Advertisement

Drug Discovery: An In Silico Approach

  • Sukriti Goyal
  • Salma Jamal
  • Abhinav Grover
  • Asheesh Shanker
Chapter

Abstract

The field of drug research, guided by chemistry, pharmacology, and clinical sciences, has been a major contributor in progressing and development of medicine during the past century. The arrival of molecular biology and genomic sciences has had a profound effect in this field. The process of drug discovery and development are both very laborious and time-consuming. Consequently, application of computational resources to chemical and biological space for streamlining the process is under extensive research. In order to escalate the processes of hit identification, lead selection and optimization, analysis of ADMET (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity) profile for lead compound, computer-aided, or in silico drug discovery is employed. Bioinformatics tools along with genomic sciences have provided insight into the genetic basis of multifactorial diseases, thereby revealing more suitable targets for designing future medicines and increasing therapeutic options. This chapter explains the computer-aided drug discovery protocols classified on the basis of availability of information for the target in question.

Keywords

Structure Ligand Drug discovery QSAR 

References

  1. Akamatsu M (2002) Current state and perspectives of 3D-QSAR. Curr Top Med Chem 2:1381–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ (1990) Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol 215:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becker OM et al (2006) An integrated in silico 3D model-driven discovery of a novel, potent, and selective amidosulfonamide 5-HT1A agonist (PRX-00023) for the treatment of anxiety and depression. J Med Chem 49:3116–3135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blake JF, Laird ER (2003) Chapter 30: recent advances in virtual ligand screening. Annu Rep Med Chem 38:305–314Google Scholar
  5. Bower MJ, Cohen FE, Dunbrack RL (1997) Prediction of protein side-chain rotamers from a backbone-dependent rotamer library: a new homology modeling tool. J Mol Biol 267:1268–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradbury SP (1995) Quantitative structure-activity relationships and ecological risk assessment: an overview of predictive aquatic toxicology research. Toxicol Lett 79:229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchan DW, Ward S, Lobley AE, Nugent T, Bryson K, Jones DT (2010) Protein annotation and modelling servers at University College London. Nucleic Acids Res 38:W563–W568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budzik B et al (2010) Novel N-substituted benzimidazolones as potent, selective, CNS-penetrant, and orally active M1 mAChR agonists. ACS Med Chem Lett 1:244–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Changeux J-P, Edelstein S (2011) Conformational selection or induced fit? 50 years of debate resolved. F1000 biology reports 3Google Scholar
  10. Chen H, Zhou J, Xie G (1998) PARM: a genetic evolved algorithm to predict bioactivity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng F et al (2012) admetSAR: a comprehensive source and free tool for assessment of chemical ADMET properties. J Chem Inf Model 52:3099–3105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chivian D, Baker D (2006) Homology modeling using parametric alignment ensemble generation with consensus and energy-based model selection. Nucleic Acids Res 34:e112–e112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Consonni V, Ballabio D, Todeschini R (2009) Comments on the definition of the Q 2 parameter for QSAR validation. J Chem Inf Model 49:1669–1678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cozzetto D, Kryshtafovych A, Fidelis K, Moult J, Rost B, Tramontano A (2009) Evaluation of template-based models in CASP8 with standard measures. Proteins: Struct Funct Bioinf 77:18–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cramer RD, Bunce JD, Patterson DE, Frank IE (1988a) Crossvalidation, bootstrapping, and partial least squares compared with multiple regression in conventional QSAR studies. Quant Struct Act Relat 7:18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD (1988b) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959–5967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Melo EB (2010) Multivariate SAR/QSAR of 3-aryl-4-hydroxyquinolin-2 (1H)-one derivatives as type I fatty acid synthase (FAS) inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem 45:5817–5826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Desmet J, De Maeyer M, Hazes B, Lasters I (1992) The dead-end elimination theorem and its use in protein side-chain positioning. Nature 356:539–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dhanjal JK, Goyal S, Sharma S, Hamid R, Grover A (2014a) Mechanistic insights into mode of action of potent natural antagonists of BACE-1 for checking Alzheimer’s plaque pathology. