| Literature DB >> 22837679 |
Ming Hao1, Hong Ren2,3, Fang Luo4, Shuwei Zhang1, Jieshan Qiu1, Mingjuan Ji4, Hongzong Si5,6, Guohui Li3.
Abstract
Mitogen-activated protein kinase-activated protein kinase 2 (MK-2) has been identified as a drug target for the treatment of inflammatory diseases. Currently, a series of thiourea analogs as potent MK-2 inhibitors were studied using comprehensive computational methods by 3D-QSAR, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations for a further improvement in activities. The optimal 3D models exhibit high statistical significance of the results, especially for the CoMFA results with r(2) (ncv), q(2) values of 0.974, 0.536 for the internal validation, and r(2) (pred), r(2) (m) values of 0.910, 0.723 for the external validation and Roy's index, respectively. In addition, more rigorous validation criteria suggested by Tropsha were also employed to check the built models. Graphic representation of the results, as contoured 3D coefficient plots, also provides a clue to the reasonable modification of molecules: (i) The substituent with a bulky size and electron-rich group at the C5 position of the pyrazine ring is required to enhance the potency; (ii) The H-bond acceptor group in the C3 position of the pyrazine ring is likely to be helpful to increase MK-2 inhibition; (iii) The small and electropositive substituent as a hydrogen bond donor of the C2 position in the oxazolone ring is favored; In addition, several important amino acid residues were also identified as playing an important role in MK-2 inhibition. The agreement between 3D-QSAR, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations also proves the rationality of the developed models. These results, we hope, may be helpful in designing novel and potential MK-2 inhibitors.Entities:
Keywords: 3D-QSAR; CoMFA; CoMSIA; MK-2 inhibitors; molecular dynamics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22837679 PMCID: PMC3397511 DOI: 10.3390/ijms13067057
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Principal component analysis of the Mold2 descriptors for MK-2 inhibitors.
The CoMFA and CoMSIA results based on different alignment methods.
| PLS analysis | Alignment methods | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| I | II | III | ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
| CoMFA | CoMSIA | CoMFA | CoMSIA | CoMFA | CoMSIA | |
| 0.536 | 0.556 | −0.035 | 0.263 | 0.311 | 0.400 | |
| 0.642 | 0.595 | 0.909 | 0.759 | 0.741 | 0.699 | |
| 8 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| 0.974 | 0.779 | 0.873 | 0.810 | 0.897 | 0.843 | |
| 0.151 | 0.420 | 0.318 | 0.385 | 0.287 | 0.357 | |
| 207.641 | 57.509 | 112.475 | 106.868 | 141.747 | 64.605 | |
| 0.630 | 0.606 | 0.169 | 0.273 | 0.401 | 0.390 | |
| 0.989 | 0.820 | - | - | - | - | |
| 0.099 | 0.374 | - | - | - | - | |
| 0.810 | 0.669 | 0.416 | 0.480 | 0.444 | 0.156 | |
|
| ||||||
|
| ||||||
| S | 0.496 | 0.250 | 0.348 | - | 0.475 | 1.000 |
| E | 0.504 | 0.503 | 0.652 | 0.483 | 0.525 | - |
| H | - | - | - | 0.517 | - | - |
| D | - | 0.247 | - | - | - | - |
| A | - | - | - | - | - | |
Results of the optimal CoMFA and CoMSIA models for the external prediction set.
| Model | ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CoMFA | 0.810 | 0.807 | 0.013 | 0.993 | 0.723 |
| CoMSIA | 0.669 | 0.677 | 0.054 | 0.998 | 0.548 |
The structures and experimental and predicted activities (pIC50 in M) of the best CoMFA and CoMSIA models for MK-2 inhibitors.
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Compd. | R | Experimental pIC50 | Predicted pIC50 | ||
|
| |||||
| CoMFA | CoMSIA | ||||
| 1 | Ph | 5.699 | 5.344 | 5.391 | |
| 2 | Et | 4.699 | 5.063 | 4.954 | |
| 3 | 4.886 | 5.013 | 4.978 | ||
| 4 | 5.602 | 5.569 | 4.973 | ||
| 5 | 4.921 | 4.773 | 5.374 | ||
| 6 | 4.276 | 4.735 | 5.375 | ||
| 7 | 4.456 | 4.380 | 5.364 | ||
| 8 | Bn | 4.444 | 4.401 | 4.736 | |
| 9 | MeOCH2CH2 | 4.658 | 4.507 | 4.405 | |
| 10 | Benzoyl | 4.041 | 4.213 | 4.249 | |
| 11 | 1-Naphthyl | 5.495 | 5.595 | 4.816 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 12 | H | H | 4.495 | 4.687 | 5.440 |
| 13 | Me | H | 5.398 | 5.261 | 5.001 |
| 14 | Et | H | 5.824 | 5.799 | 5.203 |
| 15 | H | 5.638 | 5.614 | 5.837 | |
