{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020026702269692925, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013351134846461949, 'mean_word_length': 5.691964285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Are target-family-privileged substructures truly privileged?

One of the early and effective approaches to G-coupled protein receptor target family library design was the analysis of a set of ligands for frequently occurring chemical moieties or substructures. Various methods ranging from frameworks analysis to pharmacophores have been employed to find these so-called target-family-privileged substructures. Although the use of these substructures is common practice in combinatorial library design and has produced leads, the methods used for finding them rarely verified their selectivity for the particular target family from which they were derived. The frequency of occurrence among ligands associated with a target receptor family is not a sufficient criterion for those substructures to receive the label of target-family-privileged substructure. This study explores the question of selectivity of ClassPharmer generated fragments for a series of target families: GPCRs, nuclear hormone receptors, serine proteases, protein kinases, and ligand-gated ion channels. In addition, a GPCR focused library and a random set of 10k compounds are examined in terms of their target-family-privileged-substructure composition. The results challenge the combinatorial chemistry concept of target-family-privileged substructures and suggest that many of these fragments may simply be drug-like or attractive for various receptors in accordance with the original definition of privileged substructures.