & Tong, J. C. Recent advances in computer-aided drug design. Brief. Bioinform. 10, 579–91 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Yella, J. K., Yaddanapudi, S., Wang, Y. & Jegga, A. G. Changing Trends in Computational Drug Repositioning. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/ph11020057 (2018).

  4. 4.

    Horvath, D. A virtual screening approach applied to the search for trypanothione reductase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 40, 2412–23 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Cerqueira, N. M. F. S. A. et al. Receptor-based virtual screening protocol for drug discovery. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 582, 56–67 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Moura Barbosa, A. J. & Del Rio, A. Freely accessible databases of commercial compounds for high- throughput virtual screenings. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 12, 866–77 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    McInnes, C. Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 11, 494–502 (2007).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lim, S. V., Rahman, M. B. A. & Tejo, B. A. Structure-based and ligand-based virtual screening of novel methyltransferase inhibitors of the dengue virus. BMC Bioinformatics 12(Suppl 13), S24, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-S13-S24 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Broccatelli, F. & Brown, N. Best of both worlds: on the complementarity of ligand-based and structure-based virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54, 1634–41 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lavecchia, A. & Di Giovanni, C. Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery: a critical review. Curr. Med. Chem. 20, 2839–60 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Geppert, H., Vogt, M. & Bajorath, J. Current trends in ligand-based virtual screening: molecular representations, data mining methods, new application areas, and performance evaluation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 205–16 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ripphausen, P., Nisius, B. & Bajorath, J. State-of-the-art in ligand-based virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today 16, 372–6 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Lionta, E., Spyrou, G., Vassilatis, D. K. & Cournia, Z. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: principles, applications and recent advances. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 14, 1923–38 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Zhao, W., Hevener, K. E., White, S. W., Lee, R. E. & Boyett, J. M. A statistical framework to evaluate virtual screening. BMC Bioinformatics 10, 225, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-225 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Beuming, T. et al. Docking and Virtual Screening Strategies for GPCR Drug Discovery. Methods Mol. Biol. 1335, 251–76 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Manglik, A. et al. Structure-based discovery of opioid analgesics with reduced side effects. Nature 537, 185–190 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lu, W. et al. Discovery of potent and novel smoothened antagonists via structure-based virtual screening and biological assays. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 155, 34–48 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pérez-Regidor, L., Zarioh, M., Ortega, L. & Martín-Santamaría, S. Virtual Screening Approaches towards the Discovery of Toll-Like Receptor Modulators. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 1508, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17091508 (2016).

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Yu, H. et al. Toll-like receptor 7 agonists: chemical feature based pharmacophore identification and molecular docking studies. PLoS One 8, e56514, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056514 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Honegr, J. et al. Rational design of novel TLR4 ligands by in silico screening and their functional and structural characterization in vitro. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 146, 38–46 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Durai, P. et al. Toll-like receptor 2 antagonists identified through virtual screening and experimental validation. FEBS J. 284, 2264–2283 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Anderson, M. E. & Siahaan, T. J. Targeting ICAM-1/LFA-1 interaction for controlling autoimmune diseases: designing peptide and small molecule inhibitors. Peptides 24, 487–501 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zimmerman, T. & Blanco, F. J. Inhibitors targeting the LFA-1/ICAM-1 cell-adhesion interaction: design and mechanism of action. Curr. Pharm. Des. 14, 2128–39 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kelly, T. A. et al. Cutting edge: a small molecule antagonist of LFA-1-mediated cell adhesion. J. Immunol. 163, 5173–7 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Quéméner, A. et al. Discovery of a Small-Molecule Inhibitor of Interleukin 15: Pharmacophore-Based Virtual Screening and Hit Optimization. J. Med. Chem. 60, 6249–6272 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Melagraki, G. et al. Cheminformatics-aided discovery of small-molecule Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) dual inhibitors of Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) and Receptor Activator of NF-κB Ligand (RANKL). PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005372, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005372 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Chen, S. et al. Discovery of Novel Ligands for TNF-α and TNF Receptor-1 through Structure-Based Virtual Screening and Biological Assay. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57, 1101–1111 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Wang, J. et al. Structure-based virtual screening and characterization of a novel IL-6 antagonistic compound from synthetic compound database. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 10, 4091–4100 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ananthan, S., Zhang, W. & Hobrath, J. V. Recent advances in structure-based virtual screening of G-protein coupled receptors. AAPS J. 11, 178–85 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Kooistra, A. J. et al. Function-specific virtual screening for GPCR ligands using a combined scoring method. Sci. Rep. 6, 28288, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep28288 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Pahari, S. et al. Bolstering Immunity through Pattern Recognition Receptors: A Unique Approach to Control Tuberculosis. Front. Immunol. 8, 906, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00906 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Sarpatwari, A., Avorn, J. & Kesselheim, A. S. Progress and Hurdles for Follow-on Biologics. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 2380–2 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Abraham, J. Developing oncology biosimilars: an essential approach for the future. Semin. Oncol. 40(Suppl 1), S5–24, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminoncol.2013.09.015 (2013).

