A comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) study using semiempirical, density functional, ab initio methods and pharmacophore derivation using DISCOtech on sigma 1 ligands

The Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) was developed to investigate a three‐dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship (3D‐QSAR) model of ligands for the sigma 1 receptor. The starting geometry of sigma‐1 receptor ligands was obtained from the Tripos force field minimizations and conformations were decided from DISCOtech using the SYBYL 6.8. program. The structures of 48 molecules were fully optimized at the ab initio HF/3‐21G* and semiempirical AM1 calculations using GAUSSIAN 98. The electrostatic charges were calculated using several methods such as semiempirical AM1, density functional B3LYP/3‐21G*, and ab initio HF/3‐21G*, MP2/3‐21G* calculations within GAUSSIAN 98. Using the optimized geometries, the CoMFA results derived from the HF/3‐21G method were better than those from AM1. The best CoMFA was obtained from HF/3‐21G* optimized geometry and charges (R2 = 0.977). Using the optimized geometries, the CoMFA results derived from the HF/3‐21G methods were better than those from AM1 calculations. The training set of 43 molecules gave higher R2 (0.989–0.977) from HF/3‐21G* optimized geometries than R2 (0.966–0.911) values from AM1 optimized geometries. The test set of five molecules also suggested that HF/3‐21G* optimized geometries produced good CoMFA models to predict bioactivity of sigma 1 receptor ligands but AM1 optimized geometries failed to predict reasonable bioactivity of sigma 1 receptor ligands using different calculations for atomic charges. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Comput Chem 25: 1385–1399, 2004

[1]  Rudolf H. Winger,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis of artemisinin derivatives: Ab initio versus semiempirical optimized structures , 1998, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[2]  Supa Hannongbua,et al.  3D-Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships of HEPT Derivatives as HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors, Based on Ab Initio Calculations , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[3]  C. Melchiorre,et al.  1'-Benzyl-3,4-dihydrospiro[2H-1- benzothiopyran-2,4'-piperidine] (spipethiane), a potent and highly selective sigma1 ligand. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[5]  Bruce L. Bush,et al.  Sample-distance partial least squares: PLS optimized for many variables, with application to CoMFA , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[6]  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.

[7]  Richard A. Glennon,et al.  A CoMFA investigation of sigma receptor binding affinity: Reexamination of a spurious sigma ligand , 1998 .

[8]  Magid Abou-Gharbia,et al.  Chapter 1. Sigma Receptors and their Ligands: The Sigma Enigma , 1993 .

[9]  Shigeru Okuyama,et al.  NE-100: A Novel Sigma Receptor Antagonist , 1996 .

[10]  Peter D. J. Grootenhuis,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis and energy interaction studies of thrombin-inhibitor complexes , 1999, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[11]  J D Brodie,et al.  The selective sigma(1) receptor agonist, 1-(3,4-dimethoxyphenethyl)-4-(phenylpropyl)piperazine (SA4503), blocks the acquisition of the conditioned place preference response to (-)-nicotine in rats. , 2001, European journal of pharmacology.

[12]  M L Brown,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis of hydantoin binding to the neuronal voltage-dependent sodium channel. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  David T. Manallack,et al.  Quantitative conformational analyses predict distinct receptor sites for PCP-like and σ drugs , 1987 .

[14]  T. Heffner,et al.  The Pharmacology of the Novel and Selective Sigma Ligand, PD 144418 , 1997, Neuropharmacology.

[15]  J. Poupaert,et al.  2(3H)-benzoxazolone and 2(3H)-benzothiazolone derivatives: novel, potent and selective sigma1 receptor ligands. , 1997, European journal of pharmacology.

[16]  P. Shepard,et al.  Effects of NPC16377, a potent and selective sigma receptor ligand, on the activity of mesencephalic dopamine-containing neurons in the rat. , 1994, European journal of pharmacology.

[17]  L Morin-Allory,et al.  Pharmacophoric search and 3D-QSAR comparative molecular field analysis studies on agonists of melatonin sheep receptors. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Abass Alavi,et al.  N-(N-Benzylpiperidin-4-yl)-2-[18F]fluorobenzamide: A potential ligand for PET imaging of σ receptors , 1997 .

[19]  A. Debnath,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study on cyclic urea derivatives as HIV-1 protease inhibitors: application of comparative molecular field analysis. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  G. Skuza,et al.  Neuropharmacological profile of EMD 57445, a sigma receptor ligand with potential antipsychotic activity. , 1996, European journal of pharmacology.

[21]  Rikki N. Waterhouse,et al.  Halogenated 4-(phenoxymethyl)piperidines as potential radiolabeled probes for σ-1 receptors : In vivo evaluation of [123I]-1-(iodopropen-2-yl)-4-[(4-cyanophenoxy)methyl]piperidine , 1997 .

[22]  Peter W. Kenny,et al.  Prediction of hydrogen bond basicity from computed molecular electrostatic properties: implications for comparative molecular field analysis , 1994 .

[23]  Bernhard Wünsch,et al.  Novel sigma receptor ligands. Part 2. SAR of spiro[[2]benzopyran-1,4'-piperidines] and spiro[[2]benzofuran-1,4'-piperidines] with carbon substituents in position 3. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  W. Bowen,et al.  Sigma receptors: biology and function. , 1990, Pharmacological reviews.

[25]  D. Manallack,et al.  Receptor site topographies for phencyclidine-like and sigma drugs: predictions from quantitative conformational, electrostatic potential, and radioreceptor analyses. , 1988, Molecular pharmacology.

[26]  H Matter,et al.  Quantitative structure-activity relationship of human neutrophil collagenase (MMP-8) inhibitors using comparative molecular field analysis and X-ray structure analysis. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[27]  Tamara M. Gund,et al.  Molecular modeling of sigma receptor ligands: A model of binding based on conformational and electrostatic considerations , 1991 .

[28]  Matthew Clark,et al.  The Probability of Chance Correlation Using Partial Least Squares (PLS) , 1993 .

[29]  Orazio Prezzavento,et al.  Synthesis of (+)-cis-N-(4-isothiocyanatobenzyl)-N-normetazocine, an isothiocyanate derivative of N-benzylnormetazocine as acylant agent for the sigma(1) receptor. , 2002, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[30]  B Testa,et al.  Binding of arylpiperazines, (aryloxy)propanolamines, and tetrahydropyridylindoles to the 5-HT1A receptor: contribution of the molecular lipophilicity potential to three-dimensional quantitative structure-affinity relationship models. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  Andrew Coop,et al.  N-arylalkylpiperidines as high-affinity sigma-1 and sigma-2 receptor ligands: phenylpropylamines as potential leads for selective sigma-2 agents. , 2002, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[32]  Shigeru Okuyama,et al.  Effect of NE-100, a novel σ receptor ligand, on phencyclidine-induced cognitive dysfunction , 1994 .

[33]  D R Flower,et al.  Lead generation using pharmacophore mapping and three-dimensional database searching: application to muscarinic M(3) receptor antagonists. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[34]  W. Welsh,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study of the cannabimimetic (aminoalkyl)indoles using comparative molecular field analysis. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[35]  R. Mailman,et al.  Novel (4-phenylpiperidinyl)- and (4-phenylpiperazinyl)alkyl-spaced esters of 1-phenylcyclopentanecarboxylic acids as potent sigma-selective compounds. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  R E Wilcox,et al.  CoMFA-based prediction of agonist affinities at recombinant D1 vs D2 dopamine receptors. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[37]  A Minarini,et al.  Antagonist binding profile of the split chimeric muscarinic m2-trunc/m3-tail receptor. , 1998, European journal of pharmacology.