Literature DB >> 22976034

Predicting the biological activities through QSAR analysis and docking-based scoring.

Santiago Vilar1, Stefano Costanzi.   

Abstract

Numerous computational methodologies have been developed to facilitate the process of drug discovery. Broadly, they can be classified into ligand-based approaches, which are solely based on the calculation of the molecular properties of compounds, and structure-based approaches, which are based on the study of the interactions between compounds and their target proteins. This chapter deals with two major categories of ligand-based and structure-based methods for the prediction of biological activities of chemical compounds, namely quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) analysis and docking-based scoring. QSAR methods are endowed with robustness and good ranking ability when applied to the prediction of the activity of closely related analogs; however, their great dependence on training sets significantly limits their applicability to the evaluation of diverse compounds. Instead, docking-based scoring, although not very effective in ranking active compounds on the basis of their affinities or potencies, offer the great advantage of not depending on training sets and have proven to be suitable tools for the distinction of active from inactive compounds, thus providing feasible platforms for virtual screening campaigns. Here, we describe the basic principles underlying the prediction of biological activities on the basis of QSAR and docking-based scoring, as well as a method to combine two or more individual predictions into a consensus model. Finally, we describe an example that illustrates the applicability of QSAR and molecular docking to G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) projects.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22976034      PMCID: PMC3445294          DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-023-6_16

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  41 in total

1.  Autocorrelation of molecular electrostatic potential surface properties combined with partial least squares analysis as new strategy for the prediction of the activity of human A(3) adenosine receptor antagonists.

Authors:  Stefano Moro; Magdalena Bacilieri; Barbara Cacciari; Giampiero Spalluto
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Can free energy calculations be fast and accurate at the same time? Binding of low-affinity, non-peptide inhibitors to the SH2 domain of the src protein.

Authors:  Christophe Chipot; Xavier Rozanska; Surjit B Dixit
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2005-12-20       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Predictions of CCR1 chemokine receptor structure and BX 471 antagonist binding followed by experimental validation.

Authors:  Nagarajan Vaidehi; Sabine Schlyer; Rene J Trabanino; Wely B Floriano; Ravinder Abrol; Shantanu Sharma; Monica Kochanny; Sunil Koovakat; Laura Dunning; Meina Liang; James M Fox; Filipa Lopes de Mendonça; James E Pease; William A Goddard; Richard Horuk
Journal:  J Biol Chem       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 5.157

4.  P2Y1 antagonists: combining receptor-based modeling and QSAR for a quantitative prediction of the biological activity based on consensus scoring.

Authors:  Stefano Costanzi; Irina G Tikhonova; Michihiro Ohno; Eun Joo Roh; Bhalchandra V Joshi; Anny-Odile Colson; Dayle Houston; Savitri Maddileti; T Kendall Harden; Kenneth A Jacobson
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2007-06-12       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 5.  Principles for 3D/4D QSAR classification of drugs.

Authors:  Vladimir Potemkin; Maria Grishina
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2008-09-07       Impact factor: 7.851

6.  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

Review 7.  Rhodopsin and the others: a historical perspective on structural studies of G protein-coupled receptors.

Authors:  Stefano Costanzi; Jeffrey Siegel; Irina G Tikhonova; Kenneth A Jacobson
Journal:  Curr Pharm Des       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 3.116

8.  Computational mapping of the conformational transitions in agonist selective pathways of a G-protein coupled receptor.

Authors:  Supriyo Bhattacharya; Nagarajan Vaidehi
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2010-04-14       Impact factor: 15.419

Review 9.  Community-wide assessment of GPCR structure modelling and ligand docking: GPCR Dock 2008.

Authors:  Mayako Michino; Enrique Abola; Charles L Brooks; J Scott Dixon; John Moult; Raymond C Stevens
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 84.694

10.  Design of early validation trials of biomarkers.

Authors:  Daniel Normolle; Mack T Ruffin; Dean Brenner
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2005
View more
  3 in total

1.  Computational studies to predict or explain G protein coupled receptor polypharmacology.

Authors:  Kenneth A Jacobson; Stefano Costanzi; Silvia Paoletta
Journal:  Trends Pharmacol Sci       Date:  2014-11-14       Impact factor: 14.819

2.  QSTR Modeling to Find Relevant DFT Descriptors Related to the Toxicity of Carbamates.

Authors:  Emma H Acosta-Jiménez; Luis A Zárate-Hernández; Rosa L Camacho-Mendoza; Simplicio González-Montiel; José G Alvarado-Rodríguez; Carlos Z Gómez-Castro; Miriam Pescador-Rojas; Amilcar Meneses-Viveros; Julián Cruz-Borbolla
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-08-28       Impact factor: 4.927

3.  Interrogation of Bacillus anthracis SrtA active site loop forming open/close lid conformations through extensive MD simulations for understanding binding selectivity of SrtA inhibitors.

Authors:  Chandrabose Selvaraj; Gurudeeban Selvaraj; Randa Mohamed Ismail; Rajendran Vijayakumar; Alaa Baazeem; Dong-Qing Wei; Sanjeev Kumar Singh
Journal:  Saudi J Biol Sci       Date:  2021-05-08       Impact factor: 4.219

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.