Abstract:Kinase inhibitors are widely used in antitumor research, but there are still many problems such as drug resistance and off-target toxicity. A more suitable solution is to design a multitarget inhibitor with certain selectivity. Herein, computational and experimental studies were applied to the discovery of dual inhibitors against FGFR4 and EGFR. A quantitative structure–property relationship (QSPR) study was carried out to predict the FGFR4 and EGFR activity of a data set consisting of 843 and 5088 compounds, respectively. Four different machine learning methods including support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), gradient boost regression tree (GBRT), and XGBoost (XGB) were built using the most suitable features selected by the mutual information algorithm. As for FGFR4 and EGFR, SVM showed the best performance with R2test-FGFR4 = 0.80 and R2test-EGFR = 0.75, demonstrating excellent model stability, which was used to predict the activity of some compounds from an in-house database. Finally, compound 1 was selected, which exhibits inhibitory activity against FGFR4 (IC50 = 86.2 nM) and EGFR (IC50 = 83.9 nM) kinase, respectively. Furthermore, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations were performed to identify key amino acids for the interaction of compound 1 with FGFR4 and EGFR. In this paper, the machine-learning-based QSAR models were established and effectively applied to the discovery of dual-target inhibitors against FGFR4 and EGFR, demonstrating the great potential of machine learning strategies in dual inhibitor discovery.The Supporting Information is available free of charge at <a class="ext-link" href="/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00652?goto=supporting-info">https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00652</a>.Supporting Methods: Y-randomization test (p 2). Supporting Figures: Figure S1. The relationship between Q2 and the number of descriptors for FGFR4. Figure S2. Distribution of Q2 of randomized models compared with the true model in the Y-randomization test. Figure S3. Correlograms between each important descriptor and permeability values of two activity prediction modeling: (a) FGFR4, (b) EGFR. Figure S4. Comparison of the molecular similarity between the training set and the external set: (a) FGFR4 data set, (b) EGFR data set. Figure S5. Structures of compounds 1–3. Figures S6 and S7. The chemical structures of modeling molecules of the FGFR4/EGFR activity prediction model. Figure S8. The chemical structures of 23 compounds external verification set. Figure S9. Docking results of FGFR4 and EGFR. (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00652/suppl_file/ci0c00652_si_001.pdf">PDF</a>)Table S1. Experimental and predicted IC50 values of FGFR4 of the whole data set that consisted of 843 compounds. Table S2. Experimental and predicted IC50 values of EGFR of the whole data set that consisted of 5088 compounds. Table S3. Detailed information for the external validation set. Table S4. Statistical analysis of 180 descriptors selected in FGFR4 activity prediction. Table S5. Statistical analysis of 280 descriptors selected in EGFR activity prediction. Table S6. Detailed information on the most essential variables for FGFR4 prediction activity modeling. Table S7. Detailed information on the most essential variables for EGFR prediction activity modeling. Table S8. The original data for cross-docking of FGFR4 and EGFR. Table S9. Residue-specific binding free energies of FGFR4 (PDB code: <a href="https://www.rcsb.org/pdb/search/structidSearch.do?structureId=4UXQ">4UXQ</a>) and compound 1. Table S10. Residue-specific binding free energies of EGFR (PDB code: <a href="https://www.rcsb.org/pdb/search/structidSearch.do?structureId=4ZAU">4ZAU</a>) and compound 1. (<a class="ext-link" href="/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00652/suppl_file/ci0c00652_si_002.xlsx">XLSX</a>)This article has not yet been cited by other publications.

Establishment of extensive artificial intelligence models for kinase inhibitor prediction: Identification of novel PDGFRB inhibitors

Large-scale comparison of machine learning methods for profiling prediction of kinase inhibitors

MinKLIFSAI: a simple machine learning approach toward selective kinase inhibitor

Docking-informed machine learning for kinome wide affinity prediction

A Hybrid Structure-Based Machine Learning Approach for Predicting Kinase Inhibition by Small Molecules

Machine learning-based classification models for non-covalent Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors: predictive ability and interpretability

The Development and Application of KinomePro-DL: A Deep Learning Based Online Small Molecule Kinome Selectivity Profiling Prediction Platform

Prediction of Small Molecule Kinase Inhibitors for Chemotherapy Using Deep Learning

Leveraging multiple data types for improved compound-kinase bioactivity prediction

Crowdsourced mapping of unexplored target space of kinase inhibitors

Abstract 4910: AI predicts drug response from the genomic features of cells and the kinase activity changes induced by compounds

Meta-learning-based Inductive logistic matrix completion for prediction of kinase inhibitors

Development, validation, and evaluation of a deep learning model to screen cyclin-dependent kinase 12 inhibitors in cancers

An ensemble machine learning model generates a focused screening library for the identification of CDK8 inhibitors

Inactive-enriched machine-learning models exploiting patent data improve structure-based virtual screening for PDL1 dimerizers

Deep learning enables rapid identification of potent DDR1 kinase inhibitors

Consensus models for CDK5 inhibitors in silico and their application to inhibitor discovery

Deriving general structure-activity/selectivity relationship patterns for different subfamilies of cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors using machine learning methods

Kinase inhibition-related adverse events predicted from in vitro kinome and clinical trial data.

Identification of Pharmacophoric Fragments of DYRK1A Inhibitors Using Machine Learning Classification Models

Discovery of Dual FGFR4 and EGFR Inhibitors by Machine Learning and Biological Evaluation