Informing mechanistic toxicology with computational molecular models

Methods in Molecular Biology

Volumn 929, Issue , 2012, Pages 139-165

  Goldsmith, Michael R ^a   Peterson, Shane D ^a   Chang, Daniel T ^a   Transue, Thomas R ^b   Tornero Velez, Rogelio ^a   Tan, Yu Mei ^a   Dary, Curtis C ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^b Lockheed Martin Information Technology   (United States)

Author keywords

3D QSAR; Discovery; Docking; Enrichment; In silico; Molecular model; Pharmacophore; Prediction; Toxicant; Toxicity; Toxicoinformatics; Toxicophore; Virtual ligand screening; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; BIOPHYSICAL EQUIPMENT; COMPUTER MODEL; EVALUATION; HUMAN; IN VITRO STUDY; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR DOCKING; MOLECULAR MODEL; PHARMACOPHORE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOGENETICS; TOXICOKINETICS;

EID: 84934438309     PISSN: 10643745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-62703-50-2_7     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Voutchkova A, Osimitz T, Anastas P (2010) Toward a comprehensive molecular design framework for reduced hazard. Chem Rev 110:5845-5882
2. Rusyn I, Daston G (2010) Computational toxicology: realizing the promise of the toxicity testing in the 21st century. Environ Health Perspect 118:1047-1050
3. Rabinowitz J,GoldsmithM, Little S, Pasquinelli M (2008) Computational molecular modeling for evaluating the toxicity of environmental chemicals: prioritizing bioassay requirements. Environ Health Perspect 116:573-577
4. Allinger N, Burkert U (1982) Molecular mechanics. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
5. Dix D, Houck K (2007) The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95:5-12
6. Villoutreix B, Renault N, Lagorce D, Sperandio O, Montes M, Miteva M (2007) Free resources to assist structure-based virtual ligand screening experiments. Curr Protein Pept Sci 8:381-411
7. Ponder J, Case D (2003) Force fields for protein simulations. Adv Protein Chem 66:27-85
8. Pearlman D, Case D, Caldwell J, Ross W, Cheathham T, DeBolt S, Ferguson D, Seibel G, Kollman P (1995) AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules. Comput Phys Commun 91:1-41
9. MacKerell A, Brooks B, Brooks C, Nilsson L, Roux B, Won Y, Kaplus M(1998) CHARMM: the energy function and its parameterization with an overview of the program. In: Scheyer PVR et al (eds) The encyclopedia of computational chemistry. Wiley, Chichester
10. Case D, Cheatham T, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz K, Onufriev A, Simmerling C, Wang B, Woods R (2005) The AMBER biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 26:1668-1688
11. Brooks B, Brooks C, Mackerell A, Nilsson L, Petrella R, Roux B, Won Y, Archontis C, Bartels S, Caflish B, Caves L, Cui Q, Dinner A, Feig M, Fischer S, Gao J, Hodoscek M, Im W, Kuczera K, Lazaridi T, Ma J, Ovchinnikov V, Paci E, Pastor R, Post C, Pu J, Schaefer M, Tidor B, Venable T, Woodcock H, Wu X, Yah W, York D, Karplus M (2009) CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program. J Comput Chem 30:1545-1615
12. Brooks B, Bruccoleri R, Olafson B, States D, Swaminathan S, Karplus M (1983) CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 4:187-217
13. Allinger N, Yuh Y, Lii J (1989) Molecular mechanics: the MM3 force field for hydrocarbons. J Am Chem Soc 111:8551-8566
14. Leo A, Hansch C, Elkins D (1971) Partition coefficients and their uses. Chem Rev 71:525-616
15. Lipinski C, Lombardo F, Dominy B, Feeney P (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:3-25
16. Wermuth C, Ganellin C, Lindberg P, Mitscher L (1998) Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry. Pure Appl Chem 70:1129-1143
17. Kubinyi H (2002) From narcosis to hyperspace: the history of QSAR. Quant Struct Act Relat 21:348-356
18. Wold S, Ruhe A,Wold H, DunnW(1984) The collinearity problem in linear regression-the partial least squares (PLS) approach to generalized inverses. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 5:735-743
19. Cramer R, Patterson D, Bunce J (1988) Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959-5967
20. Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T (1994) Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J Med Chem 37:4130-4146
21. Pastor M, Cruciani G, McLay I, Pickett S, Clementi S (2000) GRid-INdependent descriptors (GRIND): a novel class of alignmentindependent three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J Med Chem 43:3233-3243
22. Norinder U (1996) 3D-QSAR investigation of theTripos benchmark steroids and some proteintyrosine kinase inhibitors of styrene type using the TDQ approach. J Chemom 10:533-545
23. Kurogi Y, Guner O (2001) Pharmacophore modelling and three-dimensional database searching for drug design using catalyst. Curr Med Chem 8:1035-1055
24. Park J, Harris D (2003) Construction and assessment of models of CYP2E1: predictions of metabolism from docking, molecular dynamics and density functional theoretical calculations. J Med Chem 46:1645-1660
25. Jones J, Mysinger M, Korzekwa K (2002) Computational models for cytochrome P450: a predictive electronic model for aromatic oxidation and hydrogen atom abstraction. Drug Metab Dispos 30:7-12
26. Cheng Y, Prusoff W (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (Ki) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22:3099-3108
27. MOE. Chemical Computing Group. Montreal, Quebec, Canada
28. Schrodinger, Inc. New York, NY
29. Cheatham T, Young M (2001) Molecular dynamics simulation of nucleic acids: successes, limitations and promise. Biopolymers 56: 232-256
30. Roterman I, Lambert M, Gibson K, Scheraga H (1989) A comparison of the CHARMM, AMBER and ECEPP potentials for peptides. Phi-Psi maps for n-acetyl alanine N0-methyl amide-comparisons, contrasts and simple experimental tests. J Biomol Struct Dyn 7:421-453
31. Roterman I, Gibson K, Scheraga H (1989) A comparison of the CHARMM, AMBER and ECEPP potential for peptides. 1. Conformational predictions for the tandemly repeated peptide (Asn-Ala-Asn-Pro)9. J Biomol Struct Dyn 7:391-419
32. Gundertofte K, Liljefors T, Norrby P, Petterson I (1996) A comparison of conformational energies calculated by several molecular mechanics methods. J Comput Chem 17:429-449
33. Jorgensen W, Maxwell D, Tirado-Rives J (1996) Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225-11236
34. JorgensenW, Tirado-Rives J (1988) The OPLS potential functions for proteins-energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic-peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 110:1657-1666
35. Halgren T (1996) Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope parameterization and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17:490-519
36. Chen Y, Zhi D (2001) Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43:217-226
37. Ellis L, Hou B, KangW,Wackett L (2003) The University of Minnesota Biocatalysis/Biodegradation Database: post-genomic data mining. Nucleic Acids Res 31:262-265
38. MetaPrint2d http://www-metaprint2d.ch. cam.ac.uk/metaprint2d
39. Bologa C, Olah M, Oprea T (2005) Chemical database preparation for compound acquisition or virtual screening. Methods Mol Biol 316: 375
40. Accelrys Discovery Suite, Accelrys, Inc. San Diego, CA
41. Sybyl. Tripos, Inc. St. Louis, MO
42. Schwede T, Sali A, Honig B, Levitt M, Berman H, Jones D, Brenner S, Burley S, Das R, Dokholyan N, Dunbrack R, Fidelis K, Fiser A, Godzik A, Huang Y, Humblet C, Jacobsen M, Joachimiak A, Krystek S, Kortemme T, Kryshtafovych A, Montelione G, Moult J, Murray D, Sanchez R, Sosinick T, Standley D, Stouch T, Vajda S, Vasquez M, Westbrook J, Wilson I (2009) Outcome of a workshop on applications of protein models in biomedical research. Structure 17:151-159
43. Irwin J (2008) Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22:193-199
44. Cross J, Thompson D, Rai B, Baber J, Fan K, Hu Y, Humblet C (2009) Comparison of several molecuclar docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 49:1455-1474
45. Cherkasov A, Fuqiang B, Li Y, Fallahi M, Hammond G (2006) Progressive docking: a hybrid QSAR/Docking approach for accelerating in silico high throughput screening. J Med Chem 49:7466-7478
