Pruned receptor surface models and pharmacophores for three-dimensional database searching

Journal of Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 47, Issue 15, 2004, Pages 3777-3787

  Sutherland, Jeffrey J ^a   O'Brien, Lee A ^a   Weaver, Donald F ^b  

^a QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENZODIAZEPINE RECEPTOR; CHOLINESTERASE INHIBITOR; CYCLOOXYGENASE 2 INHIBITOR; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; LIGAND; PROTEIN; SOLVENT; THROMBIN INHIBITOR;

ARTICLE; BINDING AFFINITY; BINDING SITE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG IDENTIFICATION; DRUG RECEPTOR BINDING; ENZYME ACTIVE SITE; LIGAND BINDING; MOLECULAR MODEL; PHARMACOPHORE; PREDICTION; PROTEIN DATABASE; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RECEPTOR SURFACE MODEL; STEREOCHEMISTRY; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; TECHNIQUE;

AMIDINES; ANGIOTENSIN-CONVERTING ENZYME INHIBITORS; BENZODIAZEPINES; CHOLINESTERASE INHIBITORS; CYCLOOXYGENASE 2; DATABASES, FACTUAL; ENALAPRIL; ENZYMES; ESTRADIOL; IMIDAZOLES; INDANS; ISOENZYMES; LIGANDS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; NAPHTHALENES; PIPERIDINES; PROSTAGLANDIN-ENDOPEROXIDE SYNTHASES; PYRAZOLES; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RECEPTORS, CELL SURFACE; RECEPTORS, CYTOPLASMIC AND NUCLEAR; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; RECEPTORS, GABA-A; SULFONAMIDES; THROMBIN;

