Literature DB >> 12188020

Can we separate active from inactive conformations?

David J Diller1, Kenneth M Merz.   

Abstract

Molecular modeling methodologies such as molecular docking, pharmacophore modeling, and 3D-QSAR, rely on conformational searches of small molecules as a starting point. All of these methodologies seek conformations of the small molecules as they bind to target proteins, i.e., their active conformations. Thus the question as to whether active conformations can be separated from inactive conformations is extremely relevant. In this paper, 3D-descriptors that separate random conformations from active conformations of small molecules are sought. To select appropriate descriptors, 65 protein-ligand complexes were taken from the protein data bank. For each ligand the active conformation was compared to randomly generated low energy conformations. Descriptors such as solvent accessible surface area, number of internal interactions and radius of gyration appear to be useful for separating the active conformations from the random conformations. The results with all these descriptors indicate that active conformations are less compact that random conformations, i.e., they have more solvent accessible surface area, fewer internal interactions and a larger radius of gyration than random conformations. Thus these descriptors could be useful as weights to bias conformational search procedures to conformations more likely to bind to proteins or as filters to eliminate conformations unlikely to bind to any protein.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12188020     DOI: 10.1023/a:1016320106741

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  17 in total

1.  The Protein Data Bank.

Authors:  H M Berman; J Westbrook; Z Feng; G Gilliland; T N Bhat; H Weissig; I N Shindyalov; P E Bourne
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 2.  Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery.

Authors:  I D Kuntz
Journal:  Science       Date:  1992-08-21       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins.

Authors:  R D Cramer; D E Patterson; J D Bunce
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  1988-08-01       Impact factor: 15.419

4.  Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands.

Authors:  J Boström; P O Norrby; T Liljefors
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Flexible docking using Tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity.

Authors:  C A Baxter; C W Murray; D E Clark; D R Westhead; M D Eldridge
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  1998-11-15

Review 6.  MOPAC: a semiempirical molecular orbital program.

Authors:  J J Stewart
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Scoring noncovalent protein-ligand interactions: a continuous differentiable function tuned to compute binding affinities.

Authors:  A N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Flexibases: a way to enhance the use of molecular docking methods.

Authors:  S K Kearsley; D J Underwood; R P Sheridan; M D Miller
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure.

Authors:  H J Böhm
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions.

Authors:  I D Kuntz; J M Blaney; S J Oatley; R Langridge; T E Ferrin
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  1982-10-25       Impact factor: 5.469

View more
  10 in total

1.  Dependency of ligand free energy landscapes on charge parameters and solvent models.

Authors:  Yuko Okamoto; Toshimasa Tanaka; Hironori Kokubo
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-05-22       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Assessment of conformational ensemble sizes necessary for specific resolutions of coverage of conformational space.

Authors:  Yulia V Borodina; Evan Bolton; Fabien Fontaine; Stephen H Bryant
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-06-15       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Quantitative measurement of protease ligand conformation.

Authors:  Christopher J R Illingworth; Kevin E B Parkes; Christopher R Snell; Christopher A Reynolds
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-01-19       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Computation of 3D queries for ROCS based virtual screens.

Authors:  Gregory J Tawa; J Christian Baber; Christine Humblet
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2009-09-26       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Bioactive focus in conformational ensembles: a pluralistic approach.

Authors:  Matthew Habgood
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Dynamic clustering threshold reduces conformer ensemble size while maintaining a biologically relevant ensemble.

Authors:  Austin B Yongye; Andreas Bender; Karina Martínez-Mayorga
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-05-25       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Common pharmacophore identification using frequent clique detection algorithm.

Authors:  Yevgeniy Podolyan; George Karypis
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  Sphenostylisins A-K: bioactive modified isoflavonoid constituents of the root bark of Sphenostylis marginata ssp. erecta.

Authors:  Jie Li; Li Pan; Ye Deng; Ulyana Muñoz-Acuña; Chunhua Yuan; Hongshan Lai; Heebyung Chai; Tangai E Chagwedera; Norman R Farnsworth; Esperanza J Carcache de Blanco; Chenglong Li; Djaja D Soejarto; A Douglas Kinghorn
Journal:  J Org Chem       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 4.354

9.  Drug design for ever, from hype to hope.

Authors:  G Seddon; V Lounnas; R McGuire; T van den Bergh; R P Bywater; L Oliveira; G Vriend
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 3.686

10.  Cyndi: a multi-objective evolution algorithm based method for bioactive molecular conformational generation.

Authors:  Xiaofeng Liu; Fang Bai; Sisheng Ouyang; Xicheng Wang; Honglin Li; Hualiang Jiang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-03-31       Impact factor: 3.169

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.