Literature DB >> 12926852

Enantioselectivity of epoxide hydrolase catalysed oxirane ring opening: a 3D QSAR study.

Joachim Paier1, Thomas Stockner, Andreas Steinreiber, Kurt Faber, Walter M F Fabian.   

Abstract

A 3D QSAR analysis (quantitative structure activity relationships) of a set of 2,2-disubstituted epoxides, substrates for epoxide hydrolases originating from four different organisms, was conducted by CoMFA (comparative molecular field analysis) and CoMSIA (comparative molecular similarity indices analysis), with respect to the enantioselective ring opening to the corresponding vicinal diol. Structural variations of the substrates include alkyl chains of different lengths, unsaturated moieties ((E)- and (Z)-alkenyl, alkinyl, aryl) and electronegative groups (ether oxygens, halogen atoms) at different locations within the 2-substituent group. Generally, all four organisms, namely Rhodococcus ruber NCIMB 11216, Rhodococcus ruber DSM 43338, Rhodococcus ruber DSM 44540 and Rhodococcus ruber DSM 44539, preferentially react with the (S)-enantiomer of the epoxide. Enantioselectivities (enantiomeric ratio, In E values) show a rather large variation, ranging from almost no (ln E < 1) to nearly complete selectivity (In E > 5.3). In addition, the response of the epoxide hydrolases stemming from the four organisms towards structural modifications of the substrate is different. Models for the enantioselectivity (enantiomeric ratio, ln E values) obtained by CoMFA and CoMSIA are of different but reasonable predictive power, e.g., q2CV = 0.701 and r2 = 0.937 for the CoMFA model of Rhodococcus ruber DSM 43338. Enantiomeric ratios for the test molecules can be well predicted. Plots of steric and electrostatic CoMFA (CoMSIA) fields allow conclusions to be drawn for the choice of the most suitable organism for a specific type of substrate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12926852     DOI: 10.1023/a:1024562326498

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


  7 in total

1.  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

2.  Cavity-directed, highly stereoselective [2+2] photodimerization of olefins within self-assembled coordination cages.

Authors:  Michito Yoshizawa; Yoshihisa Takeyama; Takahiro Kusukawa; Makoto Fujita
Journal:  Angew Chem Int Ed Engl       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 15.336

Review 3.  MOPAC: a semiempirical molecular orbital program.

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

Review 4.  Microbial epoxide hydrolases for preparative biotransformations.

Authors:  A Steinreiber; K Faber
Journal:  Curr Opin Biotechnol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 9.740

Review 5.  Mammalian epoxide hydrases: inducible enzymes catalysing the inactivation of carcinogenic and cytotoxic metabolites derived from aromatic and olefinic compounds.

Authors:  F Oesch
Journal:  Xenobiotica       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 1.908

6.  Sample-distance partial least squares: PLS optimized for many variables, with application to CoMFA.

Authors:  B L Bush; R B Nachbar
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity.

Authors:  G Klebe; U Abraham; T Mietzner
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1994-11-25       Impact factor: 7.446

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.