With the growth of protein structure data, the analysis of molecular interactions between ligands and their target molecules is gaining importance. PLIP, the protein–ligand interaction profiler, detects and visualises these interactions and provides data in formats suitable for further processing. PLIP has proven very successful in applications ranging from the characterisation of docking experiments to the assessment of novel ligand–protein complexes. Besides ligand–protein interactions, interactions with DNA and RNA play a vital role in many applications, such as drugs targeting DNA or RNA-binding proteins. To date, over 7% of all 3D structures in the Protein Data Bank include DNA or RNA. Therefore, we extended PLIP to encompass these important molecules. We demonstrate the power of this extension with examples of a cancer drug binding to a DNA target, and an RNA–protein complex central to a neurological disease. PLIP is available online at https://plip-tool.biotec.tu-dresden.de and as open source code. So far, the engine has served over a million queries and the source code has been downloaded several thousand times.

Identifying pockets on protein surfaces is of great importance for many structure-based drug design applications and protein-ligand docking algorithms. Over the last ten years, many geometric methods for the prediction of ligand-binding sites have been developed. We present LIGSITE ^csc , an extension and implementation of the LIGSITE algorithm. LIGSITE ^csc is based on the notion of surface-solvent-surface events and the degree of conservation of the involved surface residues. We compare our algorithm to four other approaches, LIGSITE, CAST, PASS, and SURFNET, and evaluate all on a dataset of 48 unbound/bound structures and 210 bound-structures. LIGSITE ^csc performs slightly better than the other tools and achieves a success rate of 71% and 75%, respectively. The use of the Connolly surface leads to slight improvements, the prediction re-ranking by conservation to significant improvements of the binding site predictions. A web server for LIGSITE ^csc and its source code is available at scoppi.biotec.tu-dresden.de/pocket.

PLIP, the protein–ligand interaction profiler, analyses molecular interactions in protein structures. PLIP detects eight types of non-covalent interactions. Initially focused on small-molecule, DNA, and RNA interactions to a protein, the current release incorporates protein–protein interactions. We document the usefulness of this feature by comparing PLIP interactions of the cancer drug venetoclax with the native protein–protein interaction of Bcl-2 and BAX. PLIP reveals how the drug mimics the native interaction, as there is critical overlap in the interaction profiles. PLIP is available as a web server, source code with containers, and Jupyter notebook. The PLIP web server is online at https://plip-tool.biotec.tu-dresden.de.

Drug repositioning applies established drugs to new disease indications with increasing success. A pre-requisite for drug repurposing is drug promiscuity (polypharmacology) – a drug’s ability to bind to several targets. There is a long standing debate on the reasons for drug promiscuity. Based on large compound screens, hydrophobicity and molecular weight have been suggested as key reasons. However, the results are sometimes contradictory and leave space for further analysis. Protein structures offer a structural dimension to explain promiscuity: Can a drug bind multiple targets because the drug is flexible or because the targets are structurally similar or even share similar binding sites? We present a systematic study of drug promiscuity based on structural data of PDB target proteins with a set of 164 promiscuous drugs. We show that there is no correlation between the degree of promiscuity and ligand properties such as hydrophobicity or molecular weight but a weak correlation to conformational flexibility. However, we do find a correlation between promiscuity and structural similarity as well as binding site similarity of protein targets. In particular, 71% of the drugs have at least two targets with similar binding sites. In order to overcome issues in detection of remotely similar binding sites, we employed a score for binding site similarity: LigandRMSD measures the similarity of the aligned ligands and uncovers remote local similarities in proteins. It can be applied to arbitrary structural binding site alignments. Three representative examples, namely the anti-cancer drug methotrexate, the natural product quercetin and the anti-diabetic drug acarbose are discussed in detail. Our findings suggest that global structural and binding site similarity play a more important role to explain the observed drug promiscuity in the PDB than physicochemical drug properties like hydrophobicity or molecular weight. Additionally, we find ligand flexibility to have a minor influence.

Drug repositioning aims to find new indications for existing drugs in order to reduce drug development cost and time. Currently,there are numerous stories of successful drug repositioning that have been reported and many repurposed drugs are already available on the market. Although drug repositioning is often a product of serendipity, repositioning opportunities can be uncovered systematically. There are three systematic approaches to drug repositioning: disease-centric approach, target-centric and drug-centric. Disease-centric approaches identify close relationships between an old and a new indication. A target-centric approach links a known target and its established drug to a new indication. Lastly, a drug-centric approach connects a known drug to a new target and its associated indication. These three approaches differ in their potential and their limitations, but above all else, in the required start information and computing power. This raises the question of which approach prevails in current drug discovery and what that implies for future developments. To address this question, we systematically evaluated over 100 drugs, 200 target structures and over 300 indications from the Drug Repositioning Database. Each analyzed case was classified as one of the three repositioning approaches. For the majority of cases (more than 60%) the disease-centric definition was assigned. Almost 30% of the cases were classified as target-centric and less than 10% as drug-centric approaches. We concluded that, despite the use of umbrella term "drug" repositioning, disease- and target-centric approaches have dominated the field until now. We propose the use of drug-centric approaches while discussing reasons, such as structure-based repositioning techniques, to exploit the full potential of drug-target-disease connections.