Lipophilicity in molecular modeling

Pharmaceutical Research

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 335-343

  Testa, Bernard ^a   Carrupt, Pierre Alain ^a   Gaillard, Patrick ^a   Billois, Frédéric ^a   Weber, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

3D QSAR; Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA); Conformation; Intermolecular forces; Intramolecular interactions; Lipophilicity; MLP; Molecular lipophilicity potential; Partition coefficients; Receptor blocking

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CONFORMATIONAL TRANSITION; DRUG DESIGN; FORCE; LIPOPHILICITY; MOLECULAR MODEL; PARTITION COEFFICIENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL; DRUG DESIGN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MODELS, CHEMICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; SOLUBILITY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0029881811     PISSN: 07248741     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1016024005429     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. F. Helmer, K. Kiehs, and C. Hansch, The linear free-energy relation between partition coefficients and the binding, and conformational perturbation of macromolecules by small organic compounds. Biochem. 7:2858-2863 (1968).
2. C. Hansch and A. Leo. Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1979.
3. R. F. Rekker. The Hydrophobic Fragmental Constant. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1977.
4. H. van de Waterbeemd and B. Testa. The parametrization of lipophilicity and other structural properties in drug design. In B. Testa (ed.), Advances in Drug Research. Vol. 16, Academic Press, London, 1987, pp. 87-227.
5. N. El Tayar, B. Testa, and P. A. Carrupt, Polar intermolecular interactions encoded in partition coefficients: an indirect estimation of hydrogen-bond parameters of polyfunctional solutes. J. Phys. Chem. 96:1455-1459 (1992).
6. E. Audry, J. P. Dubost, J. C. Colleter, and P. Dallet, A new approach to structure-activity relations: the "molecular lipophilicity potential". Eur. J. Med. Chem. 21:71-72 (1986).
7. J. L. Fauchère, P. Quarendon, and L. Kaetterer, Estimating and representing hydrophobicity potential. J. Mol. Graphics 6:203-206 (1988).
8. P. Furet, A. Sele, and N. C. Cohen, 3D molecular lipophilicity potential profiles: a new tool in molecular modeling. J. Mol. Graphics 6:182-189 (1988).
9. G. E. Kellogg, S. F. Semus, and D. J. Abraham, HINT: a new method of empirical hydrophobic field calculation for CoMFA. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 5:545-552 (1991).
10. W. Heiden, G. Moeckel, and J. Brickmann, A new approach to analysis and display of local lipophilicity/hydrophilicity mapped on molecular surfaces. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 7:503-514 (1993).
11. P. Gaillard, P. A. Carrupt, B. Testa, and A. Boudon, Molecular lipophilicity potential, a tool in 3D-QSAR. Method and applications. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 8:83-96 (1994).
12. D. J. Abraham and G. E. Kellogg. Hydrophobic fields. In H. Kubinyi (ed.), 3D QSAR in Drug Design. Theory Methods and Applications. ESCOM Science Publishers, Leiden, 1993, pp. 506-522.
13. R. W. Taft, J. L. M. Abboud, M. J. Kamlet, and M. H. Abraham, Linear solvation energy relations. J. Sol. Chem. 14:153-186 (1985).
14. N. El Tayar, R. S. Tsai, B. Testa, P. A. Carrupt, and A. Leo, Partitioning of solutes in different solvent systems: the contribution of hydrogen-bonding capacity and polarity. J. Pharm. Sci. 80:590-598 (1991).
15. B. Testa, P. A. Carrupt, P. Gaillard, and R. S. Tsai. Intramolecular interactions encoded in lipophilicity: their nature and significance. In V. Pliska, B. Testa, and H. van de Waterbeemd (eds.), Lipophilicity in Drug Research, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, 1996, in press.
16. R. F. Rekker and H. M. De Kort, The hydrophobic fragmental constant; an extension to a 1000 data point set. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 14:479-488 (1979).
17. L. B. Kier and B. Testa. Complexity and emergence in drug research. In B. Testa and U.A. Meyer (eds.), Advances in Drug Research. Vol. 26, Academic Press, London, 1995, pp. 1-43.
18. C. Hansch and S. M. Anderson, The effect of intramolecular hydrophobic bonding on partition coefficient. J. Org. Chem. 32:2583-2586 (1967).
19. R. A. Wiley and D. H. Rich, Peptidomimetics derived from natural products. Med. Res. Rev. 13:327-384 (1993).
20. D. H. Rich. Effect of hydrophobic collapse on enzyme-inhibitor interactions. Implications for the design of peptidomimetics. In B. Testa, E. Kyburz, W. Fuhrer, and R. Giger (eds.), Perspectives in Medicinal Chemistry, VCH Verlag, Weinheim, 1993, pp. 15-25.
21. X. K. Jiang, Hydrophobic-lipophilicity interactions. Aggregation and self-coiling of organic molecules. Acc. Chem. Res. 21:362-367 (1988).
22. P. A. Carrupt, B. Testa, A. Bechalany, N. El Tayar, P. Descas, and D. Perrissoud, Morphine 6-glucuronide and morphine 3-glucuronide as molecular chameleons with unexpected lipophilicity. J. Med. Chem. 34:1272-1275 (1991).
23. P. Broto, G. Moreau, and C. Vandycke, Molecular structure: perception, autocorrelation descriptor and SAR studies. Perception of molecules: topological structure and 3-dimensional structure. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 19:61-65 (1984).
24. A. K. Ghose and G. M. Crippen, Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships. 1. Partition coefficients as a measure of hydrophobicity. J. Comput. Chem. 7:565-577 (1986).
25. A. Kantola, H. O. Villar, and G. H. Loew, Atom based parametrization for a conformationally dependent hydrophobic index. J. Comput. Chem. 12:681-689 (1991).
26. G. Klopman and S. Wang, A computer automated structure evaluation (CASE). Approach to calculation of partition coefficients. J. Comput. Chem. 12:1025-1032 (1991).
27. P. Camilleri, S. A. Watts, and J. A. Boraston, A surface area approach to determination of partition coefficients. J. Chem. Soc., Perkin Trans. 2 1699-1707 (1988).
28. S. Hirono, Q. Liu, and I. Moriguchi, High correlation between hydrophobic free energy and molecular surface area characterized by electrostatic potential. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 39:3106-3109 (1991).
29. A. K. Ghose and G. M. Crippen, Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional-structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships. 2. Modeling dispersive and hydrophobic interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 27:21-35 (1987).
30. P. Gaillard, P. A. Carrupt, and B. Testa, The conformation-dependent lipophilicity of morphine glucuronides as calculated from their molecular lipophilicity potential. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 4:737-742 (1994).
31. P. A. Carrupt, P. Gaillard, F. Billois, P. Weber, B. Testa, C. Meyer, and S. Pérez. The molecular lipophilicity potential (MLP) a new tool for log P calculation and in comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). In V. Pliska, B. Testa, and H. van de Waterbeemd (eds.), Lipophilicity in Drug Research, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, 1996, in press.
32. A. R. Leach. A survey of methods for searching the conformational space of small and medium-sized molecules. In K. B. Lipkowitz and D. B. Boyd (eds.), Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol. II, VCH, New York, 1991, pp. 1-55.
33. M. Brunner-Guenat, P. A. Carrupt, G. Lisa, B. Testa, S. Rose, K. Thomas, P. Jenner, and P. Ventura, Esters of L-Dopa: structure-hydrolysis relationships and ability to induce circling behaviour in an experimental model of hemiparkinsonism. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 47:861-869 (1995).
34. R. D. Cramer III, D. E. Patterson, and J. D. Bunce, Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110:5959-5967 (1988).
35. R. D. Cramer III, S. A. DePriest, D. E. Patterson, and P. Hecht. The developing practice of comparative molecular field analysis. In H. Kubinyi (ed.), 3D QSAR in Drug Design. Theory Methods and Applications. ESCOM Science Publishers, Leiden, 1993, pp. 443-485.
36. G. Klebe and U. Abraham, On the prediction of binding properties of drug molecules by comparative molecular field analysis. J. Med. Chem. 36:70-80 (1993).
37. 1A receptor: contribution of the molecular lipophilicity potential to three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J. Med. Chem. 39:126-134 (1996).
38. S. Kneubühler, U. Thull, C. Altomare, V. Carta, P. Gaillard, P. A. Carrupt, A. Carotti, and B. Testa, Inhibition of monoamine oxidase-B by 5H-indeno[1,2-c]pyridazine derivatives: biological activities, quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) and 3D-QSARs. J. Med. Chem. 38:3874-3883 (1995).
39. U. Thull, S. Kneubühler, P. Gaillard, P. A. Carrupt, B. Testa, C. Altomare, A. Carotti, P. Jenner, and K. S. P. McNaught, Inhibition of monoamine oxidase by isoquinoline derivatives: qualitative and 3D-quantitative structure-activity relationships. Biochem. Pharmacol. 50:869-877 (1995).
40. C. Meyer. Bases moléculaires du goût sucré: flexibilité conformationnelle et relations structure-activité d'édulcorants intenses dérivés du saccharose. Université de Nantes, Nantes, 1994.
41. C. T. Dourish, Piribedil: behavioural neurochemical and clinical profile of a dopamine agonist. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. & Biol. Psychiat. 7:3-27 (1983).
42. Y. Evrard, Le piribédil, agoniste dopaminergique. Actual. Chim. Thér. No Spécial: 16-20 (1991).
43. 2-like dopamine receptors. Biochem. J. 287:277-282 (1992).