In silico Studies of Biologically Active Molecules

Contemporary in silico (computer-aided) approaches to rational drug design and human health and environmental chemical risk assessment combine various ligand- and structure-based methods, including classical and three-dimensional (3D) quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models, pharmacophore and homology modelling, docking and virtual screening. These approaches are highly interdisciplinary and integrate knowledge from various disciplines in natural sciences. Their ultimate purpose is to quantitatively characterise the relationship between the compounds’ chemical structures and their effects, expressed by theoretical models, while the effect can be different—therapeutic, toxic, etc. In silico approaches effectively help in understanding and elucidation of the mechanisms by which chemical compounds interact with target biomacromolecules, thereby explaining fundamental processes in the living organisms. The chapter describes main methods in the computer-aided design and computational toxicology. The methods are classified according to the information available for modelling. Several case studies are described to illustrate the application of various in silico methods alone or in a combination. The case studies summarize the most recent results of the authors related to development of in silico models, algorithms and software applications to important biologically active molecules, both small drugs and drug-like compounds, and biomacromolecules, including nuclear receptors.

[1]  I. Pajeva,et al.  Computational Studies of Free Radical-Scavenging Properties of Phenolic Compounds. , 2014, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[2]  M. Cronin,et al.  In vitro and in silico studies of the membrane permeability of natural flavonoids from Silybum marianum (L.) Gaertn. and their derivatives. , 2019, Phytomedicine : international journal of phytotherapy and phytopharmacology.

[3]  Allan M. Ferguson,et al.  EVA: A new theoretically based molecular descriptor for use in QSAR/QSPR analysis , 1997, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[4]  Tania Pencheva,et al.  Molecular dynamics simulation of the human estrogen receptor alpha: contribution to the pharmacophore of the agonists , 2014, Math. Comput. Simul..

[5]  R. Abagyan,et al.  Glossary of terms used in computational drug design, part II (IUPAC Recommendations 2015) , 2016 .

[6]  R. M. Muir,et al.  Correlation of Biological Activity of Phenoxyacetic Acids with Hammett Substituent Constants and Partition Coefficients , 1962, Nature.

[7]  F. Fratev,et al.  Structural and Dynamical Insight into PPARγ Antagonism: In Silico Study of the Ligand-Receptor Interactions of Non-Covalent Antagonists , 2015, International journal of molecular sciences.

[8]  G. Klebe,et al.  Drug Design , 2013, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[9]  Thorsten Meinl,et al.  KNIME: The Konstanz Information Miner , 2007, GfKl.

[10]  P. Selzer,et al.  Fast calculation of molecular polar surface area as a sum of fragment-based contributions and its application to the prediction of drug transport properties. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[11]  Olympia Roeva,et al.  ICrAData - Software for InterCriteria Analysis , 2018 .

[12]  John P. Overington,et al.  The druggable genome and support for target identification and validation in drug development , 2016, Science Translational Medicine.

[13]  Martin Stahl,et al.  Scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions: a critical perspective. , 2004, Drug discovery today. Technologies.

[14]  I. Pajeva,et al.  ADME/Tox Properties and Biochemical Interactions of Silybin Congeners: In silico Study , 2017, Natural product communications.

[15]  Alex Avdeef,et al.  Absorption and Drug Development: Solubility, Permeability, and Charge State , 2003 .

[16]  Artem Cherkasov,et al.  Best Practices of Computer-Aided Drug Discovery: Lessons Learned from the Development of a Preclinical Candidate for Prostate Cancer with a New Mechanism of Action , 2017, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[17]  H. Kubinyi QSAR: Hansch Analysis and Related Approaches: Kubinyi/QSAR , 1993 .

[18]  H. Kubinyi Lock and key in the real world: concluding remarks , 1995 .

[19]  T. J. Moore,et al.  Estimated Costs of Pivotal Trials for Novel Therapeutic Agents Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2015-2016 , 2018, JAMA internal medicine.

[20]  A. Good,et al.  Structure-activity relationships from molecular similarity matrices. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  Scott D. Kahn,et al.  Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[22]  Carol A Marchant,et al.  In Silico Tools for Sharing Data and Knowledge on Toxicity and Metabolism: Derek for Windows, Meteor, and Vitic , 2008, Toxicology mechanisms and methods.

[23]  Paul A. Bartlett,et al.  CAVEAT: A program to facilitate the design of organic molecules , 1994, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[24]  Tania Pencheva,et al.  BMC Bioinformatics BioMed Central Methodology article AMMOS: Automated Molecular Mechanics Optimization tool for in silico Screening , 2022 .

[25]  George Kollias,et al.  Predictive QSAR workflow for the in silico identification and screening of novel HDAC inhibitors , 2009, Molecular Diversity.

[26]  H. Kubinyi QSAR : Hansch analysis and related approaches , 1993 .

[27]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  The Importance of Being Earnest: Validation is the Absolute Essential for Successful Application and Interpretation of QSPR Models , 2003 .

[28]  Tania Pencheva,et al.  AMMOS: A Software Platform to Assist in silico Screening , 2009 .

[29]  Gerhard Klebe Drug Design: Methodology, Concepts, and Mode-of-Action , 2013 .

[30]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis: CoMSIA , 1998 .

[31]  A. Pike Lessons learnt from structural studies of the oestrogen receptor. , 2006, Best practice & research. Clinical endocrinology & metabolism.

[32]  J. Stewart Optimization of parameters for semiempirical methods V: Modification of NDDO approximations and application to 70 elements , 2007, Journal of molecular modeling.

[33]  Michael M. Mysinger,et al.  Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E): Better Ligands and Decoys for Better Benchmarking , 2012, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  B. Villoutreix,et al.  AMMOS software: method and application. , 2012, Methods in molecular biology.

[35]  Andrzej Joachimiak,et al.  Structural plasticity in the oestrogen receptor ligand‐binding domain , 2007, EMBO reports.

[36]  Maria A Miteva,et al.  DG-AMMOS: A New tool to generate 3D conformation of small molecules using Distance Geometry and Automated Molecular Mechanics Optimization for in silico Screening , 2009, BMC chemical biology.

[37]  Tania Pencheva,et al.  AMMOS2: a web server for protein–ligand–water complexes refinement via molecular mechanics , 2017, Nucleic Acids Res..

[38]  Andrew P Worth,et al.  The application of molecular modelling in the safety assessment of chemicals: A case study on ligand-dependent PPARγ dysregulation. , 2017, Toxicology.

[39]  C. Hansch Quantitative approach to biochemical structure-activity relationships , 1969 .

[40]  High‐Throughput Artificial Membrane Permeability Studies in Early Lead Discovery and Development , 2007 .

[41]  I. Pajeva,et al.  Recent advances in the molecular modeling of estrogen receptor-mediated toxicity. , 2011, Advances in protein chemistry and structural biology.

[42]  Petko Alov,et al.  Molecular Modelling Study of the PPARγ Receptor in Relation to the Mode of Action/Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework for Liver Steatosis , 2014, International journal of molecular sciences.

[43]  I. Pajeva,et al.  Molecular Modeling Approach to Study the PPARγ-Ligand Interactions. , 2019, Methods in molecular biology.