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.

3D-QSAR and Receptor Modeling of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors with Flexible Atom Receptor Model (FLARM).

Improving the quality of 3D-QSAR by using flexible-ligand receptor models.

Quantitative Structure–activity Relationship: Promising Advances in Drug Discovery Platforms

Flexible Atom Receptor Model

3D-QSAR Study on 2,3-Dihydroimidazo[4,5]-pyridin-2-one Derivatives with a Meta Substitution Pattern As V600E BRAF Inhibitors

Molecular description of pyrimidine-based inhibitors with activity against FAK combining 3D-QSAR analysis, molecular docking and molecular dynamics

Design, Synthesis, Anti-Tumor Activity, and Molecular Modeling of Quinazoline and Pyrido[2,3-D]Pyrimidine Derivatives Targeting Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor

PARM: a Practical Utility for Drug Design.

Pharmacophore Modeling of Dual Angiotensin II and Endothelin A Receptor Antagonists.

Mapping the Binding Site of a Large Set of Quinazoline Type EGF-R Inhibitors Using Molecular Field Analyses and Molecular Docking Studies.

Common Pharmacophore Model and 3D-QSAR Analysis of Two Different Tyrphostin Families

Design of Novel FLT-3 Inhibitors Based on Dual-Layer 3D-QSAR Model and Fragment-Based Compounds .

Receptor Surface Models. 2. Application to Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships Studies

Ligand-Based Pharmacophore Modeling, Molecular Docking, and Molecular Dynamic Studies of Dual Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor of EGFR and VEGFR2

Pharmacophore Model Analysis Of Novel Tyrphostins

4D-QSAR and MIA-QSAR Studies of Aminobenzimidazole Derivatives as Fourth-generation EGFR Inhibitors

Discovery of Novel Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Inhibitors Using Computational Approaches

2D and 3D‐QSPR Models for the Fluorophilicity of Organic Compounds in Consideration of Chirality

Three-Dimensional Pharmacophore Modeling of Liver-X Receptor Agonists

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

QSAR analysis of VEGFR-2 inhibitors based on machine learning, Topomer CoMFA and molecule docking