How to deal with low-resolution target structures: using SAR, ensemble docking, hydropathic analysis, and 3D-QSAR to definitively map the αβ-tubulin colchicine site.

αβ-Tubulin colchicine site inhibitors (CSIs) from four scaffolds that we previously tested for antiproliferative activity were modeled to better understand their effect on microtubules. Docking models, constructed by exploiting the SAR of a pyrrole subset and HINT scoring, guided ensemble docking of all 59 compounds. This conformation set and two variants having progressively less structure knowledge were subjected to CoMFA, CoMFA+HINT, and CoMSIA 3D-QSAR analyses. The CoMFA+HINT model (docked alignment) showed the best statistics: leave-one-out q(2) of 0.616, r(2) of 0.949, and r(2)pred (internal test set) of 0.755. An external (tested in other laboratories) collection of 24 CSIs from eight scaffolds were evaluated with the 3D-QSAR models, which correctly ranked their activity trends in 7/8 scaffolds for CoMFA+HINT (8/8 for CoMFA). The combination of SAR, ensemble docking, hydropathic analysis, and 3D-QSAR provides an atomic-scale colchicine site model more consistent with a target structure resolution much higher than the ~3.6 Å available for αβ-tubulin.

[1]  S. N. Timasheff,et al.  Role of the colchicine ring A and its methoxy groups in the binding to tubulin and microtubule inhibition. , 1998, Biochemistry.

[2]  H. Cottam,et al.  Rational design, synthesis and structure-activity relationships of antitumor (E)-2-benzylidene-1-tetralones and (E)-2-benzylidene-1-indanones. , 2000, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[3]  P. Chakrabarti,et al.  Discrimination of ligands with different flexibilities resulting from the plasticity of the binding site in tubulin. , 2012, Biochemistry.

[4]  N. Lawrence,et al.  Structural requirements for the interaction of combretastatins with tubulin: how important is the trimethoxy unit? , 2003, Organic & biomolecular chemistry.

[5]  N. Lawrence,et al.  Combretastatin-like chalcones as inhibitors of microtubule polymerization. Part 1: synthesis and biological evaluation of antivascular activity. , 2009, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[6]  Yan Lu,et al.  An Overview of Tubulin Inhibitors That Interact with the Colchicine Binding Site , 2012, Pharmaceutical Research.

[7]  Glen E Kellogg,et al.  Hydrophobicity--shake flasks, protein folding and drug discovery. , 2010, Current topics in medicinal chemistry.

[8]  Glen E. Kellogg,et al.  Hydrophobicity: is LogPo/w more than the sum of its parts? , 2000 .

[9]  Robert D. Clark,et al.  A ligand’s-eye view of protein binding , 2008, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[10]  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.

[11]  M. Boyd,et al.  Structure-activity requirements for flavone cytotoxicity and binding to tubulin. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[12]  J. Hartley,et al.  Acetyl analogs of combretastatin A-4: synthesis and biological studies. , 2011, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[13]  M. Jordan,et al.  Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs , 2004, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[14]  E. Hamel,et al.  Synthesis and biological activities of (R)- and (S)-N-(4-Methoxyphenyl)-N,2,6-trimethyl-6,7-dihydro-5H-cyclopenta[d]pyrimidin-4-aminium chloride as potent cytotoxic antitubulin agents. , 2011, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[15]  Glen E. Kellogg,et al.  Applying an Empirical Hydropathic Forcefield in Refinement May Improve Low-Resolution Protein X-Ray Crystal Structures , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  Patrick A. Curmi,et al.  Insight into tubulin regulation from a complex with colchicine and a stathmin-like domain , 2004, Nature.

[17]  C. Dumontet,et al.  Microtubule-binding agents: a dynamic field of cancer therapeutics , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[18]  Zhigang Zhou,et al.  CoMFA 3D-QSAR Analysis of HIV-1 RT Nonnucleoside Inhibitors, TIBO Derivatives Based on Docking Conformation and Alignment , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[19]  D. Gewirtz,et al.  Interference with endothelial cell function by JG-03-14, an agent that binds to the colchicine site on microtubules. , 2009, Biochemical pharmacology.

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

[21]  T Scior,et al.  How to recognize and workaround pitfalls in QSAR studies: a critical review. , 2009, Current medicinal chemistry.

[22]  Jonathan E. Hempel,et al.  Identification and Characterization of a New Tubulin-Binding Tetrasubstituted Brominated Pyrrole , 2007, Molecular Pharmacology.

