| Literature DB >> 22438795 |
Jacob D Durrant1, J Andrew McCammon.
Abstract
Academic researchers and many in industry often lack the financial resources available to scientists working in "big pharma." High costs include those associated with high-throughput screening and chemical synthesis. In order to address these challenges, many researchers have in part turned to alternate methodologies. Virtual screening, for example, often substitutes for high-throughput screening, and click chemistry ensures that chemical synthesis is fast, cheap, and comparatively easy. Though both in silico screening and click chemistry seek to make drug discovery more feasible, it is not yet routine to couple these two methodologies. We here present a novel computer algorithm, called AutoClickChem, capable of performing many click-chemistry reactions in silico. AutoClickChem can be used to produce large combinatorial libraries of compound models for use in virtual screens. As the compounds of these libraries are constructed according to the reactions of click chemistry, they can be easily synthesized for subsequent testing in biochemical assays. Additionally, in silico modeling of click-chemistry products may prove useful in rational drug design and drug optimization. AutoClickChem is based on the pymolecule toolbox, a framework that may facilitate the development of future python-based programs that require the manipulation of molecular models. Both the pymolecule toolbox and AutoClickChem are released under the GNU General Public License version 3 and are available for download from http://autoclickchem.ucsd.edu.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22438795 PMCID: PMC3305364 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS Comput Biol ISSN: 1553-734X Impact factor: 4.475
A comparison of several computer programs for virtual combinatorial-library generation.
| Reference | Free | Open Source | Server Application | Synthesizability of Products | Auto-Identification of Reactive Atoms/Groups | 3D Products Produced | |
| AutoClickChem1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| SmiLib2 |
|
|
|
| − | − | − |
| SLF_Libmaker3 |
| − | − | − | − | − | ? |
| ChemOffice Ultra4 |
| − | − | − | − | − | − |
| CombiLibMaker5 |
| − | − | − | ? | ? |
|
| ChemAxon Reactor6 |
|
| − |
|
|
| − |
autoclickchem.ucsd.edu.
gecco.org.chemie.uni-frankfurt.de/smilib/.
www.idealp-pharma.com.
cambridgesoft.com.
tripos.com.
chemaxon.com.
“Free” means the software is available free of charge, “Open Source” means the source code can be freely modified, “Server Application” means the software is available for use remotely over the internet (without installation), “Synthesizability of Products” means the software takes into account actual chemical reactions when generating compounds in silico, “Auto-Identification of Reactive Atoms/Groups” means the program automatically identifies reactive atoms or chemical groups so that the user need not manually annotate, and “3D Products Produced” means the program automatically generates models with 3D coordinates.
Figure 1A schematic showing how AutoClickChem mimics the azide-alkyne Huisgen cycloaddition.
A) This cycloaddition combines an alkyne and an azide into a 1,2,3-triazole product. B) As a first step, AutoClickChem fragments the alkyne along its triple bond and the azide along the bond connecting its proximal and medial azide nitrogen atom. C) The fragments are then translated so that atomic “handles” are superimposed on top of the corresponding atoms of a 1,2,3-triazole model. D) Next, the fragments are rotated about the handle atoms in order to minimize the distance between the handle-adjacent atoms and the corresponding atoms on the 1,2,3-triazole model. E) The positioned fragments are then rotated in order to reduce steric hindrance. F) Finally, redundant atoms are deleted, and the fragment and 1,2,3-triazole model atoms are merged into a single final structure.
To demonstrate the diversity of the compounds generated, fifty azides and fifty alkynes were selected at random and reacted in silico using AutoClickChem.
| Molecular Weight | Number of Atoms | logP | PSA | MR | |
| Minimum | 395.5 | 41 | 0.9 | 69.0 | 103.3 |
| Maximum | 593.6 | 92 | 6.5 | 219.0 | 168.8 |
| Mean ± Stan. Dev. | 502.8±29.2 | 74.6±9.6 | 3.8±1.1 | 117.0±23.5 | 146.4±13.5 |
“logP” refers to the estimated partition coefficient, “PSA” refers to the polar surface area, and “MR” refers to the molar refractivity.
Figure 2The top-scoring predicted PTP1B ligand (in licorice representation), docked into the receptor active site.
Protein residues that participate in electrostatic interactions are highlighted in yellow. Atoms that participate in receptor-ligand hydrogen bonds are shown in ball-and-stick representation. The aromatic ring of the receptor tyrosine residue that participates in π-π stacking and T-stacking interactions with the ligand is shown in thick licorice representation. The crystallographic pose of a known inhibitor is shown in purple, with key sulfonate moieties shown colored by element in licorice representation. Portions of the protein have been removed to facilitate visualization.