3D-QSAR – Applications, recent advances, and limitations

Challenges and Advances in Computational Chemistry and Physics

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages 103-125

  Sippl, Wolfgang ^a  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

Author keywords

3D QSAR; AFMoC; CoMFA; CoMSIA; GRID GLOPE; Receptor based QSAR

Indexed keywords

EID: 85073163643     PISSN: 25424491     EISSN: 25424483     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4020-9783-6_4     Document Type: Chapter

References (118)

1. Miller MD, Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK (1999) A program for rapidly producing pharmacophori-cally relevent molecular superpositions. J Med Chem 42:1505–1514
2. Lemmen C, Lengauer T (2000) Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 14:215–232
3. Jain AN (2004) Ligand-based structural hypotheses for virtual screening. J Med Chem 47:947–961
4. Hansch C, Leo A (1995) Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and applications in chemistry and biology. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
5. Kubinyi H (1997) QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design. Drug Discov Today 2:457–467
6. Cramer RD III, Patterson DE, Bunce JD (1988) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959–5967
7. Folkers G, Merz A, Rognan D (1993) CoMFA: Scope and limitations. In: Kubinyi H (ed) 3D QSAR in drug design. Theory, methods and applications. ESCOM Science Publishers BV, Leiden
8. Klebe G, Abraham U (1993) On the prediction of binding properties of drug molecules by comparative molecular field analysis. J Med Chem 36:70–80
9. 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
10. Cruciani G (ed) (2006) Methods and principles in medicinal chemistry – molecular interaction fields. VCH Publisher, New York
11. Norinder U (1998) Recent progress in CoMFA methodology and related techniques. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12:3–23
12. Kim KH, Greco G, Novellino EA (1998) Critical review of recent CoMFA applications. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12:257–315
13. Podlogar BL, Ferguson DM (2000) QSAR and CoMFA: A perspective on the practical application to drug discovery. Drug Des Discov 1:4–12
14. Akamatsu M (2002) Current state and perspectives of 3D QSAR. Curr Top Med Chem 2:1381–1394
15. Kubinyi H, Folkers G, Martin YC (eds) (1998) 3D QSAR in drug design. Ligand–protein interactions and molecular similarity. Kluwer/ESCOM, Dodrecht
16. Kubinyi H, Folkers G, Martin YC (eds) (1998) 3D QSAR in drug design. Recent advances. Kluwer/ESCOM, Dodrecht
17. Masukawa KM, Kollman PA, Kuntz ID (2003) Investigation of neuraminidase-substrate recognition using molecular dynamics and free energy calculations. J Med Chem 46:5628–5637
18. Tame JR (2005) Scoring functions: The first 100 years. J Comput Aided Mol Des 19:441–451
19. Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR et al. (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: Methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 11:935–949
20. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Huey R et al. (1994) Distributed automatic docking of flexible ligands to proteins. J Comput Aided Mol Des 8:243–256
21. Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn M et al. (2003) Improved protein–ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 52:609–623
22. Meng E, Shoichet BK, Kuntz ID (1992) Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation. J Comp Chem 13:505–524
23. Kontoyianni M, McClellan LM, Sokol GS (2004) Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J Med Chem 47:558–565
24. Böhm HJ (1998) Prediction of binding constants of protein–ligands: A fast method for the priori-tisation of hits obtained from de-novo design or 3D database search programs. J Comput Aided Mol Des 12:309–323
25. Tame JRH (1999) Scoring functions: A view from the bench. J Comput Aided Mol Des 13:99–108
26. Wang R, Lu Y, Fang X et al. (2004) An extensive test of 14 scoring functions using the PDBbind refined set of 800 protein–ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:2114–2125
27. Perola E, Walters WP, Charifson PS (2004) A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 56:235–249
28. Gohlke H, Klebe G (2002) Approaches to the description and prediction of the binding affinity of small molecule ligands to macromolecular receptors. Angew Chem Int Ed 41:2644–2676
29. Huang D, Caflisch A (2004) Efficient evaluation of binding free energy using continuum electrostatics solvation. J Med Chem 47:5791–5797
30. Waller CL, Oprea TI, Giolitti A et al. (1993) Three-dimensional QSAR of human immunodeficiency virus (I) protease inhibitors. 1. A CoMFA study employing experimentally-determined alignment rules. J Med Chem 36:4152–4160
31. Cho SJ, Garsia ML, Bier J et al. (1996) Structure-based alignment and comparative molecular field analysis of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. J Med Chem 39:5064–5071
32. Vaz RJ, McLEan LR, Pelton JT (1998) Evaluation of proposed modes of binding of (2S)-2-[4-[[(3S)-1-acetimidoyl-3-pyrrolidinyl]oxyl]phenyl]-3-(7-amidino-2-naphtyl)-propanoic acid hydro-chloride and some analogs to factor Xa using a comparative molecular field analysis. J Comput Aided Mol Des 12:99–110
33. Sippl W, Contreras JM, Rival YM et al. (1998) Comparative molecular field analysis of aminopy-ridazine acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. In: Gundertofte K (ed) Proceedings of the 12th European symposium on QSAR – molecular modelling and predicting of bioactivity. Plenum Press, Copenhagen
34. Sippl W (2000) Receptor-based 3D quantitative structure–activity relationships of estrogen receptor ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 14:559–572
35. Sippl W (2002) Binding affinity prediction of novel estrogen receptor ligands using receptor-based 3D QSAR methods. Bioorg Med Chem 10:3741–3755
36. Ortiz AR, Pisabarro MT, Gago F et al. (1995) Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis. J Med Chem 38:2681–2691
37. Lozano JJ, Pastor M, Cruciani G et al. (2000) 3D QSAR methods on the basis of ligand-receptor complexes. Application of combine and GRID/GOLPE methodologies to a series of CYP1A2 inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 13:341–353
38. Reynolds CA, Wade RC, Goodford PJ (1989) Identifying targets for bioreductive agents: Using GRID to predict selective binding regions of proteins. J Mol Graph 7:103–108
39. Cruciani G, Watson K (1994) 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 37:2589–2601
40. Cruciani G, Crivori P, Carrupt P-A et al. (2000) Molecular fields in quantitative structure– permeation relationships. J Mol Struct 503:17–30
41. Duca S, Hopfinger AJ (2001) Estimation of molecular similarity based on 4D-QSAR analysis: Formalism and validation. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 41:1367–1387
42. Vedani A, Dobler M (2002) 5D-QSAR: The key for simulating induced fit? J Med Chem 45:2139–2149
43. Vedani A, Dobler M, Lill MA (2005) Combining protein modeling and 6D-QSAR. Simulating the binding of structurally diverse ligands to the estrogen receptor. J Med Chem 48:3700–3703
44. Gohlke H, Klebe G (2002) Drug score meets CoMFA: Adaptation of fields for molecular comparison (AFMoC) or how to tailor knowledge-based pair-potentials to a particular protein. J Med Chem 45:4153–4170
45. Silber K, Heidler P, Kurz T et al. (2005) AFMoC enhances predictivity of 3D QSAR: A case study with DOXP-reductoisomerase. J Med Chem 48:3547–3563.
46. Hillebrecht A, Supuran CT, Klebe G (2006) Integrated approach using protein and ligand information to analyze selectivity-and affinity-determining features of carbonic anhydrase isozymes. ChemMedChem 1:839–853
47. Oprea TI, Garcia AE (1996) Three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationships of steroid aromatase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 10:186–200
48. Golbraikh A, Trophsa A (2002) Beware of q2! J Mol Graph Model 20:269–276
49. Kubinyi H, Hamprecht FA, Mietzner T (1998) Three-dimensional quantitative similarity–activity relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL similarity matrices. J Med Chem 41:2553–2564
50. Golbraikh A, Shen M, Xiao Z et al. (2003) Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17:241–253
51. Norinder U (1996) Single and domain made variable selection in 3D QSAR applications. J Chemomet 10:95–105
52. Doweyko AM (2004) 3D QSAR illusions. J Comput Aided Mol Des 18:587–596
53. van Drie JH (2004) Pharmacophore discovery: A critical review. In: Bultinck P, De Winter H, Langenaeker, W et al., (eds) Computational medicinal chemistry for drug discovery. Marcel Dekker, New York
54. Head RD, Smythe ML, Oprea TI et al. (1996) VALIDATE: A new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J Am Chem Soc 118:3959–3969
55. Di Santo R, Costi R, Artico M et al. (2002) Design, synthesis and QSAR studies on N-aryl het-eroarylisopropanolamines, a new class of non-peptidic HIV-1 protease inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem 10:2511–2526
56. Ortiz AR, Pisabarro MT, Gago F et al. (1995) Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis. J Med Chem 38:2681–2691
57. Martin-Santamaria S, Munoz-Muriedas J, Luque FJ et al. (2004) Modulation of binding strength in several classes of active site inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase studied by comparative binding energy analysis. J Med Chem 47:4471–4482
58. Murcia M, Ortiz AR (2004) Virtual screening with flexible docking and COMBINE-based models. Application to a series of factor Xa inhibitors. J Med Chem 47:805–820
59. Wang T, Wade RC (2002) Comparative binding energy (COMBINE) analysis of OppA-peptide complexes to relate structure to binding thermodynamics. J Med Chem 45:4828–4837
60. Wang T, Wade RC (2001) Comparative binding energy (COMBINE) analysis of influenza neuraminidase-inhibitor complexes. J Med Chem 44:961–997
61. Kim HJ, Chae CH, Yi KY et al. (2004) Computational studies of COX-2 inhibitors: 3D QSAR and docking. Bioorg Med Chem 12:1629–1641
62. Lushington GH, Guo JX, Wang JL (2007) Whither combine? New opportunities for receptor-based QSAR. Curr Med Chem 14:1863–1877
63. Waller CL, Oprea TI, Giolitti A et al. (1993) Three-dimensional QSAR of human immunodeficiency virus (I) protease inhibitors. 1. A CoMFA study employing experimentally-determined alignment rules. J Med Chem 36:4152–4160
64. Cho SJ, Garsia ML, Bier J et al. (1996) Structure-based alignment and comparative molecular field analysis of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. J Med Chem 39:5064–5071
65. Muegge I, Podlogary BL (2001) 3D-quantitative structure–activity relationships of biphenyl carboxylic acid MMP-3 inhibitors: Exploring automated docking as alignment method. Quant Struct-Act Relat 20:215–223
66. Costantino G, Macchiarulo A, Camaioni E et al. (2001) Modeling of poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. Docking of ligands and quantitative structure–activity relationship analysis. J Med Chem 44:3786–3794
67. Matter H, Defossa E, Heinelt U et al. (2002) Design and quantitative structure–activity relationship of 3-amidinobenzyl-1H-indole-2-carboxamides as potent, nonchiral, and selective inhibitors of blood coagulation factor Xa. J Med Chem 45:2749–2769
68. Matter H, Schudok M, Schwab W et al. (2002) Tetrahydroisoquinoline-3-carboxylate based matrix-metalloproteinase inhibitors: Design, synthesis and structure–activity relationship. Bioorg Med Chem 10:3529–3544
69. Tervo AJ, Nyroenen TH, Ronkko T et al. (2003) A structure–activity relationship study of catechol-O-methyltransferase inhibitors combining molecular docking and 3D QSAR methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17:797–810
70. Tervo AJ, Nyroenen TH, Ronkko T et al. (2004) Comparing the quality and predictiveness between 3D QSAR models obtained from manual and automated alignment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:807–816
71. Egea PF, Klahoz BP, Moras D (2000) Ligand–protein interactions in nuclear receptors of hormones. FEBS Lett 476:62–67
72. Bissantz C, Folkers G, Rognan D (2000) Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases: 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J Med Chem 43:4759–4767
73. Chen YZ, Zhi DG (2001) Ligand–protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43:217–226
74. Wolohan P, Reichert DE (2003) CoMFA and docking study of novel estrogen receptor subtype selective ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17:313–328
75. Soderholm AA, Lehtovuori PT, Nyronen TH (2005) Three-dimensional structure–activity relationships of nonsteroidal ligands in complex with androgen receptor ligand-binding domain. J Med Chem 48:917–925
76. Ai N, DeLisle RK, Yu SJ et al. (2003) Computational models for predicting the binding affinities of ligands for the wild-type androgen receptor and a mutated variant associated with human prostate cancer. Chem Res Toxicol 16:1652–1660
77. Moro S, Braiuca P, Deflorian F et al. (2005) Combined target-based and ligand-based drug design approach as a tool to define a novel 3D-pharmacophore 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 48:152–162
78. Medina-Franco JL, Rodrýguez-Morales S, Juarez-Gordiano CA et al. (2004) Docking-based CoMFA and CoMSIA studies of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors of the pyridinone derivative type. J Comput Aided Mol Des 18:345–360
79. Thaimattam R, Daga P, Rajjak SA et al. (2004) 3D QSAR CoMFA, CoMSIA studies on substituted areas as Raf-1 kinase inhibitors and its confirmation with structure-based studies. Bioorg Med Chem 12:6415–6425
80. Sun WS, Park YS, Yoo J et al. (2003) Rational design of an indolebutanoic acid derivative as a novel aldose reductase inhibitor based on docking and 3D QSAR studies of phenethylamine derivatives. J Med Chem 46:5619–5627
81. Kim HJ, Chae CH, Yi KY et al. (2004) Computational studies of COX-2 inhibitors: 3D-QSAR and docking. Bioorg Med Chem 12:1629–1641
82. Ragno R, Artico M, De Martino G et al. (2005) Docking and 3D QSAR studies on indolyl aryl sulfones. Binding mode exploration at the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase non-nucleoside binding site and design of highly active N-(2-hydroxyethyl)carboxamide and N-(2-hydroxyethyl)carbohydrazide derivatives. J Med Chem 48:213–223
83. Assefa H, Kamath S, Buolamwini JK (2003) 3D-QSAR and docking studies on 4-anilinoquinazoline and 4-anilinoquinoline epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17:475–493
84. Hu X, Stebbins CE (2005) Molecular docking and 3D QSAR studies of yersinia protein tyrosine phosphatase YopH inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem 13:1101–1109
85. Kuo CL, Assefa H, Kamath S et al. (2004) Application of CoMFA and CoMSIA 3D QSAR and docking studies in optimization of mercaptobenzenesulfonamides as HIV-1 integrase inhibitors. J Med Chem 47:385–399
86. Zhou Z, Madura JD (2004) 3D QSAR analysis of HIV-1 RT non-nucleoside inhibitors, TIBO derivatives based on docking conformation and alignment. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:2167–2178
87. Sutherland J, Weaver DF (2004) Three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity and structure– selectivity relationships of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 18:309–331
88. Carrieri A, Carotti A, Barreca ML et al. (2002) Binding models of reversible inhibitors to type-B monoamine oxidase. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16:769–778
89. Sippl W, Höltje H-D (2000) Structure-based 3D-QSAR – merging the accuracy of structure-based alignments with the computational efficiency of ligand-based methods. J Mol Struct (Theochem) 503:31–50
90. Cinone N, Höltje H-D, Carotti A (2000) Development of a unique 3D interaction model of endogenous and synthetic peripheral benzodiazepine receptor ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 14:753–768
91. Hammer S, Spika L, Sippl W et al. (2003) Glucocorticoid receptor interactions with glucocor-ticoids: Evaluation by molecular modeling and functional analysis of glucocorticoid receptor mutants. Steroids 68:329–339
92. Classen-Houben D, Sippl W, Höltje HD (2002) Molecular modeling on ligand-receptor complexes of protein-tyrosine-phosphatase 1B. In: Ford M, Livingstone D, Dearden J et al. (eds). EuroQSAR 2002 designing drugs and crop protectants: Processes, problems and solutions. Blackwell Publishing, Bournemouth
93. Broer BM, Gurrath M, Höltje H-D (2003) Molecular modelling studies on the ORL1-receptor and ORL1-agonists. J Comput Aided Mol Des 17:739–754
94. Sippl W, Contreras JM, Parrot I et al. (2001) Structure-based 3D QSAR and design of novel acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 15:395–410
