Journal of Molecular Modeling

, Volume 16, Issue 7, pp 1251–1268 | Cite as

Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR studies of HIV-1 protease inhibitors

  • Vijay M. Khedkar
  • Premlata K. Ambre
  • Jitender Verma
  • Mushtaque S. Shaikh
  • Raghuvir R. S. Pissurlenkar
  • Evans C. Coutinho
Original Paper

Abstract

HIV-1 protease is an obligatory enzyme in the replication process of the HIV virus. The abundance of structural information on HIV-1PR has made the enzyme an attractive target for computer-aided drug design strategies. The daunting ability of the virus to rapidly generate resistant mutants suggests that there is an ongoing need for new HIV-1PR inhibitors with better efficacy profiles and reduced toxicity. In the present investigation, molecular modeling studies were performed on a series of 54 cyclic urea analogs with symmetric P2/P2′ substituents. The binding modes of these inhibitors were determined by docking. The docking results also provided a reliable conformational superimposition scheme for the 3D-QSAR studies. To gain insight into the steric, electrostatic, hydrophobic and hydrogen-bonding properties of these molecules and their influence on the inhibitory activity, comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA) were performed. Two different alignment schemes viz. receptor-based and atom-fit alignment, were used in this study to build the QSAR models. The derived 3D-QSAR models were found to be robust with statistically significant r2 and r2pred values and have led to the identification of regions important for steric, hydrophobic and electronic interactions. The predictive ability of the models was assessed on a set of molecules that were not included in the training set. Superimposition of the 3D-contour maps generated from these models onto the active site of enzyme provided additional insight into the structural requirements of these inhibitors. The CoMFA and CoMSIA models were used to design some new inhibitors with improved binding affinity. Pharmacokinetic and toxicity predictions were also carried out for these molecules to gauge their ADME and safety profile. The computational results may open up new avenues for synthesis of potent HIV-1 protease inhibitors.

Keywords

ADMET Atom-fit alignment CoMFA CoMSIA Docking HIV-1PR inhibitors Receptor-based alignment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The computational facilities were jointly provided by the All India Council of Technical Education through grant (F. No. 8022/RID/NPROJ/RPS-5/2003–04), the Department of Science and Technology through their FIST program (SR/FST/LSI-163/2003) and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (01(1986)/05/EMR-II). Vijay M. Khedkar thanks the Amrut Mody Research Foundation (AMRF) and Jitender Verma, the CSIR, New Delhi for the financial support. The authors are also grateful to Dr. Krishna Iyer, Professor, Bombay College of Pharmacy for the ADME-Toxicity profiling of the designed molecules.

References

  1. 1.
    Henderson LE, Benveniste RE, Sowder R, Copeland TD, Schultz AM, Oroszlan S (1988) Molecular characterization of gag proteins from simian immunodeficiency virus (SIVMne). J Virol 62:2587–2595Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Loeb DD, Hutchison CA 3rd, Edgell MH, Farmerie WG, Swanstrom R (1989) Mutational analysis of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease suggests functional homology with aspartic proteinases. J Virol 63:111–121Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Erickson J, Neidhart DJ, VanDrie J, Kempf DJ, Wang XC, Norbeck DW, Plattner JJ, Rittenhouse JW, Turon M, Wideburg N et al. (1990) Design, activity, and 2.8 A crystal structure of a C2 symmetric inhibitor complexed to HIV-1 protease. Science 249:527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dreyer GB, Boehm JC, Chenera B, DesJarlais RL, Hassell AM, Meek TD, Tomaszek TA, Lewis M (1993) A symmetric inhibitor binds HIV-1 protease asymmetrically. Biochemistry 32:937–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lam PY, Jadhav PK, Eyermann CJ, Hodge CN, Ru Y, Bacheler LT, Meek JL, Otto MJ, Rayner MM, Wong YN et al. (1994) Rational design of potent, bioavailable, nonpeptide cyclic ureas as HIV protease inhibitors. Science 263:380–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lam PY, Ru Y, Jadhav PK, Aldrich PE, DeLucca GV, Eyermann CJ, Chang CH, Emmett G, Holler ER, Daneker WF, Li L, Confalone PN, McHugh RJ, Han Q, Li R, Markwalder JA, Seitz SP, Sharpe TR, Bacheler LT, Rayner MM, Klabe RM, Shum L, Winslow DL, Kornhauser DM, Hodge CN et al. (1996) Cyclic HIV protease inhibitors: synthesis, conformational analysis, P2/P2′ structure-activity relationship, and molecular recognition of cyclic ureas. J Med Chem 39:3514–3525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schaal W, Karlsson A, Ahlsen G, Lindberg J, Andersson HO, Danielson UH, Classon B, Unge T, Samuelsson B, Hulten J, Hallberg A, Karlen A (2001) Synthesis and comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) of symmetric and nonsymmetric cyclic sulfamide HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J Med Chem 44:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Debnath AK (1999) Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study on cyclic urea derivatives as HIV-1 protease inhibitors: application of comparative molecular field analysis. J Med Chem 42:249–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sybyl. Sybyl, version 7.1; Tripos Associates Inc: 1699S Hanley Rd, St. Louis, MO 631444, USA, 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gold. GOLD, version 3.1; Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre (CCDC), UK, 2005Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nayyar A, Malde A, Jain R, Coutinho E (2006) 3D-QSAR study of ring-substituted quinoline class of anti-tuberculosis agents. Bioorg Med Chem 14:847–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Accelrys I. Cerius2, version 4.8; San Diego, CA, USA, 1998Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD (1988) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959–5967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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 37:4130–4146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Datar PA, Coutinho EC (2004) A CoMFA study of COX-2 inhibitors with receptor based alignment. J Mol Graph Model 23:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pissurlenkar RR, Shaikh MS, Coutinho EC (2007) 3D-QSAR studies of Dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitors using a docking based alignment. J Mol Model 13:1047–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wold S, Johansson E, Cocchi M (1993) PLS: partial least squares projections to latent structures. In: Kubinyi H (ed) 3D QSAR in drug design: theory, methods and applications. ESCOM Science, Leiden, pp 523–550Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J Roy Stat Soc B 36:111–147Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Richard D, Cramer RD III, Bunce JD, Patterson DE, Frank IE (1988) Crossvalidation, bootstrapping, and partial least squares compared with multiple regression in conventional QSAR studies. Quant Struct-Act Relat 7:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bush BL, Nachbar RB (1993) Sample-distance partial least squares: PLS optimized for many variables, with application to CoMFA. J Comput Aided Mol Des 7:587–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Deep R (2006) Regression. In: Deep R (ed) Probability and statistics. Academic, London, UK, pp 455–515Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shao J (1996) Bootstrap model selection. J Am Stat Assoc 91:655–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rucker C, Rucker G, Meringer M (2007) y-Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 47:2345–2357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marshall GR (1998) Binding-site modeling of unknown receptors. In: Kubinyi H, Martin YC, Folkers G (eds) 3D QSAR in drug design: Theory methods and applications. Springer, London, pp 80–116Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Didziapetris R, Reynolds DP, Japertas P, Zmuidinavicius D, Petrauskas A (2006) In silico technology for identification of potentially toxic compounds in drug discovery. Curr Comput-Aided Drug Des 2:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zmuidinavicius D, Japertas P, Petrauskas A, Didziapetris R (2003) Progress in toxinformatics: the challenge of predicting acute toxicity. Curr Top Med Chem 3:1301–1314CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vijay M. Khedkar
    • 1
  • Premlata K. Ambre
    • 1
  • Jitender Verma
    • 1
  • Mushtaque S. Shaikh
    • 1
  • Raghuvir R. S. Pissurlenkar
    • 1
  • Evans C. Coutinho
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical ChemistryBombay College of PharmacyMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations