Effects of variable docking conditions and scoring functions on corresponding protein-aligned comparative molecular field analysis models constructed from diverse human protein tyrosine phosphatase 1B inhibitors

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 48, Issue 25, 2005, Pages 8016-8034

  Taha, Mutasem O ^a   Aldamen, Murad A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF JORDAN   (Jordan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN TYROSINE PHOSPHATASE 1B INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; BINDING SITE; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; DRUG PROTEIN BINDING; DRUG SYNTHESIS; ENERGY; ENZYME ACTIVE SITE; MOLECULAR MODEL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

BINDING SITES; ENZYME INHIBITORS; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEIN-TYROSINE-PHOSPHATASE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 29144472246     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm058047o     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Akamatsu, M. Current state and perspectives of 3D-QSAR. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2002, 12, 1381-1394
2. Cramer, R. D., III; Patterson, D. E.; Bunce, J. D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959-5967.
3. Marshall, G. R.; Cramer, R. D., III. Three-dimensional structure-activity relationships. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 1988, 9, 285-289.
4. Clementi, S.; Wold, S. In Chemometric Methods in Molecular Design; Waterbeemd, H., Ed.; VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 1995; pp 319-338.
5. Wold, S.; Eriksson, L. In Chemometric Methods in Molecular Design; Waterbeemd, H., Ed.; VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 1995; pp 309-318.
6. Kubinyi, H. Variable selection in QSAR studies. I. An evolutionary algorithm. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1994, 13, 285-294.
7. Wold, H. In Perspectives in Probability and Statistics; Gani, J., Ed.; Academic Press: London, 1975.
8. Wold, S. In Chemometric Methods in Molecular Design; Water-beemd, H., Ed.; VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 1995; pp 195-218.
9. Cramer, R. D., III; Bunce, J. D.; Patterson, D. E. Crossvalidation, bootstrapping and PLS compared with multiple linear regression in conventional QSAR studies. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1988, 7, 18-28.
10. Muegge, I.; Podlogar, B. L. 3D-quantitative structure activity relationships of biphenyl carboxylic acid MMP-3 inhibitors: exploring automated docking as alignment method. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 2001, 20, 215-222.
11. Bernard, P.; Kireev, D. B.; Chrétien, J. R.; Fortier, P. L.; Coppet, L. Automated docking of 82 N-benzylpiperidine derivatives to mouse acetylcholinesterase and comparative molecular field analysis with "natural" alignment. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 355-371.
12. Cho, S. J.; Garsia, M. L.; Bier, J.; Tropsha, A. Structure-based alignment and comparative molecular field analysis of acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 5064-5071.
13. Vaz, R. J.; McLean, L. R.; Pelton, J. T. Evaluation of proposed modes of binding of (2S)-2- [4-[[(3S)-1-acetimidoyl-3-pyrrolidinyl]-oxy]phenyl]-3-(7-am idino-2-naphthyl)propanoic acid hydrochloride and some analogues to factor Xa using a comparative molecular field analysis. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 99-110.
14. Lozano, J. J.; Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Gaedt, K.; Centeno, N. B.; Gago, F.; Sanz, F. 3D-QSAR methods on the basis of ligand-receptor complexes. Application of COMBINE and GRID/GOLPE methodologies to a series of CYP1A2 ligands. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 13, 341-353.
15. Bernard, P.; Pintore, M.; Berthon, J.-Y.; Chretien, J. R. A molecular modeling and 3D QSAR study of a large series of indole inhibitors of human nonpancreatic secretory phospholipase A2. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 36, 1-19.
16. Pintore, M.; Bernard, P.; Berthon, J.-Y.; Chretien, J. R. Protein-based alignment in 3D QSAR of 26 indole inhibitors of human pancreatic phospholipase A2. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 36, 21-30.
17. Golbraikh, A.; Bernard, P.; Chretien, J. R. Validation of protein-based alignment in 3D quantitative structure-activity relationships with CoMFA models. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 35, 123-136.
18. Wolohan, P.; Reichert, D. E. CoMFA and docking study of novel estrogen receptor subtype selective ligands. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 313-328.
19. Sippl, W. Development of biologically active compounds by combining 3D QSAR and structure-based design methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 825-830.
20. Hu, X.; Stebbins, C. E. Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR studies of Yersinia protein tyrosine phosphatase YopH inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2005, 13, 1101-1109.
21. Moro, S.; Braiuca, P.; Deflorian, F.; Ferrari, C.; Pastorin, G.; Cacciari, B.; Baraldi, P. G.; Varani, K.; Borea, P. A.; Spalluto, G. Combined target-based and ligand-based drug design approach as a tool to define a novel 3D-pharmaco-phore model of human A3 adenosine receptor antagonists: pyrazolo[4,3-e] 1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-c] pyrimidine derivatives as a key study. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 152-162.
22. Datar P. A.; Coutinho, E. C. A CoMFA study of COX-2 inhibitors with receptor based alignment. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2004, 23, 239-251.
23. Morris, G. M.; Olson, A. J.; Goodsell, D. S. Protein-Ligand docking. Methods Princ. Med. Chem. 2000, 8, 31-48.
24. Mestres, J.; Knegtel, R. M. A. Similarity versus docking in 3D virtual screening. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 191-207.
25. Vieth, M.; Hirst, J. D.; Dominy, B. N.; Daigler, H.; Brooks, C. L., III. Assessing search strategies for flexible docking. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1623-1631.
26. Gilson, M. K.; Given, J. A.; Bush, B. L.; McCammon, J. A. The statistical-thermodynamic basis for computation of binding affinities: a critical review. Biophys. J. 1997, 72, 1047-1069.
27. Monard, G.; Merz, K. M., Jr. Combined Quantum Mechanical/Molecular Mechanical Methodologies Applied to Biomolecular Systems. Acc. Chem. Res. 1999, 32, 904-911.
28. Kontoyianni, M.; McClellan, L. M.; Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of Docking Performance: Comparative Data on Docking Algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 558-565.
29. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 261, 470-489.
30. Ewing, T. J. A.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4.0: Search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 411-428.
31. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C.; Leach, A. R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
32. Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Halliday, R. S.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Belew, R. K.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1639-1662.
33. Friesner, R. A.; Banks, J. L.; Murphy, R. B.; Halgren, T. A.; Klicic, J. J.; Mainz, D. T.; Repasky, M. P.; Knoll, E. H.; Shelley, M.; Perry, J. K.; Shaw, D. E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P. S. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
34. Venkatachalam, C. M.; Jiang, X.; Oldfield, T.; Waldman, M. LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2003, 21, 289-307.
35. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
36. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative Evaluation of 11 Scoring Functions for Molecular Docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
37. Krovat, E. M.; Langer, T. Impact of Scoring Functions on Enrichment in Docking- Based Virtual Screening: An Application Study on Renin Inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1123-1129.
38. Eldridge, M. D.; Murray, C. W.; Auton, T. R.; Paolini, G. V.; Mee, R. P. Empirical scoring functions: I. The development of a fast empirical scoring function to estimate the binding affinity of ligands in receptor complexes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 425-445.
39. Gehlhaar, D. K.; Verkhivker, G. M.; Rejto, P. A.; Sherman, C. J.; Fogel, D. B.; Fogel, L. J.; Freer, S. T. Molecular recognition of the inhibitor AG-1343 by HIV-1 Protease: Conformationally flexible docking by evolutionary programming. Chem. Biol. 1995, 2, 317-324.
40. Gehlhaar, D. K.; Bouzida, D.; Rejto, P. A. In Rational Drug Design: Novel Methodology and Practical Applications; Parrill, L., Reddy, M. R., Eds.; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1999; pp 292-311.
41. Böhm, H. J. The development of a simple empirical scoring function to estimate the binding constant for a protein-ligand complex of known three-dimensional structure. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 243-256.
42. Böhm, H. J. Prediction of binding constants of protein ligands: a fast method for the prioritization of hits obtained from de novo design or 3D database search programs. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 309-323.
43. Wang, R.; Gao, Y.; Lai, L. SCORE: A new empirical method for estimating the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J. Mol. Model. 1998, 4, 379-394.
44. Wang, R.; Lai, L.; Wang, S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding validation affinity prediction. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 11-26.
45. Muegge, I.; Martin, Y. C. A general and fast scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: A simplified potential approach. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 791-804.
46. Muegge, I. A knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions: Probing the reference state. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 99-114.
47. Muegge, I. Effect of ligand volume correction on PMF scoring. J. Comput. Chem. 2001, 22, 418-425.
48. Gohlke, H.; Hendlich, M.; Klebe, G. Knowledge-based scoring function to predict protein-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 295, 337-356.
49. Ishchenko, A. V.; Shakhnovich, E. I. Small molecule growth 2001 (SMoG2001): An improved knowledge-based scoring function for protein-ligand interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2770-2780.
50. Tame, J. R. H. Scoring functions: a view from the bench. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 99-108.
51. Kollman, P. Free energy calculations: Applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem. Rev. 1993, 93, 2395-2417.
52. Schulz-Gasch, T.; Stahl, M. Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Interactions: A Critical Perspective. DTT: Technol. 2004, 1, 231-239.
53. Klebe, G. Lead Identification in Post-Genomics: Computers as a Complementary Alternative. DTT: Technol. 2004, 1, 225-230.
54. Koehler, K. F.; Rao, S. N.; Snyder, J. P. In Guidebook on Molecular Modeling in Drug Design; Cohen, N. C., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1996; pp 253-255.
55. Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Watson, K. A Strategy for the Incorporation of Water Molecules Present in a Ligand Binding Site into a Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Analysis. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 4089-4102.
56. Silverman, R. A. In The Organic Chemistry of Drug Design and Drug Action; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 1991; pp 62-65.
57. Poornima, C. S.; Dean, P. M. Hydration in drug design. 1. Multiple hydrogen-bonding features of water molecules in mediating protein-ligand interactions. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 500-512.
58. Poornima, C. S.; Dean, P. M. Hydration in drug design. 2. Influence of local site surface shape on water binding. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 513-520.
59. Poornima, C. S.; Dean, P. M. Hydration in drug design. 3. Conserved water molecules at the ligand- binding sites of homologous proteins. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 521-531.
60. Malamas, M. S.; Sredy, J.; Moxham, C.; Katz, A.; Xu, W.; McDevitt, R.; Adebayo, F. O.; Sawicki, D. R.; Seestaller, L.; Sullivan, D.; Taylor, J. R. Novel Benzofuran and Benzothiophene Biphenyls as Inhibitors of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B with Antihyperglycemic Properties. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 1293-1310.
61. Malamas, M. S.; Sredy, J.; Gunawan, I.; Mihan, B.; Sawicki, D. R.; Seestaller, L.; Sullivan, D.; Flam, B. R. New Azolidinediones as Inhibitors of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B with Antihyperglycemic Properties. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 995-1010.
62. Johnson, T. O.; Ermolieff, J.; Jirousek, M. R. Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1b Inhibitors for Diabetes. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2002, 1, 696-709.
63. CERIUS2 LigandFit User Manual; Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2000; pp 3-48.
64. Kontoyianni, M.; Sokol, G. S.; McClellan, L. M. Evaluation of Library Ranking Efficacy in Virtual Screening. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 26, 11-22.
65. Krammer, A.; Kirchhoff, P. D.; Jiang, X.; Venkatachalam, C. M.; Waldman, M. LigScore: a novel scoring function for predicting binding affinities. J. Mol. Graphics Modell. 2005, 23, 395-407.
66. Murthy, V. S.; Kulkarni, V. M. 3D-QSAR CoMFA and CoMSIA on Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase 1B Inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2002, 10, 2267-2282.
67. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M. Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
68. Terp, G. E.; Johansen, B. N.; Christensen, I. T.; Jorgensen, F. S. A new concept for multidimensional selection of ligand conformations (MultiSelect) and multidimensional scoring (MultiScore) of protein-ligand binding affinities. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 2333-2343.
69. Paul, N.; Rognan, D. ConsDock: A new program for the consensus analysis of protein-ligand interactions. Proteins: Struct., Funct., Genet. 2002, 47, 521-533.
70. Beeley, N. R. A.; Sage, C. GPCRs: an update on structural approaches to drug discovery. Targets 2003, 2, 19-25.
71. Waszkowycz, B. In Advances in Drug Discovery Techniques; Harvey, A. L., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chchester, U.K., 1998; pp 150-153.
72. th European Symposium on Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships: Molecular modeling and Prediction of Bioactivity; Gundertofte, K., Jørgensen F. S., Eds.; Kluwer Academic/Olenum Publishers: New York, 1998; pp 453-454.
73. Tropsha, A.; Gramatica, P.; Gombar, V. K. The Importance of Being Earnest: Validation is the Absolute Essential for Successful Application and Interpretation of QSPR Models. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. Comb. Sci. 2003, 22, 69-77.
74. Gasteiger J.; Marsili, M. A new model for calculating atomic charges in molecules. Tetrahedron Lett. 1978, 34, 3181-3184.
75. CERIUS2 OFF; Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA, 1997; pp 5-109.
76. CERIUS2 4.8.1 QSAR; Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2003; pp 161-171.
77. CERIUS2 4.8.1 QSAR; Accelrys Inc.: San Diego, CA, 2003; pp 210-235.
78. Sippl, W. Receptor-based 3D QSAR analysis of estrogen receptor ligands-merging the accuracy of receptor-based alignments with the computational efficiency of ligand-based methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 559-572.
79. Clark, M.; Cramer, R. D. The probability of chance correlation using partial least squares (PLS). Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1993, 12, 137-145.