EID: 3142751988     PISSN: 00222623     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/jm049896z     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Stone, M.; Jonathan, P. Statistical thinking and technique for QSAR and related studies. 1. General theory. J. Chemom. 1993, 7, 455-475.
2. Oprea, T. I.; Waller, C. L. Theoretical and practical aspects of three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K. B., Boyd, D. B., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 1997; pp 127-182.
3. Muegge, I.; Rarey, M. Small molecule docking and scoring. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K. B., Boyd, D. B., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2001; pp 1-60.
4. Ghose, A. K.; Wendoloski, J. J. Pharmacophore modelling: Methods, experimental verification and applications. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 9-11, 253-271.
5. Good, A. C.; Mason, J. S.; Pickett, S. D. Pharmacophore pattern application in virtual screening, library design and QSAR. In Virtual Screening for Bioactive Molecules; Bohm, H. J., Schneider, G., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2000; pp 131-159.
6. van Drie, J. H. Pharmacophore discovery-lessons learned. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2003, 9, 1649-1664.
7. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
8. Mason, J. S.; Good, A. C.; Martin, E. J. 3-D pharmacophores in drug discovery. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2001, 7, 567-597.
9. Hecker, E. A.; Duraiswami, C.; Andrea, T. A.; Diller, D. J. Use of catalyst pharmacophore models for screening of large combinatorial libraries. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1204-1211.
10. Vedani, A.; Zbinden, P.; Snyder, J. P.; Greenidge, P. A. Pseudoreceptor modeling. The construction of 3-dimensional receptor surrogates. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 4987-4994.
11. Hahn, M. Receptor surface models. 1. Definition and construction. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 2080-2090.
12. Van Drie, J. H. "Shrink-wrap" surfaces: A new method for incorporating shape into pharmacophoric 3D database searching. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 38-42.
13. Walters, D. E.; Hinds, R. M. Genetically evolved receptor models. A computational approach to construction of receptor models. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 37, 2527-2536.
14. Vedani, A.; Dobler, M.; Zbinden, P. Quasi-atomistic receptor surface models: A bridge between 3-D QSAR and receptor modeling. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 4471-4477.
15. Jain, A. N.; Dietterich, T. G.; Lathrop, R. H.; Chapman, D.; Critchlow, R. E.; et al. Compass, a shape-based machine learning tool for drug design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1994, 8, 635-652.
16. Crippen, G. M. Validation of EGSITE2, a mixed integer program for deducing objective site models from experimental binding data. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 3161-3172.
17. Hahn, M. Three-dimensional shape-based searching of conformationally flexible compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 80-86.
18. Mount, J.; Ruppert, J.; Welch, W.; Jain, A. N. Icepick: A flexible surface-based system for molecular diversity. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 60-66.
19. Srinivasan, J.; Castellino, A.; Bradley, E. K.; Eksterowicz, J. E.; Grootenhuis, P. D. J.; et al. Evaluation of a novel shape-based computational filter for lead evolution: Application to thrombin inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2494-2500.
20. van Drie, J. H.; Weininger, D.; Martin, Y. C. Aladdin: An integrated tool for computer-assisted molecular design and pharmacophoric pattern recognition from geometric, steric and substructure searching of three-dimensional molecular structures. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1989, 3, 225-251.
21. Klebe, G.; Abraham, U.; Mietzner, T. Molecular similarity indexes in a comparative-analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological-activity. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 37, 4130-4146.
22. Sutherland, J. J.; O'Brien, L. A.; Weaver, D. F. Spline-fitting with a genetic algorithm: A method for developing classification structure-activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1906-1915.
23. Cramer, R. D.; Patterson, D. E.; Bunce, J. D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steriods to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959-5967.
24. Depriest, S. A.; Mayer, D.; Naylor, C. B.; Marshall, G. R. 3D-QSAR of angiotensin-converting enzyme and thermolysin inhibitors. A comparison of CoMFA models based on deduced and experimentally determined active-site geometries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 5372-5384.
25. 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.
26. Haefely, W.; Kyburz, E.; Gerecke, M.; Mohler, H. Recent advances in the molecular pharmacology of benzodiazepine receptors and in the structure-activity relationships of their agonists and antagonists. Adv. Drug Res. 1985, 14, 165-322.
27. Huang, Q.; He, X. H.; Ma, C. R.; Liu, R. Y.; Yu, S.; et al. Pharmacophore/receptor models for GABA(A)/BZR subtypes (α1β3γ 2, α5β3γ2, and α6β3γ2) via a comprehensive ligand-mapping approach. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 71-95.
28. Anstead, G. M.; Carlson, K. E.; Katzenellenbogen, J. A. The estradiol pharmacophore: Ligand structure-estrogen receptor binding affinity relationships and a model for the receptor binding site. Steroids 1997, 62, 268-303.
29. Gao, H.; Katzenellenbogen, J. A.; Garg, R.; Hansch, C. Comparative QSAR analysis of estrogen receptor ligands. Chem. Rev. 1999, 99, 723-744.
30. Besler, B. H.; Merz, K. M.; Kollman, P. A. Atomic charges derived from semiempirical methods. J. Comput. Chem. 1990, 11, 431-439.
31. Mayer, D.; Naylor, C. B.; Motoc, I.; Marshall, G. R. A unique geometry of the active site of angiotensin-converting enzyme consistent with structure-activity studies. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1987, 1, 3-16.
32. Zhang, W.; Koehler, K. F.; Zhang, P.; Cook, J. M. Development of a comprehensive pharmacophore model for the benzodiazepine receptor. Drug Des. Discovery 1995, 12, 193-248.
33. Palomer, A.; Cabre, F.; Pascual, J.; Campos, J.; Trujillo, M. A.; et al. Identification of novel cyclooxygenase-2 selective inhibitors using pharmacophore models. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 1402-1411.
34. Patel, Y.; Gillet, V. J.; Bravi, G.; Leach, A. R. A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: Catalyst, DISCO and GASP. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 653-681.
35. Willett, P.; Winterman, V. A comparison of some measures for the determination of intermolecular structural similarity measures of intermolecular structural similarity. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1986, 5, 18-25.
36. Clark, R. D. Optisim: An extended dissimilarity selection method for finding diverse representative subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 1181-1188.
37. Matter, H. Selecting optimally diverse compounds from structure databases: A validation study of two-dimensional and three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 1219-1229.
38. Muegge, I. Selection criteria for drug-like compounds. Med. Res. Rev. 2003, 23, 302-321.
39. Ghose, A. K.; Viswanadhan, V. N.; Wendoloski, J. J. Prediction of hydrophobic (lipophilic) properties of small organic molecules using fragmental methods: An analysis of AlogP and ClogP methods. J. Phys. Chem. A 1998, 102, 3762-3772.
40. Oprea, T. I.; Davis, A. M.; Teague, S. J.; Leeson, P. D. Is there a difference between leads and drugs? A historical perspective. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1308-1315.
41. Ponder, J. W. Tinker: Software Tools for Molecular Design, version 4.1; http://dasher.wustl.edu/tinker/.
42. Schnur, D. M.; Grieshaber, M. V.; Bowen, J. P. Development of an internal searching algorithm for parameterization of the MM2/MM3 force-fields. J. Comput. Chem. 1991, 12, 844-849.
43. Hurst, T. Flexible 3D searching-the directed tweak technique. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 190-196.
44. Searle, M. S.; Williams, D. H. The cost of conformational order. Entropy changes in molecular associations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 10690-10697.
45. Cruciani, G.; Watson, K. A. Comparative molecular-field analysis using GRID force-field and GOLPE variable selection methods in a study of inhibitors of glycogen-phosphorylase-b. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 37, 2589-2601.
46. Greco, G.; Novellino, E.; Martin, Y. C. Approaches to three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships. In Reviews in Computational Chemistry; Lipkowitz, K. B., Boyd, D. B., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 1997; pp 183-240.
47. Oprea, T. I.; Waller, C. L.; Marshall, G. R. 3D-QSAR of human immunodeficiency virus (I) protease inhibitors. III. Interpretation of CoMFA results. Drug Discovery Des. 1994, 12, 29-40.
48. Kroemer, R. T.; Ettmayer, P.; Hecht, P. 3D-quantitative structure-activity-relationships of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 proteinase inhibitors. Comparative molecular-field analysis of 2-heterosubstituted statine derivatives. Implications for the design of novel inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 4917-4928.
49. Bohm, M.; Sturzebecher, J.; Klebe, G. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analyses using comparative molecular field analysis and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis to elucidate selectivity differences of inhibitors binding to trypsin, thrombin, and factor Xa. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 458-477.
50. Chavatte, P.; Yous, S.; Marot, C.; Baurin, N.; Lesieur, D. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors: A comparative molecular field analysis. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 3223-3230.
51. Cho, S. J.; Tropsha, A. Cross-validated r(2)-guided region selection for comparative molecular-field analysis. A simple method to achieve consistent results. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 1060-1066.
52. Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Clementi, S. Smart region definition: A new way to improve the predictive ability and interpretability of three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 1455-1464.
53. Smellie, A.; Kahn, S. D.; Teig, S. L. Analysis of conformational coverage. 2. Application of conformational models. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1995, 35, 295-304.
54. Pearlman, R. S. 3D molecular structures: Generation and use in 3D searching. In 3D QSAR in Drug Design: Theory, Methods and Applications; Kubinyi, H., Ed.; ESCOM: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1993; pp 41-79.
55. Vieth, M.; Hirst, J. D.; Brooks, C. L. Do active site conformations of small ligands correspond to low free-energy solution structures? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 563-572.
56. Bostrom, J.; Norrby, P. O.; Liljefors, T. Conformational energy penalties of protein-bound ligands. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1998, 12, 383-396.