[23]  G. Klebe,et al.  Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  M. Zeller,et al.  A novel class of trans-methylpyrazoline analogs of combretastatins: synthesis and in-vitro biological testing. , 2011, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  D. V. Tsyganov,et al.  Synthesis and comparative evaluation of 4-oxa- and 4-aza-podophyllotoxins as antiproliferative microtubule destabilizing agents. , 2012, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[26]  Richard A. Stanton,et al.  Drugs that target dynamic microtubules: A new molecular perspective , 2011, Medicinal research reviews.

[27]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Three-dimensional QSAR of human immunodeficiency virus (I) protease inhibitors. 1. A CoMFA study employing experimentally-determined alignment rules. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[28]  H. Hsieh,et al.  Concise synthesis and structure-activity relationships of combretastatin A-4 analogues, 1-aroylindoles and 3-aroylindoles, as novel classes of potent antitubulin agents. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[29]  E. Nogales,et al.  Refined structure of alpha beta-tubulin at 3.5 A resolution. , 2001, Journal of molecular biology.

[30]  A Tropsha,et al.  Structure-based alignment and comparative molecular field analysis of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[31]  M. DePristo,et al.  Heterogeneity and inaccuracy in protein structures solved by X-ray crystallography. , 2004, Structure.

[32]  G. Kellogg,et al.  Pyrrole-Based Antitubulin Agents: Two Distinct Binding Modalities are Predicted for C-2 Analogs in the Colchicine Site. , 2012, ACS medicinal chemistry letters.

[33]  G. Kellogg,et al.  Developing novel C-4 analogues of pyrrole-based antitubulin agents: weak but critical hydrogen bonding in the colchicine site. , 2013, MedChemComm.

[34]  W. Yuan,et al.  CoMFA 3D‐QSAR Analysis of Epothilones Based on Docking Conformation and Alignment , 2007 .

[35]  E. Hamel,et al.  Synthesis and discovery of water-soluble microtubule targeting agents that bind to the colchicine site on tubulin and circumvent Pgp mediated resistance. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[36]  David C Schriemer,et al.  Discovery and characterization of the laulimalide-microtubule binding mode by mass shift perturbation mapping. , 2010, Chemistry & biology.

[37]  Ryan S. Davis,et al.  Design, synthesis, and biological evaluations of 2,5-diaryl-2,3-dihydro-1,3,4-oxadiazoline analogs of combretastatin-A4. , 2010, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[38]  D. Zaharevitz,et al.  A common pharmacophore for a diverse set of colchicine site inhibitors using a structure-based approach. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[39]  Raimond B G Ravelli,et al.  Variations in the colchicine-binding domain provide insight into the structural switch of tubulin , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  Jing Chen,et al.  Recent development and SAR analysis of colchicine binding site inhibitors. , 2009, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry.

[41]  Carlos Alfonso,et al.  Stathmin and Interfacial Microtubule Inhibitors Recognize a Naturally Curved Conformation of Tubulin Dimers* , 2010, The Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[42]  C. Dumontet,et al.  Is class III beta-tubulin a predictive factor in patients receiving tubulin-binding agents? , 2008, The Lancet. Oncology.

[43]  Glen Eugene Kellogg,et al.  HINT: A new method of empirical hydrophobic field calculation for CoMFA , 1991, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[44]  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.

[45]  B. Potter,et al.  Class III β-tubulin expression and in vitro resistance to microtubule targeting agents , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[46]  E. Hamel,et al.  Novel Water-Soluble Substituted Pyrrolo[3,2-d]pyrimidines: Design, Synthesis, and Biological Evaluation as Antitubulin Antitumor Agents , 2012, Pharmaceutical Research.

[47]  Andrea Brancale,et al.  The Tubulin Colchicine Domain: a Molecular Modeling Perspective , 2012, ChemMedChem.

[48]  G. Kellogg,et al.  Computational analysis of structure-based interactions and ligand properties can predict efflux effects on antibiotics. , 2012, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[49]  F. Spyrakis,et al.  The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations. , 2007, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  Jorge A. Almenara,et al.  Autophagy, cell death and sustained senescence arrest in B16/F10 melanoma cells and HCT-116 colon carcinoma cells in response to the novel microtubule poison, JG-03-14 , 2013, Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.

[51]  M. Fornabaio,et al.  Docking and hydropathic scoring of polysubstituted pyrrole compounds with antitubulin activity. , 2008, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.