Prediction of different antibacterial activity in a new set of formyl hydroxyamino derivatives with potent action on peptide deformylase using structural information

  • Saeed YousefinejadEmail author
  • Marjan Mahboubifar
  • Sahar Rasekh
Original Research


Due to the essential role of peptide deformylase (PDF) at the bacterial growth cycle, it is a noteworthy target for developing a novel antibacterial agent. In the current study, the antibacterial activities of a set of 44 new structures of formyl hydroxyamino derivatives as PDF inhibitors were quantified using quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR). Artificial neural networks (ANN) were used as a chemometrics tool for QSAR modeling. Three quantitative models were suggested to relate the chemical structural features of the formyl hydroxyamino derivatives to their antibacterial activities (pIC50) against Staphylococcus aureus, methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA), and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) peptide deformylase. The sufficiency of the model for prediction of the antibacterial activities of the desired PDF inhibitor compounds against S. aureus, MSSA, and MRSA was statistically demonstrated according to the validation parameters such as coefficient of determination (R2), mean square error (MSE) in training, validation, and prediction sets, and also using applicability domain (AD) and randomization test.


Antibacterial Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) Peptide deformylase inhibitors 


Funding information

This study was financially supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (grant no. 97-01-42-17151).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11224_2018_1242_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 38 kb)


  1. 1.
    Meinnel T, Mechulam Y, Blanquet S (1993) Methionine as translation start signal: a review of the enzymes of the pathway in Escherichia coli. Biochimie 75:1061–1075. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yuan Z, Trias J, White RJ (2001) Deformylase as a novel antibacterial target. Drug Discov Today 6:954–961. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Waller AS, Clements JM (2002) Novel approaches to antimicrobial therapy: peptide deformylase. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 5:785–792PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ni H, Wendoloski J (2006) Structure-based design of new antibacterial agents. Annu Rep Comput Chem 2:279–295Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee JY, Doddareddy MR, Cho YS et al (2007) Comparative QSAR studies on peptide deformylase inhibitors. J Mol Model 13:543–558. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rajagopalan PTR, Yu XC, Pei D (1997) Peptide deformylase: a new type of mononuclear iron protein. J Am Chem Soc 119:12418–12419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang S, Shi W, Xing D et al (2014) Synthesis, antibacterial activity, and biological evaluation of formyl hydroxyamino derivatives as novel potent peptide deformylase inhibitors against drug-resistant bacteria. Eur J Med Chem 86:133–152. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekins S, Mestres J, Testa B (2007) In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: applications to targets and beyond. Br J Pharmacol 152:21–37. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cai J, Han C, Hu T et al (2006) Peptide deformylase is a potential target for anti- Helicobacter pylori drugs: reverse docking, enzymatic assay, and X-ray crystallography validation. Protein Sci 15:2071–2081. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yousefinejad S, Hemmateenejad B (2015) Chemometrics tools in QSAR/QSPR studies: a historical perspective. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 149:177–204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pirhadi S, Shiri F, Ghasemi JB (2015) Multivariate statistical analysis methods in QSAR. RSC Adv 5:104635–104665. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Veselinović JB, Đorđević V, Bogdanović M et al (2018) QSAR modeling of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors as a therapeutic target for multiresistant bacteria. Struct Chem 29:541–551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kovesdi I, Dominguez-Rodriguez MF, Orfi L et al (1999) Application of neural networks in structure-activity relationships. Med Res Rev 19:249–269.<249::AID-MED4>3.0.CO;2-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burbidge R, Trotter M, Buxton B, Holden S (2001) Drug design by machine learning: support vector machines for pharmaceutical data analysis. Comput Chem 26:5–14. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guha R, Jurs PC (2005) Interpreting computational neural network QSAR models: a measure of descriptor importance. J Chem Inf Model 45:800–806. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gupta MK, Mishra P, Prathipati P, Saxena AK (2002) 2D-QSAR in hydroxamic acid derivatives as peptide deformylase inhibitors and antibacterial agents. Bioorg Med Chem 10:3713–3716. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gao J, Cheng Y, Cui W et al (2012) 3D-QSAR and molecular docking studies of hydroxamic acids as peptide deformylase inhibitors. Med Chem Res 21:1597–1610. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Todeschini R, Consonni V (2009) Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics, Second. WILEY-VCH, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mauri A, Consonni V, Pavan M, Todeschini R (2006) Dragon software: an easy approach to molecular descriptor calculations. MATCH Commun Math Comput Chem 56:237–248Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hawkins DM (2004) The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Golbraikh A, Tropsha A (2000) Predictive QSAR modeling based on diversity sampling of experimental datasets for the training and test set selection. Mol Divers 5:231–243. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gramatica P (2014) External evaluation of QSAR models, in addition to cross-validation: verification of predictive capability on totally new chemicals. Mol Inform 33:311–314. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gramatica P (2007) Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb Sci 26:694–701. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Netzeva TI, Worth AP, Aldenberg T et al (2005) Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of ( quantitative ) structure – activity relationships. ATLA 2:1–19Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dimitrov S, Dimitrova G, Pavlov T et al (2005) A stepwise approach for defining the applicability domain of SAR and QSAR models. J Chem Inf Model 45:839–849. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yousefinejad S, Honarasa F, Montaseri H (2015) Linear solvent structure-polymer solubility and solvation energy relationships to study conductive polymer/carbon nanotube composite solutions. RSC Adv 5:42266–42275. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jagiello K, Makurat S, Pereć S et al (2018) Molecular features of thymidine analogues governing the activity of human thymidine kinase. Struct Chem 29:1367–1374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Health Sciences, Institute of Health, Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of HealthShiraz University of Medical SciencesShirazIran
  2. 2.Medicinal and Natural Products Chemistry Research CenterShiraz University of Medical SciencesShirazIran
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry, Shiraz BranchIslamic Azad UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations