Abstract
Computational molecular models of chemicals interacting with biomolecular targets provides toxicologists a valuable, affordable, and sustainable source of in silico molecular level information that augments, enriches, and complements in vitro and in vivo efforts. From a molecular biophysical ansatz, we describe how 3D molecular modeling methods used to numerically evaluate the classical pair-wise potential at the chemical/biological interface can inform mechanism of action and the dose–response paradigm of modern toxicology. With an emphasis on molecular docking, 3D-QSAR and pharmacophore/toxicophore approaches, we demonstrate how these methods can be integrated with chemoinformatic and toxicogenomic efforts into a tiered computational toxicology workflow. We describe generalized protocols in which 3D computational molecular modeling is used to enhance our ability to predict and model the most relevant toxicokinetic, metabolic, and molecular toxicological endpoints, thereby accelerating the computational toxicology-driven basis of modern risk assessment while providing a starting point for rational sustainable molecular design.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Historically molecular modeling methods, stemming from roots in theoretical and computational chemistry, are composed of an ensemble of developed and thoroughly vetted computational approaches used to investigate molecular-level processes and phenomena including but not limited to molecular structure, chemical catalysis, geochemistry, interfacial chemistry, nanotechnology, conformational analysis, stereoselectivity, enzyme biochemistry, chemical reaction dynamics, solvation, molecular aggregation, and molecular design.
References
Voutchkova A, Osimitz T, Anastas P (2010) Toward a comprehensive molecular design framework for reduced hazard. Chem Rev 110:5845–5882
Rusyn I, Daston G (2010) Computational toxicology: realizing the promise of the toxicity testing in the 21st century. Environ Health Perspect 118:1047–1050
Rabinowitz J, Goldsmith M, Little S, Pasquinelli M (2008) Computational molecular modeling for evaluating the toxicity of environmental chemicals: prioritizing bioassay requirements. Environ Health Perspect 116:573–577
Allinger N, Burkert U (1982) Molecular mechanics. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC
Dix D, Houck K (2007) The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95:5–12
Villoutreix B, Renault N, Lagorce D, Sperandio O, Montes M, Miteva M (2007) Free resources to assist structure-based virtual ligand screening experiments. Curr Protein Pept Sci 8:381–411
Ponder J, Case D (2003) Force fields for protein simulations. Adv Protein Chem 66:27–85
Pearlman D, Case D, Caldwell J, Ross W, Cheathham T, DeBolt S, Ferguson D, Seibel G, Kollman P (1995) AMBER, a package of computer programs for applying molecular mechanics, normal mode analysis, molecular dynamics and free energy calculations to simulate the structural and energetic properties of molecules. Comput Phys Commun 91:1–41
MacKerell A, Brooks B, Brooks C, Nilsson L, Roux B, Won Y, Kaplus M (1998) CHARMM: the energy function and its parameterization with an overview of the program. In: Scheyer PVR et al (eds) The encyclopedia of computational chemistry. Wiley, Chichester
Case D, Cheatham T, Darden T, Gohlke H, Luo R, Merz K, Onufriev A, Simmerling C, Wang B, Woods R (2005) The AMBER biomolecular simulation programs. J Comput Chem 26:1668–1688
Brooks B, Brooks C, Mackerell A, Nilsson L, Petrella R, Roux B, Won Y, Archontis C, Bartels S, Caflish B, Caves L, Cui Q, Dinner A, Feig M, Fischer S, Gao J, Hodoscek M, Im W, Kuczera K, Lazaridi T, Ma J, Ovchinnikov V, Paci E, Pastor R, Post C, Pu J, Schaefer M, Tidor B, Venable T, Woodcock H, Wu X, Yah W, York D, Karplus M (2009) CHARMM: the biomolecular simulation program. J Comput Chem 30:1545–1615
Brooks B, Bruccoleri R, Olafson B, States D, Swaminathan S, Karplus M (1983) CHARMM: a program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 4:187–217
Allinger N, Yuh Y, Lii J (1989) Molecular mechanics: the MM3 force field for hydrocarbons. J Am Chem Soc 111:8551–8566
Leo A, Hansch C, Elkins D (1971) Partition coefficients and their uses. Chem Rev 71:525–616
Lipinski C, Lombardo F, Dominy B, Feeney P (1997) Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 23:3–25
Wermuth C, Ganellin C, Lindberg P, Mitscher L (1998) Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry. Pure Appl Chem 70:1129–1143
Kubinyi H (2002) From narcosis to hyperspace: the history of QSAR. Quant Struct Act Relat 21:348–356
