| Literature DB >> 27399692 |
Mihai V Putz1,2, Corina Duda-Seiman3, Daniel Duda-Seiman4, Ana-Maria Putz5,6, Iulia Alexandrescu7, Maria Mernea8, Speranta Avram9.
Abstract
Within medicinal chemistry nowadays, the so-called pharmaco-dynamics seeks for qualitative (for understanding) and quantitative (for predicting) mechanisms/models by which given chemical structure or series of congeners actively act on biological sites either by focused interaction/therapy or by diffuse/hazardous influence. To this aim, the present review exposes three of the fertile directions in approaching the biological activity by chemical structural causes: the special computing trace of the algebraic structure-activity relationship (SPECTRAL-SAR) offering the full analytical counterpart for multi-variate computational regression, the minimal topological difference (MTD) as the revived precursor for comparative molecular field analyses (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA); all of these methods and algorithms were presented, discussed and exemplified on relevant chemical medicinal systems as proton pump inhibitors belonging to the 4-indolyl,2-guanidinothiazole class of derivatives blocking the acid secretion from parietal cells in the stomach, the 1-[(2-hydroxyethoxy)-methyl]-6-(phenylthio)thymine congeners' (HEPT ligands) antiviral activity against Human Immunodeficiency Virus of first type (HIV-1) and new pharmacophores in treating severe genetic disorders (like depression and psychosis), respectively, all involving 3D pharmacophore interactions.Entities:
Keywords: chemical stericity; cross-validation; drug design; hydrophobicity; ligand binding; molecular mechanism; multi-linear correlation; quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR); statistical correlation; van der Waals interaction
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27399692 PMCID: PMC4964463 DOI: 10.3390/ijms17071087
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1The electronic basins (left) and the associated electrostatic potential contours (right) for 4-(5-methylindolyl)-2-methylheptylguanidinothiazole, displaying optimized maximum electrophilic activity by the predicted special computing trace of the algebraic structure-activity relationship (SPECTRAL-SAR) mechanism action [56]. Green lines correspond with highest occupied molecular orbitals (HOMO), magenta with lowest unoccupied molecular orbitals (LUMO) with the yellow shapes marked as key fragments for chemical frontier reactivity.
Figure 21-[(2-hydroxyethoxy)-methyl]-6-(phenylthio)thymine (HEPT) structure with superimposition of 79 derivatives with minimum energy conformations; these are (marked in blue, in the center) the possible positions for substituents of the uracil ring; also in blue, we marked the 63 obtained vertices [19]; down arrows and triangles denote those beneficial vertices (attributed to the receptor cavity), up arrows and triangles indicate the detrimental vertices, for the mono-linear and bi-linear MTD analysis of Equations (17) and (19) and the optimized charts (18) and (20), respectively; see the text for further details. Circular colors generally indicate self-corresponding visualization for the molecular group belonging in the hypermolecule.
Symbols and chemical and physical considerations of significant molecular descriptors of the antidepressants.
| Name of Descriptors | Chemical and Physical Considerations of Descriptors | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Dipole-mag | electronic descriptor involved in ligand-receptor interactions | [ |
| SASA | = total solvent accessible surface area | [ |
| FOSA | = hydrophobic component of the total solvent accessible surface area (saturated carbon and attached hydrogen) | [ |
| FISA | = hydrophilic component of the total solvent accessible surface area (SASA on N, O, H on heteroatoms, and carbonyl C) | [ |
| Glob | globularity descriptor | [ |
| CoMFA, electrostatic descriptor | the electrostatic interactions between a probe atom, usually an sp3-carbon atom with a +1 charge, and the ligands are calculated at uniform grid points following the Coulombic function | [ |
| CoMFA, steric descriptor | the steric interactions between a probe atom, usually an sp3-carbon atom with a +1 charge, and the ligands are calculated at uniform grid points following the Lennard–Jones function | [ |
Significant descriptors and chemical and physical considerations of them when antidepressants activity is considered.
| Descriptors | Chemical and Physical Considerations of Descriptors | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Steric and hydrogen bonding interaction energies | the energies calculated with the water probe contain the steric and hydrogen bonding interaction energies, supplied by the presence of sodium, potassium, calcium and iron | [ |
| EA | electron affinity | [ |
| BBB | blood brain barrier | [ |
| QPlogBB | brain/blood partition coefficient | [ |
| CoMFA/CoMSIA, electrostatic descriptor | The electrostatic interactions between a probe atom, usually a sp3-carbon atom with a +1 charge, and the ligands are calculated at uniform grid points following the Coulombic function | [ |
| CoMFA/CoMSIA, steric descriptor | The steric interactions between a probe atom, usually an sp3-carbon atom with a +1 charge, and the ligands are calculated at uniform grid points following the Lennard–Jones function | [ |
Antidepressants and antipsychotics classifications.
| Classes of Antidepressants | Chemical Structure | Molecules Name | Chemical Classes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) | sertraline | tetrahydronaphthalenes | |
| paroxetine | piperidines | ||
| fluvoxamine | benzenes | ||
| escitalopram | benzofurans | ||
| Serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) | venlafaxine | phenols | |
| desvenlafaxine | phenols | ||
| duloxetine | naphthalenes | ||
| Newer generation of drugs | clozapine | benzodiazepines | |
| ziprasidone | phenethylamines | ||
| paliperidone | benzoxazoles | ||
| risperidone | benzoxazoles | ||
| quetiapine | benzothiazepines | ||
| olanzapine | benzodiazepine |
Statistical parameters determined for the three QSAR models [89].
| QSAR Models | Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) | Cross-Validated RMSE | Fischer Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QSAR Model 1 | 0.53 | 0.82 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 13.22 |
| QSAR Model 2 | 0.65 | 0.83 | 0.14 | 0.20 | 10.03 |
| QSAR Model 3 | 0.60 | 0.90 | 0.10 | 0.25 | 10.23 |