95. Wichapong K, Lindner M, Pianwanita S et al. (2008) Receptor-based 3D-QSAR studies of checkpoint wee1 kinase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem 44:1383–1395
96. Barner EL, Gray SL (1998) Donepezil in alzheimer disease. Ann Pharmacother 32:70–77
97. Raves ML, Harel M, Pang YP et al. (1997) Structure of acetylcholinesterase complexed with the nootropic alkaloid huperzine A. Nat Struct Biol 4:57–63
98. Contreras JM, Rival Y, Chayer S et al. (1999) Aminopyridazines as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. J Med Chem 42:730–741
99. Kryger G, Silman I, Sussman JL (1999) Structure of acetylcholinesterase complexed with E2020 (aricept): Implications for the design of new anti-alzheimer drugs. Structure Fold Des 15:297–307
100. San Juan AA (2008) 3D-QSAR models on clinically relevant K103N mutant HIV-1 reverse transcriptase obtained from two strategic considerations. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 18:1181–1194
101. Pately PD, Pately MR, Kaushik-Basu N et al. (2008) 3D QSAR and molecular docking studies of benzimidazole derivatives as hepatitis C virus NS5B polymerase inhibitors. J Chem Inf Model 48:42–51
102. Murumkar PR, Giridhar R, Yadav MR (2008) 3D-quantitative structure–activity relationship studies on benzothiadiazepine hydroxamates as inhibitors of tumor necrosis factor-α converting enzyme. Chem Biol Drug Des 71:363–373
103. Muddassar M, Pasha FA., Chung HW et al. (2008) Receptor guided 3D-QSAR: A useful approach for designing of IGF-1R inhibitors. J Biomed Biotech 2008:837653
104. San Juan AA (2008) Towards predictive inhibitor design for the EGFR autophosphorylation activity. Eur J Med Chem 43:781–791
105. Fischer B, Fukuzawa K, Wenzel W (2008) Receptor-specific scoring functions derived from quantum chemical models improve affinity estimates for in silico drug discovery. Proteins 70:1264–1273
106. Roncaglioni A, Benfenati E (2008) In silico-aided prediction of biological properties of chemicals: Oestrogen receptor-mediated effects. Chem Soc Rev 37:441–450
107. Sadeghian H, Seyedi SM, Saberi MR et al. (2008) Design and synthesis of eugenol derivatives, as potent 15-lipoxygenase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem 16:890–901
108. Holder S, Lilly M, Brown ML (2007) Comparative molecular field analysis of flavonoid inhibitors of the PIM-1 kinase. Bioorg Med Chem 15:6463–6473
109. Abu Hammad AM, Afifi FU, Taha MO (2007) Combining docking, scoring and molecular field analyses to probe influenza neuraminidase-ligand interactions. J Mol Graph Model 26:443–456
110. Dezi C, Brea J, Alvarado M et al. (2007) Multistructure 3D-QSAR studies on a series of conformationally constrained butyrophenones docked into a new homology model of the 5-HT2A receptor. J Med Chem 50:3242–3255
111. Korhonen S-P, Tuppurainen K, Asikainen A et al. (2007) SOMFA on large diverse xenoestrogen dataset: The effect of superposition algorithms and external regression tools. QSAR Comb Sci 26:809–819
112. Du L, Li M, You Q et al. (2007) A novel structure-based virtual screening model for the hERG channel blockers. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 355:889–894
113. Tuccinardi T, Ortore G, Rossello A et al. (2007) Homology modeling and receptor-based 3D-QSAR study of carbonic anhydrase IX. J Chem Inf Model 47:2253–2262
114. Pissurlenkar RRS, Shaikh MS, Coutinho EC (2007) 3D-QSAR studies of dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors using a docking based alignment. J Mol Mod 13:1047–1071
115. Tuccinardi T, Nuti E, Ortore G. et al. (2007) Analysis of human carbonic anhydrase II: Docking reliability and receptor-based 3D-QSAR study. J Chem Inf Model 47:515–525
116. Huang H, Pan X, Tan N et al. (2007) 3D-QSAR study of sulfonamide inhibitors of human carbonic anhydrase II. Eur J Med Chem 42:365–372
117. Jójárt B, Márki A (2007) Receptor-based QSAR studies of non-peptide human oxytocin receptor antagonists. J Mol Graph Model 25:711–720
118. Jacobsson M, Liden P, Stjernschantz E et al. (2003) Improving structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J Med Chem 46:5781–5789