Generic placeholder image

Combinatorial Chemistry & High Throughput Screening


ISSN (Print): 1386-2073
ISSN (Online): 1875-5402

Comparison of Metabolic Soft Spot Predictions of CYP3A4, CYP2C9 and CYP2D6 Substrates Using MetaSite and StarDrop

Author(s): Young G. Shin, Hoa Le, Cyrus Khojasteh and Cornelis E.C.A. Hop

Volume 14, Issue 9, 2011

Page: [811 - 823] Pages: 13

DOI: 10.2174/138620711796957170

Price: $65


Metabolite identification study plays an important role in determining the sites of metabolic liability of new chemical entities (NCEs) in drug discovery for lead optimization. Here we compare the two predictive software, MetaSite and StarDrop, available for this purpose. They work very differently but are used to predict the site of oxidation by major human cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms. Neither software can predict non-CYP catalyzed metabolism nor the rates of metabolism. For the purpose of comparing the two software packages, we tested known probe substrate for these enzymes, which included 12 substrates of CYP3A4 and 18 substrates of CYP2C9 and CYP2D6 were analyzed by each software and the results were compared. It is possible that these known substrates were part of the training set but we are not aware of it. To assess the performance of each software we assigned a point system for each correct prediction. The total points assigned for each CYP isoform experimentally were compared as a percentage of the total points assigned theoretically for the first choice prediction for all substrates for each isoform. Our results show that MetaSite and StarDrop are similar in predicting the correct site of metabolism by CYP3A4 (78% vs 83%, respectively). StarDrop appears to do slightly better in predicting the correct site of metabolism by CYP2C9 and CYP2D6 metabolism (89% and 93%, respectively) compared to MetaSite (63% and 70%, respectively). The sites of metabolism (SOM) from 34 in-house NCEs incubated in human liver microsomes or human hepatocytes were also evaluated using two prediction software packages and the results showed comparable SOM predictions. What makes this comparison challenging is that the contribution of each isoform to the intrinsic clearance (Clint) is not known. Overall the software were comparable except for MetaSite performing better for CYP2D6 and that MetaSite has a liver model that is absent in StarDrop that predicted with 82% accuracy.

Keywords: MetaSite, StarDrop, site of metabolism prediction, CYP3A4, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, new chemical entities, drug discovery, human cytochrome, in vitro, metabolic enzymes, QSAR, Mass Spectrometric

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy