Literature DB >> 21716805

Computational ligand-based rational design: Role of conformational sampling and force fields in model development.

Jihyun Shim1, Alexander D Mackerell.   

Abstract

A significant number of drug discovery efforts are based on natural products or high throughput screens from which compounds showing potential therapeutic effects are identified without knowledge of the target molecule or its 3D structure. In such cases computational ligand-based drug design (LBDD) can accelerate the drug discovery processes. LBDD is a general approach to elucidate the relationship of a compound's structure and physicochemical attributes to its biological activity. The resulting structure-activity relationship (SAR) may then act as the basis for the prediction of compounds with improved biological attributes. LBDD methods range from pharmacophore models identifying essential features of ligands responsible for their activity, quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) yielding quantitative estimates of activities based on physiochemical properties, and to similarity searching, which explores compounds with similar properties as well as various combinations of the above. A number of recent LBDD approaches involve the use of multiple conformations of the ligands being studied. One of the basic components to generate multiple conformations in LBDD is molecular mechanics (MM), which apply an empirical energy function to relate conformation to energies and forces. The collection of conformations for ligands is then combined with functional data using methods ranging from regression analysis to neural networks, from which the SAR is determined. Accordingly, for effective application of LBDD for SAR determinations it is important that the compounds be accurately modelled such that the appropriate range of conformations accessible to the ligands is identified. Such accurate modelling is largely based on use of the appropriate empirical force field for the molecules being investigated and the approaches used to generate the conformations. The present chapter includes a brief overview of currently used SAR methods in LBDD followed by a more detailed presentation of issues and limitations associated with empirical energy functions and conformational sampling methods.

Entities:  

Year:  2011        PMID: 21716805      PMCID: PMC3123535          DOI: 10.1039/C1MD00044F

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Medchemcomm        ISSN: 2040-2503            Impact factor:   3.597


  109 in total

1.  Escaping free-energy minima.

Authors:  Alessandro Laio; Michele Parrinello
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2002-09-23       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2D and 3D molecular descriptors.

Authors:  James H Nettles; Jeremy L Jenkins; Andreas Bender; Zhan Deng; John W Davies; Meir Glick
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-11-16       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  Automatic atom type and bond type perception in molecular mechanical calculations.

Authors:  Junmei Wang; Wei Wang; Peter A Kollman; David A Case
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2006-02-03       Impact factor: 2.518

4.  Hamiltonian and distance replica exchange method studies of Met-enkephalin.

Authors:  Li Su; Robert I Cukier
Journal:  J Phys Chem B       Date:  2007-10-05       Impact factor: 2.991

Review 5.  Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design.

Authors:  Gerhard Wolber; Thomas Seidel; Fabian Bendix; Thierry Langer
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2007-11-05       Impact factor: 7.851

Review 6.  The use of machine learning and nonlinear statistical tools for ADME prediction.

Authors:  Yojiro Sakiyama
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 4.481

Review 7.  Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery.

Authors:  Andrew R Leach; Valerie J Gillet; Richard A Lewis; Robin Taylor
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2010-01-28       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  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

9.  Improved Efficiency of Replica Exchange Simulations through Use of a Hybrid Explicit/Implicit Solvation Model.

Authors:  Asim Okur; Lauren Wickstrom; Melinda Layten; Raphäel Geney; Kun Song; Viktor Hornak; Carlos Simmerling
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 6.006

10.  Generalized born model with a simple smoothing function.

Authors:  Wonpil Im; Michael S Lee; Charles L Brooks
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2003-11-15       Impact factor: 3.376

View more
  18 in total

1.  4D-LQTA-QSAR and docking study on potent Gram-negative specific LpxC inhibitors: a comparison to CoMFA modeling.

Authors:  Jahan B Ghasemi; Reihaneh Safavi-Sohi; Euzébio G Barbosa
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2011-11-30       Impact factor: 2.943

2.  Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) I: bond perception and atom typing.

Authors:  K Vanommeslaeghe; A D MacKerell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 4.956

3.  Persistence and dioxin-like toxicity of carbazole and chlorocarbazoles in soil.

Authors:  John Mumbo; Bernhard Henkelmann; Ahmed Abdelaziz; Gerd Pfister; Nghia Nguyen; Reiner Schroll; Jean Charles Munch; Karl-Werner Schramm
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 4.223

4.  Computer-Aided Drug Design Methods.

Authors:  Wenbo Yu; Alexander D MacKerell
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2017

5.  Optimization and Evaluation of Site-Identification by Ligand Competitive Saturation (SILCS) as a Tool for Target-Based Ligand Optimization.

Authors:  Vincent D Ustach; Sirish Kaushik Lakkaraju; Sunhwan Jo; Wenbo Yu; Wenjuan Jiang; Alexander D MacKerell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-05-08       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Automation of the CHARMM General Force Field (CGenFF) II: assignment of bonded parameters and partial atomic charges.

Authors:  K Vanommeslaeghe; E Prabhu Raman; A D MacKerell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-11-28       Impact factor: 4.956

7.  Force Fields for Small Molecules.

Authors:  Fang-Yu Lin; Alexander D MacKerell
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2019

8.  Synthesis, modeling, and pharmacological evaluation of UMB 425, a mixed μ agonist/δ antagonist opioid analgesic with reduced tolerance liabilities.

Authors:  Jason R Healy; Padmavani Bezawada; Jihyun Shim; Jace W Jones; Maureen A Kane; Alexander D MacKerell; Andrew Coop; Rae R Matsumoto
Journal:  ACS Chem Neurosci       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 4.418

9.  Molecular dynamics-guided receptor-dependent 4D-QSAR studies of HDACs inhibitors.

Authors:  Zhihao Hu; Qianxia Lin; Haiyun Liu; Tiansheng Zhao; Bowen Yang; Guogang Tu
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2021-02-24       Impact factor: 2.943

10.  A Teach-Discover-Treat Application of ZincPharmer: An Online Interactive Pharmacophore Modeling and Virtual Screening Tool.

Authors:  David Ryan Koes; Nicolas A Pabon; Xiaoyi Deng; Margaret A Phillips; Carlos J Camacho
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-10       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.