Wold S, Ruhe A, Wold H, Dunn W (1984) The collinearity problem in linear regression—the partial least squares (PLS) approach to generalized inverses. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 5:735–743
Cramer R, Patterson D, Bunce J (1988) Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959–5967
Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T (1994) Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J Med Chem 37:4130–4146
Pastor M, Cruciani G, McLay I, Pickett S, Clementi S (2000) GRid-INdependent descriptors (GRIND): a novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional molecular descriptors. J Med Chem 43:3233–3243
Norinder U (1996) 3D-QSAR investigation of the Tripos benchmark steroids and some protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitors of styrene type using the TDQ approach. J Chemom 10:533–545
Kurogi Y, Guner O (2001) Pharmacophore modelling and three-dimensional database searching for drug design using catalyst. Curr Med Chem 8:1035–1055
Park J, Harris D (2003) Construction and assessment of models of CYP2E1: predictions of metabolism from docking, molecular dynamics and density functional theoretical calculations. J Med Chem 46:1645–1660
Jones J, Mysinger M, Korzekwa K (2002) Computational models for cytochrome P450: a predictive electronic model for aromatic oxidation and hydrogen atom abstraction. Drug Metab Dispos 30:7–12
Cheng Y, Prusoff W (1973) Relationship between the inhibition constant (Ki) and the concentration of inhibitor which causes 50 per cent inhibition (I50) of an enzymatic reaction. Biochem Pharmacol 22:3099–3108
MOE. Chemical Computing Group. Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Schrodinger, Inc. New York, NY
Cheatham T, Young M (2001) Molecular dynamics simulation of nucleic acids: successes, limitations and promise. Biopolymers 56:232–256
Roterman I, Lambert M, Gibson K, Scheraga H (1989) A comparison of the CHARMM, AMBER and ECEPP potentials for peptides. 2. Phi-Psi maps for n-acetyl alanine N′-methyl amide—comparisons, contrasts and simple experimental tests. J Biomol Struct Dyn 7:421–453
Roterman I, Gibson K, Scheraga H (1989) A comparison of the CHARMM, AMBER and ECEPP potential for peptides. 1. Conformational predictions for the tandemly repeated peptide (Asn-Ala-Asn-Pro)9. J Biomol Struct Dyn 7:391–419
Gundertofte K, Liljefors T, Norrby P, Petterson I (1996) A comparison of conformational energies calculated by several molecular mechanics methods. J Comput Chem 17:429–449
Jorgensen W, Maxwell D, Tirado-Rives J (1996) Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225–11236
Jorgensen W, Tirado-Rives J (1988) The OPLS potential functions for proteins—energy minimizations for crystals of cyclic-peptides and crambin. J Am Chem Soc 110:1657–1666
Halgren T (1996) Merck molecular force field. I. Basis, form, scope parameterization and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17:490–519
Chen Y, Zhi D (2001) Ligand–protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Proteins 43:217–226
Ellis L, Hou B, Kang W, Wackett L (2003) The University of Minnesota Biocatalysis/Biodegradation Database: post-genomic data mining. Nucleic Acids Res 31:262–265
MetaPrint2d http://www-metaprint2d.ch.cam.ac.uk/metaprint2d
Bologa C, Olah M, Oprea T (2005) Chemical database preparation for compound acquisition or virtual screening. Methods Mol Biol 316:375
Accelrys Discovery Suite, Accelrys, Inc. San Diego, CA
Sybyl. Tripos, Inc. St. Louis, MO
Schwede T, Sali A, Honig B, Levitt M, Berman H, Jones D, Brenner S, Burley S, Das R, Dokholyan N, Dunbrack R, Fidelis K, Fiser A, Godzik A, Huang Y, Humblet C, Jacobsen M, Joachimiak A, Krystek S, Kortemme T, Kryshtafovych A, Montelione G, Moult J, Murray D, Sanchez R, Sosinick T, Standley D, Stouch T, Vajda S, Vasquez M, Westbrook J, Wilson I (2009) Outcome of a workshop on applications of protein models in biomedical research. Structure 17:151–159
Irwin J (2008) Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22:193–199
Cross J, Thompson D, Rai B, Baber J, Fan K, Hu Y, Humblet C (2009) Comparison of several molecuclar docking programs: pose prediction and virtual screening accuracy. J Chem Inf Model 49:1455–1474
Cherkasov A, Fuqiang B, Li Y, Fallahi M, Hammond G (2006) Progressive docking: a hybrid QSAR/Docking approach for accelerating in silico high throughput screening. J Med Chem 49:7466–7478
Peterson S (2007) Improved CoMFA modeling by optimization of settings: toward the design of inhibitors of the HCV NS3 protease. Uppsala University, Uppsala
Norinder U (1998) Recent progress in CoMFA methodology and related techniques. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12/13/14:25–39