| 16 | H | 6.328 | 6.051 | 5.811 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 17 | 4-Me | 5.569 | 5.714 | 5.436 | |
| 18 | 4-Cl | 5.432 | 5.348 | 5.263 | |
| 19 | 4-MeO | 5.721 | 5.444 | 4.948 | |
| 20 | 4- | 5.585 | 5.516 | 5.337 | |
| 21 | 4- | 4.863 | 4.968 | 4.868 | |
| 22 | 4-Br | 5.509 | 5.357 | 5.261 | |
| 23 | 4-NO2 | 5.004 | 5.168 | 5.527 | |
| 24 | 4-CN | 5.161 | 4.859 | 5.153 | |
| 25 | 4-BnO | 5.569 | 5.582 | 5.290 | |
| 26 | 4-Ac | 5.161 | 4.910 | 5.010 | |
| 27 | 4-EtOC(=O)- | 4.971 | 4.949 | 4.958 | |
| 28 | 4-NMe2 | 5.155 | 5.405 | 5.060 | |
| 29 | 4-(Morphorin-1-yl) | 4.762 | 4.809 | 4.889 | |
| 30 | 4-AcNH- | 5.284 | 5.515 | 5.908 | |
| 31 | 4-NH2 | 5.699 | 5.795 | 5.811 | |
| 32 | 4-BnOC(=O)NH- | 6.337 | 6.322 | 6.218 | |
| 33 | 2-Me | 5.444 | 5.488 | 5.342 | |
| 34 | 2-Cl | 5.959 | 5.778 | 5.473 | |
| 35 | 2-MeO | 5.585 | 5.599 | 5.619 | |
| 36 | 2-F | 5.699 | 5.720 | 5.524 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 37 | 2-MeS | 5.602 | 5.711 | 5.511 | |
| 38 | 3-Me | 5.032 | 5.160 | 5.348 | |
| 39 | 3-Cl | 4.947 | 5.088 | 5.375 | |
| 40 | 3-MeO | 4.839 | 5.507 | 5.107 | |
| 41 | 2,4-Di-MeO | 5.602 | 5.457 | 5.365 | |
| 42 | 2,4-Di-Cl | 5.367 | 5.787 | 5.345 | |
| 43 | 3,5-Di-Cl | 4.569 | 4.564 | 5.374 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 44 | MeOC(=O)NH- | Cl | 6.027 | 5.884 | 5.920 |
| 45 | EtOC(=O)NH- | Cl | 6.509 | 6.147 | 5.997 |
| 46 | Cl | 6.638 | 6.765 | 6.124 | |
| 47 | Cl | 6.824 | 6.841 | 6.114 | |
| 48 | Cl | 6.721 | 6.299 | 6.025 | |
| 49 | Cl | 5.824 | 5.772 | 5.824 | |
| 50 | MeNHC(=O)NH- | Cl | 5.770 | 5.765 | 6.309 |
| 51 | Cl | 6.155 | 6.234 | 6.451 | |
| 52 | Me | 6.678 | 6.530 | 6.624 | |
| 53 | PhOC(=O)NH- | Me | 6.137 | 6.221 | 6.165 |
| 54 | EtOC(=O)N(Me)- | Me | 5.000 | 5.067 | 5.592 |
| 55 | Me | 5.538 | 5.684 | 5.918 | |
| 56 | EtC(=O)NH- | Me | 4.876 | 4.854 | 5.679 |
| 57 | Me | 5.638 | 5.541 | 5.719 | |
| 58 | Me | 5.824 | 5.612 | 5.715 | |
| 59 | BnC(=O)NH- | Me | 5.420 | 5.518 | 5.487 |
| 60 | PhC(=O)NH- | Me | 6.237 | 5.748 | 5.971 |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| Experimental pIC50 | |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 61 | 3-NHC(=O)NH-4 | 4.824 | 4.639 | 4.696 | |
| 62 | 3-CH2C(=O)NH-4 | 4.569 | 4.696 | 4.842 | |
| 63 | 3-SC(=O)NH-4 | 4.824 | 5.106 | 4.972 | |
| 64 | 3-NHC(=O)O-4 | 4.854 | 5.437 | 5.382 | |
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
|
| |||||
| 65 |
| Et | 6.854 | 6.827 | 6.824 |
| 66 |
| 7.347 | 7.409 | 7.020 | |
| 67 |
| 6.987 | 6.996 | 6.470 | |
| 68 |
| 7.699 | 7.577 | 7.681 | |
| 69 |
| 7.523 | 7.539 | 7.795 | |
| 70 |
| 7.824 | 7.960 | 7.422 | |
| 71 |
| 7.081 | 7.100 | 6.889 | |
denote the test set.
Figure 2The predicted versus the actual pIC50 values for the MK-2 inhibitors. (A) CoMFA model and (B) CoMSIA model.
Figure 3The residual plots for the optimal CoMFA and CoMSIA models. CoMFA residual plots for the training and test sets are shown in (A) and (B), respectively; CoMSIA residual plots for the training and test sets are shown in (C) and (D), respectively.
Figure 4CoMFA StDev*Coeff contour plots with the combination of compound 70.
Figure 5CoMSIA StDev*Coeff contour plots with the combination of compound 70.
Figure 6The binding result of compounds with MK-2. The ligands are colored in forest green and key amino acid residues in black labels. H-bonds are shown in red dash lines. (A) Binding result of the highest active ligand 70 with MK-2; (B) Binding results of the lowest active ligand 10 with MK-2.
Figure 7(A) Plot of the root-mean-square deviation of docked complex/ligand versus the MD simulation time in the MD-simulated structures; (B) Distant view of superimposed backbone atoms of the time-averaged structure from the final 2 ns of MD simulations (colored in forest green) and the initial structure (colored in blue) for compound 70 with MK-2; (C) Nearby view the alignment at the active center of MK-2.
Figure 8The alignment of all molecules in the dataset. (A) Inhibitor 70 is used as the template for molecular alignment, with the bold part as the common scaffold; (B) Alignment I: from the database alignment; (C) Alignment II: from the direct molecular docking conformations; (D) Alignment III: from the combination of both alignments I and II.