    MathSciNet  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Bangalore Kumar, A., Maus, R. & Markovic, S. N. Pharmacologic Modulation of Human Immunity in the Era of Immuno-oncology: Something Old, Something New. Mayo Clin. Proc. 93, 917–936 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Bennett, C. L. et al. Regulatory and clinical considerations for biosimilar oncology drugs. Lancet. Oncol. 15, e594–605 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Hirsch, B. R. & Lyman, G. H. Biosimilars: a cure to the U.S. health care cost conundrum? Blood Rev. 28, 263–8 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Cheng, T., Li, Q., Zhou, Z., Wang, Y. & Bryant, S. H. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: a problem-centric review. AAPS J. 14, 133–41 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Anderson, A. C. The process of structure-based drug design. Chem. Biol. 10, 787–97 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Warren, G. L., Do, T. D., Kelley, B. P., Nicholls, A. & Warren, S. D. Essential considerations for using protein-ligand structures in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 17, 1270–81 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Fukuhara, N. & Kawabata, T. HOMCOS: a server to predict interacting protein pairs and interacting sites by homology modeling of complex structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, W185–9 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Eswar, N. et al. Comparative protein structure modeling using Modeller. Curr. Protoc. Bioinforma. Chapter 5 Unit-5, 6 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Nielsen, M., Lundegaard, C., Lund, O. & Petersen, T. N. CPHmodels-3.0–remote homology modeling using structure-guided sequence profiles. Nucleic Acids Res. 38, W576–81 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Khazanov, N. A. & Carlson, H. A. Exploring the composition of protein-ligand binding sites on a large scale. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003321, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003321 (2013).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Bleicher, K. H. et al. Parallel solution- and solid-phase synthesis of spirohydantoin derivatives as neurokinin-1 receptor ligands. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 12, 2519–22 (2002).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Coleman, R. G. & Sharp, K. A. Protein pockets: inventory, shape, and comparison. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 589–603 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Binkowski, T. A., Naghibzadeh, S. & Liang, J. CASTp: Computed Atlas of Surface Topography of proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 3352–5 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Irwin, J. J. et al. Automated docking screens: a feasibility study. J. Med. Chem. 52, 5712–20 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Backman, T. W. H., Cao, Y. & Girke, T. ChemMine tools: an online service for analyzing and clustering small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res. 39, W486–91 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Daina, A., Michielin, O. & Zoete, V. SwissADME: a free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug-likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Sci. Rep. 7, 42717, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep42717 (2017).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Kim, S. et al. PubChem Substance and Compound databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D1202–13 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Vidal, D., Thormann, M. & Pons, M. LINGO, an efficient holographic text based method to calculate biophysical properties and intermolecular similarities. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45, 386–93 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Kaushik, A. C., Kumar, S., Wei, D. Q. & Sahi, S. Structure Based Virtual Screening Studies to Identify Novel Potential Compounds for GPR142 and Their Relative Dynamic Analysis for Study of Type 2Diabetes. Front. Chem. 6, 23, https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2018.00023 (2018).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Zatsepin, M. et al. Computational Discovery and Experimental Confirmation of TLR9 Receptor Antagonist Leads. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56, 1835–46 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Arkin, M. R., Tang, Y. & Wells, J. A. Small-molecule inhibitors of protein-protein interactions: progressing toward the reality. Chem. Biol. 21, 1102–14 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    White, A. W., Westwell, A. D. & Brahemi, G. Protein-protein interactions as targets for small-molecule therapeutics in cancer. Expert Rev. Mol. Med. 10, e8, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1462399408000641 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sliwoski, G., Kothiwale, S., Meiler, J. & Lowe, E. W. Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol. Rev. 66, 334–95 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Macalino, S. J. Y., Gosu, V., Hong, S. & Choi, S. Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery. Arch. Pharm. Res. 38, 1686–701 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Dos Santos, R. N., Ferreira, L. G. & Andricopulo, A. D. Practices in Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Virtual Screening. Methods Mol. Biol. 1762, 31–50 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Schneider, G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 273–6 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Negri, A., Li, J., Naini, S., Coller, B. S. & Filizola, M. Structure-based virtual screening of small-molecule antagonists of platelet integrin αIIbβ3 that do not prime the receptor to bind ligand. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 26, 1005–15 (2012).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Chen, X. et al. Drug-target interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models. Brief. Bioinform. 17, 696–712 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Wang, L. et al. RFDT: A Rotation Forest-based Predictor for Predicting Drug-Target Interactions Using Drug Structure and Protein Sequence Information. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 19, 445–454 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Wang, L. et al. A Computational-Based Method for Predicting Drug-Target Interactions by Using Stacked Autoencoder Deep Neural Network. J. Comput. Biol. 25, 361–373 (2018).

    MathSciNet  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Department of Biotechnology (BTISnet) and Council of Scientific and Industrial Researh (CSIR). DC, GK and SM are recipients of fellowship from CSIR, India. We are also thankful to Dr. Gandharva Nagpal, CSIR-IMTECH, India for his valuable suggestions in improving the present study.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.C., B.V.S. and J.N.A. conceived the project. D.C. and G.K. performed virtual screening experiments and analyzed the data. D.C., G.K., S.M. created the database. D.C., G.K., B.V.S., J.N.A. wrote the manuscript. All authors assisted in editing the manuscript and approved it before submission.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Balvinder Singh or Javed N. Agrewala.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chatterjee, D., Kaur, G., Muradia, S. et al. ImmtorLig_DB: repertoire of virtually screened small molecules against immune receptors to bolster host immunity. Sci Rep 9, 3092 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-36179-5

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing