Fragment-based QSAR: perspectives in drug design

Drug design is a process driven by innovation and technological breakthroughs involving a combination of advanced experimental and computational methods. A broad variety of medicinal chemistry approaches can be used for the identification of hits, generation of leads, as well as to accelerate the optimization of leads into drug candidates. Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) methods are among the most important strategies that can be applied for the successful design of small molecule modulators having clinical utility. Hologram QSAR (HQSAR) is a modern 2D fragment-based QSAR method that employs specialized molecular fingerprints. HQSAR can be applied to large data sets of compounds, as well as traditional-size sets, being a versatile tool in drug design. The HQSAR approach has evolved from a classical use in the generation of standard QSAR models for data correlation and prediction into advanced drug design tools for virtual screening and pharmacokinetic property prediction. This paper provides a brief perspective on the evolution and current status of HQSAR, highlighting present challenges and new opportunities in drug design.

[1]  Adriano D Andricopulo,et al.  Structural and chemical basis for enhanced affinity and potency for a large series of estrogen receptor ligands: 2D and 3D QSAR studies. , 2007, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[2]  Xiaomin Luo,et al.  New p-methylsulfonamido phenylethylamine analogues as class III antiarrhythmic agents: design, synthesis, biological assay, and 3D-QSAR analysis. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  Adam Smith,et al.  Screening for drug discovery: The leading question , 2002, Nature.

[4]  P Chiba,et al.  Interaction field based and hologram based QSAR analysis of propafenone-type modulators of multidrug resistance. , 2005, Medicinal chemistry (Shariqah (United Arab Emirates)).

[5]  Adriano D. Andricopulo,et al.  Structure-Based Approach for the Study of Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinity and Subtype Selectivity , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[6]  H. Hsieh,et al.  7-Aroyl-aminoindoline-1-sulfonamides as a novel class of potent antitubulin agents. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  R. W. Hansen,et al.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. , 2003, Journal of health economics.

[8]  Adriano D Andricopulo,et al.  Hologram quantitative structure-activity relationships for a series of farnesoid X receptor activators. , 2005, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[9]  I. Polikarpov,et al.  3D QSAR comparative molecular field analysis on nonsteroidal farnesoid X receptor activators. , 2007, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[10]  Glaucius Oliva,et al.  Structural Basis for Selective Inhibition of Trypanosomatid Glyceraldehyde-3-Phosphate Dehydrogenase: Molecular Docking and 3D QSAR Studies , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  H. Kubinyi.  Drug research: myths, hype and reality , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[12]  G Klebe,et al.  On the prediction of binding properties of drug molecules by comparative molecular field analysis. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  Adriano D. Andricopulo,et al.  PK/DB: database for pharmacokinetic properties and predictive in silico ADME models , 2008, Bioinform..

[14]  Marcelo Santos Castilho,et al.  Classical and Hologram QSAR Studies on a Series of Tacrine Derivatives as Butyrylcholinesterase Inhibitors , 2007 .

[15]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening , 2002, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[16]  Carlos R Rodrigues,et al.  Structure-activity relationships of the antimalarial agent artemisinin. 6. The development of predictive in vitro potency models using CoMFA and HQSAR methodologies. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[17]  H. van de Waterbeemd,et al.  ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? , 2003, Nature reviews. Drug discovery.

[18]  Chris L. Waller,et al.  A Comparative QSAR Study Using CoMFA, HQSAR, and FRED/SKEYS Paradigms for Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinities of Structurally Diverse Compounds , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  Paul W. Erhardt,et al.  Medicinal chemistry in the new millennium. A glance into the future , 2002 .

[20]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  Use of 3D QSAR Models for Database Screening: A Feasibility Study , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[21]  G. Oliva,et al.  Virtual screening and its integration with modern drug design technologies. , 2008, Current medicinal chemistry.

[22]  A. Andricopulo,et al.  Fragment-Based QSAR and Molecular Modeling Studies on a Series of Discodermolide Analogs as Microtubule-Stabilizing Anticancer Agents , 2009 .

[23]  Adriano D Andricopulo,et al.  Hologram QSAR model for the prediction of human oral bioavailability. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[24]  Coates,et al.  Successful implementation of automation in medicinal chemistry. , 2000, Drug discovery today.

[25]  B. Day,et al.  CoMFA, HQSAR and molecular docking studies of butitaxel analogues with β-tubulin , 2005 .

[26]  Carlos A. Montanari,et al.  In Silico Prediction of Human Plasma Protein Binding Using Hologram QSAR , 2007 .

[27]  Indira Ghosh,et al.  Developing an Antituberculosis Compounds Database and Data Mining in the Search of a Motif Responsible for the Activity of a Diverse Class of Antituberculosis Agents , 2006, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[28]  A. Andricopulo,et al.  2D Quantitative structure-activity relationship studies on a series of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[29]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Molecular similarity analysis uncovers heterogeneous structure-activity relationships and variable activity landscapes. , 2007, Chemistry & biology.

[30]  Glaucius Oliva,et al.  Two- and three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships for a series of purine nucleoside phosphorylase inhibitors. , 2006, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Yu Chen,et al.  Evaluation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Methods for Large-Scale Prediction of Chemicals Binding to the Estrogen Receptor , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[32]  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.

[33]  Sung-Sau So,et al.  A comparative study of ligand-receptor complex binding affinity prediction methods based on glycogen phosphorylase inhibitors , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[34]  M. Doddareddy,et al.  Hologram quantitative structure activity relationship studies on 5-HT6 antagonists. , 2004, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[35]  C. Dobson.  Chemical space and biology , 2004, Nature.

[36]  Ulrich Rester,et al.  From virtuality to reality - Virtual screening in lead discovery and lead optimization: a medicinal chemistry perspective. , 2008, Current opinion in drug discovery & development.

[37]  C. Hansch,et al.  Chem-bioinformatics and QSAR: a review of QSAR lacking positive hydrophobic terms. , 2001, Chemical reviews.

[38]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Is There a Difference between Leads and Drugs? A Historical Perspective , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[39]  Alexander Golbraikh,et al.  Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. , 2007, Current pharmaceutical design.

[40]  A. Good,et al.  High-throughput and virtual screening: core lead discovery technologies move towards integration. , 2000, Drug discovery today.

[41]  E. Ferreira,et al.  Structure-activity relationships for a class of selective inhibitors of the major cysteine protease from Trypanosoma cruzi. , 2008, Journal of enzyme inhibition and medicinal chemistry.

[42]  Anna Ivana Scovassi,et al.  Arylthioindole inhibitors of tubulin polymerization. 3. Biological evaluation, structure-activity relationships and molecular modeling studies. , 2007, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[43]  Hongyu Zhao,et al.  Scaffold selection and scaffold hopping in lead generation: a medicinal chemistry perspective. , 2007, Drug discovery today.

[44]  Leland J. Gershell,et al.  A brief history of novel drug discovery technologies , 2003, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[45]  Kerly F. M. Pasqualoto,et al.  Fragment-based and classical quantitative structure–activity relationships for a series of hydrazides as antituberculosis agents , 2008, Molecular Diversity.

[46]  Igor Polikarpov,et al.  2D QSAR studies on thyroid hormone receptor ligands. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[47]  Emilio Benfenati,et al.  Virtual screening for aryl hydrocarbon receptor binding prediction. , 2006, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[48]  A. Andricopulo,et al.  Structure-activity relationships for the design of small-molecule inhibitors. , 2005, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[49]  I. Polikarpov,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationships for a series of selective estrogen receptor-beta modulators , 2007, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[50]  Elizabeth Igne Ferreira,et al.  Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships for a Large Series of Potent Antitubercular Agents , 2008 .

[51]  Kwang S. Kim,et al.  Homology modeling and molecular dynamics study of chorismate synthase from Shigella flexneri. , 2006, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[52]  H. Park Choo,et al.  A comparative study of quantitative structure activity relationship methods based on antitumor diarylsulfonylureas. , 2001, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[53]  H Huang,et al.  A comparative study of quantitative structure–activity relationship methods based on gallic acid derivatives , 2004, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[54]  R. Liebl,et al.  Antimitotic activities of 2-phenylindole-3-carbaldehydes in human breast cancer cells. , 2007, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[55]  Franco Lombardo,et al.  In silico ADME prediction: data, models, facts and myths. , 2003, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.