CoMFA and docking study of novel estrogen receptor subtype selective ligands

We present the results from a Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) and docking study of a diverse set of 36 estrogen receptor ligands whose relative binding affinities (RBA) with respect to 17β-Estradiol were available in both isoforms of the nuclear estrogen receptors (ERα, ERβ). Initial CoMFA models exhibited a correlation between the experimental relative binding affinities and the molecular steric and electrostatic fields; ERα: r2=0.79, q2=0.44 ERβ: r2=0.93, q2=0.63. Addition of the solvation energy of the isolated ligand improved the predictive nature of the ERβ model initially; r2=0.96, q2=0.70 but upon rescrambling of the data-set and reselecting the training set at random, inclusion of the ligand solvation energy was found to have little effect on the predictive nature of the CoMFA models. The ligands were then docked inside the ligand binding domain (LBD) of both ERα and ERβ utilizing the docking program Gold, after-which the program CScore was used to rank the resulting poses. Inclusion of both the Gold and CScore scoring parameters failed to improve the predictive ability of the original CoMFA models. The subtype selectivity expressed as RBA(ERα/ERβ) of the test sets was predicted using the most predictive CoMFA models, as illustrated by the cross-validated r2. In each case the most selective ligands were ranked correctly illustrating the utility of this method as a prescreening tool in the development of novel estrogen receptor subtype selective ligands.

[1]  J A Katzenellenbogen,et al.  Furans with basic side chains: synthesis and biological evaluation of a novel series of antagonists with selectivity for the estrogen receptor alpha. , 2001, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[2]  Wolfgang Sippl,et al.  Binding affinity prediction of novel estrogen receptor ligands using receptor-based 3-D QSAR methods. , 2002, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[3]  G. Chang,et al.  Macromodel—an integrated software system for modeling organic and bioorganic molecules using molecular mechanics , 1990 .

[4]  C. Hansch,et al.  Comparative QSAR analysis of estrogen receptor ligands. , 1999, Chemical reviews.

[5]  M. Vieth,et al.  DoMCoSAR: a novel approach for establishing the docking mode that is consistent with the structure-activity relationship. Application to HIV-1 protease inhibitors and VEGF receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  P Willett,et al.  Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. , 1997, Journal of molecular biology.

[7]  K E Carlson,et al.  Estrogen receptor subtype-selective ligands: asymmetric synthesis and biological evaluation of cis- and trans-5,11-dialkyl- 5,6,11, 12-tetrahydrochrysenes. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  R. Zauhar,et al.  Computational studies on HIV-1 protease inhibitors: influence of calculated inhibitor-enzyme binding affinities on the statistical quality of 3D-QSAR CoMFA models. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[9]  Anil K. Jaiswal,et al.  Transcriptional Regulation of the Human Quinone Reductase Gene by Antiestrogen-liganded Estrogen Receptor-α and Estrogen Receptor-β* , 1998, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[10]  W. C. Still,et al.  The GB/SA Continuum Model for Solvation. A Fast Analytical Method for the Calculation of Approximate Born Radii , 1997 .

[11]  R. Wade,et al.  Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis , 1995 .

[12]  S. Fawell,et al.  Characterization and colocalization of steroid binding and dimerization activities in the mouse estrogen receptor , 1990, Cell.

[13]  M Pastor,et al.  Comparative binding energy analysis of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: incorporation of solvent effects and validation as a powerful tool in receptor-based drug design. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  T. Halgren,et al.  A priori prediction of activity for HIV-1 protease inhibitors employing energy minimization in the active site. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  K. Chae,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study of nonsteroidal estrogen receptor ligands using the comparative molecular field analysis/cross-validated r2-guided region selection approach. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  K. Grandien,et al.  Printed in U.S.A. Copyright © 1997 by The Endocrine Society Comparison of the Ligand Binding Specificity and Transcript Tissue Distribution of Estrogen Receptors � and � , 2022 .

[17]  B. Katzenellenbogen,et al.  Pyrazole ligands: structure-affinity/activity relationships and estrogen receptor-alpha-selective agonists. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  A. Hopfinger A QSAR investigation of dihydrofolate reductase inhibition by Baker triazines based upon molecular shape analysis , 1980 .

[19]  Roger Perkins,et al.  QSAR Models for Binding of Estrogenic Compounds to Estrogen Receptor α and β Subtypes. , 1997, Endocrinology.

[20]  Massimo Bertelli,et al.  Selective inhibition of 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase from Trypanosoma brucei , 2001, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[21]  S. Pickett,et al.  GRid-INdependent descriptors (GRIND): a novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional molecular descriptors. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  D. Rognan,et al.  Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases. 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[23]  R. Cramer,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. , 1988, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[24]  J. Polman,et al.  ERβ: Identification and characterization of a novel human estrogen receptor , 1996 .

[25]  M. Murcko,et al.  Consensus scoring: A method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[26]  R. Clark,et al.  Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. , 2002, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[27]  Paul Labute,et al.  Binary Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Analysis of Estrogen Receptor Ligands , 1999, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[28]  M. Adams,et al.  Coronary artery and cultured aortic smooth muscle cells express mRNA for both the classical estrogen receptor and the newly described estrogen receptor beta , 1998, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[29]  R. Glen,et al.  Molecular recognition of receptor sites using a genetic algorithm with a description of desolvation. , 1995, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  Ferran Sanz,et al.  3D-QSAR methods on the basis of ligand–receptor complexes. Application of COMBINE and GRID/GOLPE methodologies to a series of CYP1A2 ligands , 2000, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[31]  M Carlquist,et al.  Structure of the ligand‐binding domain of oestrogen receptor beta in the presence of a partial agonist and a full antagonist , 1999, The EMBO journal.