Many questions about the biological activity and availability of small molecules remain inaccessible to investigators who could most benefit from their answers. To narrow the gap between chemoinformatics and biology, we have developed a suite of ligand annotation, purchasability, target, and biology association tools, incorporated into ZINC and meant for investigators who are not computer specialists. The new version contains over 120 million purchasable “drug-like” compounds – effectively all organic molecules that are for sale – a quarter of which are available for immediate delivery. ZINC connects purchasable compounds to high-value ones such as metabolites, drugs, natural products, and annotated compounds from the literature. Compounds may be accessed by the genes for which they are annotated as well as the major and minor target classes to which those genes belong. It offers new analysis tools that are easy for nonspecialists yet with few limitations for experts. ZINC retains its original 3D roots – all molecules are available in biologically relevant, ready-to-dock formats. ZINC is freely available at .

ZINC is a free public resource for ligand discovery. The database contains over twenty million commercially available molecules in biologically relevant representations that may be downloaded in popular ready-to-dock formats and subsets. The Web site also enables searches by structure, biological activity, physical property, vendor, catalog number, name, and CAS number. Small custom subsets may be created, edited, shared, docked, downloaded, and conveyed to a vendor for purchase. The database is maintained and curated for a high purchasing success rate and is freely available at .

Colloidal aggregation of organic molecules is the dominant mechanism for artifactual inhibition of proteins, and controls against it are widely deployed. Notwithstanding an increasingly detailed understanding of this phenomenon, a method to reliably predict aggregation has remained elusive. Correspondingly, active molecules that act via aggregation continue to be found in early discovery campaigns and remain common in the literature. Over the past decade, over 12 thousand aggregating organic molecules have been identified, potentially enabling a precedent-based approach to match known aggregators with new molecules that may be expected to aggregate and lead to artifacts. We investigate an approach that uses lipophilicity, affinity, and similarity to known aggregators to advise on the likelihood that a candidate compound is an aggregator. In prospective experimental testing, five of seven new molecules with Tanimoto coefficients (Tc’s) between 0.95 and 0.99 to known aggregators aggregated at relevant concentrations. Ten of 19 with Tc’s between 0.94 and 0.90 and three of seven with Tc’s between 0.89 and 0.85 also aggregated. Another three of the predicted compounds aggregated at higher concentrations. This method finds that 61 827 or 5.1% of the ligands acting in the 0.1 to 10 µM range in the medicinal chemistry literature are at least 85% similar to a known aggregator with these physical properties and may aggregate at relevant concentrations. Intriguingly, only 0.73% of all drug-like commercially available compounds resemble the known aggregators, suggesting that colloidal aggregators are enriched in the literature. As a percentage of the literature, aggregator-like compounds have increased 9-fold since 1995, partly reflecting the advent of high-throughput and virtual screens against molecular targets. Emerging from this study is an aggregator advisor database and tool (http://advisor.bkslab.org), free to the community, that may help distinguish between fruitful and artifactual screening hits acting by this mechanism.

Molecular docking remains an important tool for structure-based screening to find new ligands and chemical probes. As docking ambitions grow to include new scoring function terms, and to address ever more targets, the reliability and extendability of the orientation sampling, and the throughput of the method, become pressing. Here we explore sampling techniques that eliminate stochastic behavior in DOCK3.6, allowing us to optimize the method for regularly variable sampling of orientations. This also enabled a focused effort to optimize the code for efficiency, with a three-fold increase in the speed of the program. This, in turn, facilitated extensive testing of the method on the 102 targets, 22,805 ligands and 1,411,214 decoys of the Directory of Useful Decoys - Enhanced (DUD-E) benchmarking set, at multiple levels of sampling. Encouragingly, we observe that as sampling increases from 50 to 500 to 2000 to 5000 to 20000 molecular orientations in the binding site (and so from about 1×1010 to 4×1010 to 1×1011 to 2×1011 to 5×1011 mean atoms scored per target, since multiple conformations are sampled per orientation), the enrichment of ligands over decoys monotonically increases for most DUD-E targets. Meanwhile, including internal electrostatics in the evaluation ligand conformational energies, and restricting aromatic hydroxyls to low energy rotamers, further improved enrichment values. Several of the strategies used here to improve the efficiency of the code are broadly applicable in the field.

The binding of drugs and reagents to off-targets is well-known. Whereas many off-targets are related to the primary target by sequence and fold, many ligands bind to unrelated pairs of proteins, and these are harder to anticipate. If the binding site in the off-target can be related to that of the primary target, this challenge resolves into aligning the two pockets. However, other cases are possible: the ligand might interact with entirely different residues and environments in the off-target, or wholly different ligand atoms may be implicated in the two complexes. To investigate these scenarios at atomic resolution, the structures of 59 ligands in 116 complexes (62 pairs in total), where the protein pairs were unrelated by fold but bound an identical ligand, were examined. In almost half of the pairs, the ligand interacted with unrelated residues in the two proteins (29 pairs), and in 14 of the pairs wholly different ligand moieties were implicated in each complex. Even in those 19 pairs of complexes that presented similar environments to the ligand, ligand superposition rarely resulted in the overlap of related residues. There appears to be no single pattern-matching “code” for identifying binding sites in unrelated proteins that bind identical ligands, though modeling suggests that there might be a limited number of different patterns that suffice to recognize different ligand functional groups.