Kim K, Grecco G, Novellino E (1998) A critical review of recent CoMFA applications. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12/13/14:257–315
Rosen J, Lovgren A, Kogej T, Muresan S, Gottfries J, Backlund A (2009) ChemGPS-NPWeb: chemical space navigation tool. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23:253–259
Larsson J, Gottfries J, Muresan S, Backlund A (2007) ChemGPS-NP: tuned for navigation in biologically relevant chemical space. J Nat Prod 70:789–794
Ekins S et al (2002) Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of inhibitors of P-glycoprotein. Mol Pharmacol 61:964
Thorsteinson N, Ban F, Santos-Filho O, Tabaei S, Miguel-Queralt S, Underhill C, Cherkasov A, Hammond G (2009) In silico identification of anthropogenic chemicals as ligands of zebrafish sex hormone binding globulin. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 234:47–57
Perry J, Goldsmith M, Peterson M, Beratan D, Wozniak G, Ruker F, Simon J (2004) Structure of the ochratoxin A binding site within human serum albumin. J Phys Chem B 108:16960–16964
Aureli L, Cruciani G, Cesta M, Anacardio R, De Simone L, Moriconi A (2005) Predicting human serum albumin affinity of interleukin-8 (CXCL8) inhibitors by 3D-QSPR approach. J Med Chem 48:2469–2479
Ekins S, de Groot M, Jones J (2001) Pharmacophore and three-dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship methods for modeling cytochrome P450 active sites. Drug Metab Dispos 29:936–944
Ekins S, Erickson J (2002) A pharmacophore for human pregnane X receptor ligands. Drug Metab Dispos 30:96–99
Lewis D (2002) Molecular modeling of human cytochrome P450-substrate interactions. Drug Metab Rev 34:55–67
Hirono S, Nakagome L, Imai R, Maeda K, Kusuhara H, Sugiyama Y (2005) Estimation of the three-dimensional pharmacophore of ligands for rat multidrug-resistance-associated protein 2 using ligand-based drug design techniques. Pharm Res 22:260–269
DeGorter M, Conseil G, Deeley R, Campbell R, Cole S (2008) Molecular modeling of the human multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1/ABCC1). Biochem Biophys Res Commun 365:29–34
Rabinowitz J, Little S, Laws S, Goldsmith M (2009) Molecular modeling for screening environmental chemicals for estrogenicity: use of the toxicant-target approach. Chem Res Toxicol 22:1594–1602
Hirst W, Abrahamsen B, Blaney F, Calver A, Aloj L, Price G, Medhurst A (2003) Differences in the central nervous system distribution and pharmacology of the mouse 5-hydroxytryptamine-6 receptor compared with rat and human receptors investigated by radioligand binding, site-directed mutagenesis, and molecular modeling. Mol Pharmacol 64:1295–1308
http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=466705
http://www.epa.gov/ncct/bosc_review/2009/posters/2-06_Rabinowitz_CompTox_BOSC09.pdf
Goldsmith M, Little S, Reif D, Rabinowitz J Digging deeper into deep data: molecular docking as a hypothesis-driven biophysical interrogation system in computational toxicology
http://pmvbase.blogspot.com/2009/04/electron-density-map.html
http://mgltools.scrips.edu/documentation/tutorial/python-molecular-viewer
Irwin J, Shoichet B, Mysinger M, Huang N, Colizzi F, Wassam P, Cao Y (2009) Automated docking screens: a feasibility study. J Med Chem 52:5712–5720
Bioclipse. Proteometric Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Sweden & Cheminformatics and Metabolism Team, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBI)
Taverna. School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, UK
Acknowledgments
Michael-Rock Goldsmith would like to thank James Rabinowitz and Stephen Little (from the US-EPA’s National Center for Computational Toxicology) for providing mentorship and assistance during his postdoctoral research, and providing the environment to explore molecular docking in the context of toxicology while providing insight and valuable discussion in the development of the in-house in silico chemical genomics initiative at the US-EPA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Goldsmith, M.R. et al. (2012). Informing Mechanistic Toxicology with Computational Molecular Models. In: Reisfeld, B., Mayeno, A. (eds) Computational Toxicology. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 929. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-050-2_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-050-2_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ
Print ISBN: 978-1-62703-049-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-62703-050-2
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols