Computational quantum chemistry and adaptive ligand modeling in mechanistic QSAR

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 15, Issue 19-20, 2010, Pages 859-866

  De Benedetti, Pier G ^a   Fanelli, Francesca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MODENA AND REGGIO EMILIA   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG; LIGAND;

DRUG DESIGN; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; QUANTUM CHEMISTRY; REVIEW;

COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DESIGN; ENZYME INHIBITORS; LIGANDS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RECEPTORS, G-PROTEIN-COUPLED; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 77957682824     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2010.08.003     Document Type: Review

References (64)

1. Jorgensen W.L. The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 2004, 303:1813-1818.
2. Jorgensen W.L. Efficient drug lead discovery and optimization. Acc. Chem. Res. 2009, 42:724-733.
3. Fanelli F., De Benedetti P.G. Computational modeling approaches to structure-function analysis of G protein-coupled receptors. Chem. Rev. 2005, 105:3297-3351.
4. Agrafiotis D.K., et al. Recent advances in chemoinformatics. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47:1279-1293.
5. Karelson M., et al. Quantum-chemical descriptors in QSAR/QSPR Studies. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96:1027-1044.
6. Cavalli A., et al. Target-related applications of first principles quantum chemical methods in drug design. Chem. Rev. 2006, 106:3497-3519.
7. Raha K., et al. The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design. Drug Discov. Today 2007, 12:725-731.
8. De Benedetti P.G., et al. Prototropic molecular forms and theoretical descriptors in QSAR analysis. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem 1995, 333:1-17.
9. Martin Y.C. Let's not forget tautomers. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2009, 23:693-704.
10. Johnson S.R. The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy). J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:25-26.
11. Doweyko A.M. QSAR: dead or alive?. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22:81-89.
12. Zvinavashe E., et al. Promises and pitfalls of quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches for predicting metabolism and toxicity. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2008, 21:2229-2236.
13. Scior T., et al. How to recognize and workaround pitfalls in QSAR studies: a critical review. Curr. Med. Chem. 2009, 16:4297-4313.
14. Cronin M.T.D., Schultz T.W. Pitfalls in QSAR. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem 2003, 622:39-51.
15. Bissantz C., et al. A medicinal chemist's guide to molecular interactions. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 10.1021/jm.100112j.
16. Bahar I., et al. Normal mode analysis of biomolecular structures: functional mechanisms of membrane proteins. Chem. Rev. 2010, 110:1463-1497.
17. De Benedetti P.G., et al. The ad hoc supermolecule approach to receptor ligand design. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem 2000, 503:1-16.
18. Martin Y.C. Diverse viewpoints on computational aspects of molecular diversity. J. Comb. Chem. 2001, 3:231-250.
19. Cozzini P., et al. Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. J. Med. Chem. 2008, 51:6237-6255.
20. Raimondi F., et al. Mechanisms of inter- and intra-molecular communication in GPCRs and G proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2008, 130:4310-4325.
21. Menziani M.C., De Benedetti P.G. Direct and indirect theoretical QSAR modelling in sulfonamide carbonic anhydrase inhibitors. QSAR: Rational Approaches on the Design of Bioactive Compounds 1991, 331. Elsevier. C. Silipo, A. Vittoria (Eds.).
22. Kortagere S., Ekins S. Troubleshooting computational methods in drug discovery. J. Pharmacol. Toxicol. Methods 2010, 61:67-75.
23. Leach A.R., et al. Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53:539-558.
24. Wolber G., et al. Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discov. Today 2008, 13:23-29.
25. Lill M.A. Multi-dimensional QSAR in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2007, 12:1013-1017.
26. Lewis R.A. A general method for exploiting QSAR models in lead optimization. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48:1638-1648.
27. Guha R. On the interpretation and interpretability of quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2008, 22:857-871.
28. Bajorath J., et al. Navigating structure-activity landscapes. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:698-705.
29. De Benedetti P.G. Electrostatics in quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem 1992, 256:231-248.
30. Puzyn T., et al. Calculation of quantum-mechanical descriptors for QSPR at the DFT level: is it necessary?. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48:1174-1180.
31. De Benedetti P.G. Structure-activity relationships and mechanism of action of antibacterial sulphanilamides and sulphones. Advances in Drug Research 1987, 227-279. Academic Press. B. Testa (Ed.).
32. Bell P.H., Roblin R.O.J. Studies in chemotherapy. VII: a theory of the relation of structure to activity of sulfanilamide type compounds. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1942, 64:2905-2917.
33. De Benedetti P.G., et al. Structure-activity relationships in dihydropteroate synthase inhibition by sulfanilamides: comparison with the antibacterial activity. J. Med. Chem. 1981, 24:454-457.
34. De Benedetti P.G., Frassineti C. A theoretical study of the structure-activity relationship in diaryl sulphones, comparison with sulpha drugs. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem 1983, 92:191-196.
35. De Benedetti P.G., et al. Quantitative structure-activity analysis in dihydropteroate synthase inhibition by sulfones: comparison with sulfanilamides. J. Med. Chem. 1987, 30:459-464.
36. De Benedetti P.G., et al. Quantitative structure-activity relationships in dihydropteroate synthase inhibition by multisubstituted sulfones. Design and synthesis of some new derivatives with improved potency. J. Med. Chem. 1989, 32:2396-2399.
37. Achari A., et al. Crystal structure of the anti-bacterial sulfonamide drug target dihydropteroate synthase. Nat. Struct. Biol. 1997, 4:490-497.
38. Vinnicombe H.G., Derrick J.P. Dihydropteroate synthase from Streptococcus pneumoniae: characterization of substrate binding order and sulfonamide inhibition. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 1999, 258:752-757.
39. Baca A.M., et al. Crystal structure of Mycobacterium tuberculosis 7,8-dihydropteroate synthase in complex with pterin monophosphate: new insight into the enzymatic mechanism and sulfa-drug action. J. Mol. Biol. 2000, 302:1193-1212.
40. Giordanetto F., et al. Large scale molecular dynamics simulation of native and mutant dihydropteroate synthase-sulphanilamide complexes suggests the molecular basis for dihydropteroate synthase drug resistance. Philos. Trans. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2005, 363:2055-2073.
41. Koetzle T.F., Williams G.J. The crystal and molecular structure of the antifolate drug trimethoprim (2,4-diamino-5-(3,4,5-trimethoxybenzyl)pyrimidine). A neutron diffraction study. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1976, 98:2074-2078.
42. Hopfinger A.J. Inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase: structure-activity correlations of 2,4-diamino-5-benzylpyrimidines based upon molecular shape analysis. J. Med. Chem. 1981, 24:818-822.
43. Andrews P.R., et al. Conformational energy calculations and electrostatic potentials of dihydrofolate reductase ligands: relevance to mode of binding and species specificity. J. Med. Chem. 1986, 29:698-708.
44. Baccanari D.P., et al. Inhibition of dihydrofolate reductase: effect of reduced nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate on the selectivity and affinity of diaminobenzylpyrimidines. Biochemistry 1982, 21:5068-5075.
45. Champness J.N., et al. Crystallographic investigation of the cooperative interaction between trimethoprim, reduced cofactor and dihydrofolate reductase. FEBS Lett. 1986, 199:61-67.
46. Matthews D.A., et al. Refined crystal structures of Escherichia coli and chicken liver dihydrofolate reductase containing bound trimethoprim. J. Biol. Chem. 1985, 260:381-391.
47. Krishnamurthy V.M., et al. Carbonic anhydrase as a model for biophysical and physical-organic studies of proteins and protein-ligand binding. Chem. Rev. 2008, 108:946-1051.
48. De Benedetti P.G., et al. A quantum chemical QSAR study of carbonic anhydrase inhibition by heterocyclic sulfonamides. Quant. Struct. Act. Relat. 1987, 6:51-53.
49. De Benedetti P.G., et al. A quantum chemical QSAR study of carbonic anhydrase inhibition by sulfonamides. Quant. Struct. Act. Relat. 1985, 4:23-28.
50. Menziani M.C., De Benedetti P.G. Molecular mechanics and quantum chemical QSAR analysis in carbonic anhydrase-heterocyclic sulfonamide interactions. Struct. Chem. 1992, 3:215-219.
51. Menziani M.C., et al. The binding of benzenesulfonamides to carbonic anhydrase enzyme. A molecular mechanics study and quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Med. Chem. 1989, 32:951-956.
52. Arinaminpathy Y., et al. Computational analysis of membrane proteins: the largest class of drug targets. Drug Discov. Today 2009, 14:1130-1135.
53. Kortagere S., et al. The importance of discerning shape in molecular pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2009, 30:138-147.
54. Nicholls A., et al. Molecular shape and medicinal chemistry: a perspective. J. Med. Chem. 2010, 53:3862-3886.
55. Cocchi M., De Benedetti P.G. Use of the supermolecule approach to derive molecular similarity descriptors for QSAR analysis. J. Mol. Model. 1998, 4:113-131.
56. Barlocco D., et al. Phenylpiperazinylalkylamino substituted pyridazinones as potent alpha(1) adrenoceptor antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44:2403-2410.
57. Fanelli F., De Benedetti P.G. Computational modeling of selective pharmacophores at the alpha1-adrenergic receptors. Antitargets 2008, 155-193. Wiley-VCH. R.J. Vaz, T. Klabunde (Eds.).
58. Cherezov V., et al. High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human beta2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science 2007, 318:1258-1265.
59. Fanelli F., et al. Theoretical quantitative structure-activity analysis of quinuclidine-based muscarinic cholinergic receptor ligands. J. Mol. Struct. Theochem 1993, 283:63-71.
60. Cappelli A., et al. Design, synthesis, structural studies, biological evaluation, and computational simulations of novel potent AT(1) angiotensin II receptor antagonists based on the 4-phenylquinoline structure. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47:2574-2586.
61. Ohtaka H., Freire E. Adaptive inhibitors of the HIV-1 protease. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2005, 88:193-208.
62. Tummino P.J., Copeland R.A. Residence time of receptor-ligand complexes and its effect on biological function. Biochemistry 2008, 47:5481-5492.
63. Jenwitheesuk E., et al. Novel paradigms for drug discovery: computational multitarget screening. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2008, 29:62-71.
64. Smith A.J., et al. Beyond picomolar affinities: quantitative aspects of noncovalent and covalent binding of drugs to proteins. J. Med. Chem. 2009, 52:225-233.