46. Peterson S (2007) Improved CoMFA modeling by optimization of settings: toward the design of inhibitors of the HCV NS3 protease. Uppsala University, Uppsala
47. Norinder U (1998) Recent progress in CoMFA methodology and related techniques. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12/13/14:25-39
48. Kim K, Grecco G, Novellino E (1998) A critical review of recent CoMFA applications. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12/13/14:257-315
49. Rosen J, Lovgren A, Kogej T, Muresan S, Gottfries J, Backlund A (2009) ChemGPS-NPWeb: chemical space navigation tool. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:253-259
50. Larsson J, Gottfries J, Muresan S, Backlund A (2007) ChemGPS-NP: tuned for navigation in biologically relevant chemical space. J Nat Prod 70:789-794
51. Ekins S et al (2002) Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of inhibitors of P-glycoprotein. Mol Pharmacol 61:964
52. Thorsteinson N, Ban F, Santos-Filho O, Tabaei S, Miguel-Queralt S, Underhill C, Cherkasov A, Hammond G (2009) In silico identification of anthropogenic chemicals as ligands of zebrafish sex hormone binding globulin. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 234:47-57
53. Perry J, Goldsmith M, Peterson M, Beratan D, Wozniak G, Ruker F, Simon J (2004) Structure of the ochratoxin A binding site within human serum albumin. J Phys Chem B 108: 16960-16964
54. Aureli L, Cruciani G, Cesta M, Anacardio R, De Simone L, Moriconi A (2005) Predicting human serum albumin affinity of interleukin- 8 (CXCL8) inhibitors by 3D-QSPR approach. J Med Chem 48:2469-2479
55. Ekins S, de Groot M, Jones J (2001) Pharmacophore and three-dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship methods for modeling cytochrome P450 active sites. Drug Metab Dispos 29:936-944
56. Ekins S, Erickson J (2002) A pharmacophore for human pregnane X receptor ligands. Drug Metab Dispos 30:96-99
57. Lewis D (2002) Molecular modeling of human cytochrome P450-substrate interactions. Drug Metab Rev 34:55-67
58. Hirono S, Nakagome L, Imai R, Maeda K, Kusuhara H, Sugiyama Y (2005) Estimation of the three-dimensional pharmacophore of ligands for rat multidrug-resistance-associated protein 2 using ligand-based drug design techniques. Pharm Res 22:260-269
59. DeGorter M, Conseil G, Deeley R, Campbell R, Cole S (2008) Molecular modeling of the human multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1/ABCC1). Biochem Biophys Res Commun 365:29-34
60. Rabinowitz J, Little S, Laws S, Goldsmith M (2009) Molecular modeling for screening environmental chemicals for estrogenicity: use of the toxicant-target approach. Chem Res Toxicol 22:1594-1602
61. Hirst W, Abrahamsen B, Blaney F, Calver A, Aloj L, Price G, Medhurst A (2003) Differences in the central nervous system distribution and pharmacology of the mouse 5-hydroxytryptamine- 6 receptor compared with rat and human receptors investigated by radioligand binding, site-directed mutagenesis, and molecular modeling. Mol Pharmacol 64:1295-1308
62. http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p-download-id?466705
63. http://www.epa.gov/ncct/bosc-review/2009/posters/2-06-Rabinowitz-CompTox- BOSC09.pdf
64. Goldsmith M, Little S, Reif D, Rabinowitz J Digging deeper into deep data: molecular docking as a hypothesis-driven biophysical interrogation system in computational toxicology
65. http://molprobity.biochem.duke.edu
66. http://xray.bmc.uu.se/valid/density/form1.html
67. http://www.biop.ox.ac.uk/coot
68. http://pmvbase.blogspot.com/2009/04/electron-density-map.html
69. http://mgltools.scrips.edu/documentation/tutorial/python-molecular-viewer
70. http://spdbv.vital.it.ch
71. Irwin J, Shoichet B, Mysinger M, Huang N, Colizzi F, Wassam P, Cao Y (2009) Automated docking screens: a feasibility study. J Med Chem 52:5712-5720
72. Bioclipse. Proteometric Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Sweden & Cheminformatics and Metabolism Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBI
73. Taverna. School ofComputer Science,University of Manchester, UK
74. www.knime.org