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 443:1054–1059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhanjal JK, Grover S, Paruthi P, Sharma S, Grover A (2014b) Mechanistic insights into mode of action of a potent natural antagonist of orexin Receptor-1 by means of high throughput screening and molecular dynamics simulations. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 17:124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dias R, de Azevedo J, Walter F (2008) Molecular docking algorithms. Curr Drug Targets 9:1040–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Doman TN et al (2002) Molecular docking and high-throughput screening for novel inhibitors of protein tyrosine phosphatase-1B. J Med Chem 45:2213–2221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Drews J (2000) Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 287:1960–1964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Du Q-S, Huang R-B, Chou K-C (2008) Recent advances in QSAR and their applications in predicting the activities of chemical molecules, peptides and proteins for drug design. Curr Protein Pept Sci 9:248–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dunbrack RL, Karplus M (1993) Backbone-dependent rotamer library for proteins application to side-chain prediction. J Mol Biol 230:543–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dunbrack RL, Karplus M (1994) Conformational analysis of the backbone-dependent rotamer preferences of protein sidechains. Nat Struct Mol Biol 1:334–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ehrlich P (1909) Über den jetzigen Stand der Chemotherapie. Ber Dtsch Chem Ges 42:17–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Esposito EX, Hopfinger AJ, Madura JD (2004) Methods for applying the quantitative structure-activity relationship paradigm. Methods Mol Biol 275:131–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Friesner RA et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jm0306430 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Gillet VJ, Willett P, Bradshaw J, Green DV (1999) Selecting combinatorial libraries to optimize diversity and physical properties. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 39:169–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Goyal S et al (2014) Mechanistic insights into mode of actions of novel oligopeptidase B inhibitors for combating leishmaniasis. J Mol Model 20:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Goyal S, Jamal S, Shanker A, Grover A (2015) Structural investigations of T854A mutation in EGFR and identification of novel inhibitors using structure activity relationships. BMC Genomics 16:S8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Grover S, Dhanjal JK, Goyal S, Grover A, Sundar D (2014) Computational identification of novel natural inhibitors of glucagon receptor for checking type II diabetes mellitus. BMC Bioinformatics 15:S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Halgren TA et al (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J Med Chem 47:1750–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Halperin I, Ma B, Wolfson H, Nussinov R (2002) Principles of docking: an overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions. Proteins: Struct Funct Bioinf 47:409–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Henrich S, Salo-Ahen OM, Huang B, Rippmann FF, Cruciani G, Wade RC (2010) Computational approaches to identifying and characterizing protein binding sites for ligand design. J Mol Recognit 23:209–219PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hillisch A, Pineda LF, Hilgenfeld R (2004) Utility of homology models in the drug discovery process. Drug Discov Today 9:659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hughes J, Rees S, Kalindjian S, Philpott K (2011) Principles of early drug discovery. Br J Pharmacol 162:1239–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ioakimidis L, Thoukydidis L, Mirza A, Naeem S, Reynisson J (2008) Benchmarking the reliability of QikProp. Correlation between experimental and predicted values. QSAR Comb Sci 27:445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK (2005) ZINC – a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 45:177–182.  https://doi.org/10.1021/ci049714+ CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Itskowitz P, Tropsha A (2005) K nearest neighbors QSAR modeling as a variational problem: theory and applications. J Chem Inf Model 45:777–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Jorgensen WL (2004) The many roles of computation in drug discovery. Science 303:1813–1818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kalyaanamoorthy S, Chen Y-PP (2011) Structure-based drug design to augment hit discovery. Drug Discov Today 16:831–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kapetanovic I (2008) Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): in silico-chemico-biological approach. Chem Biol Interact 171:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karelson M (2000) Molecular descriptors in QSAR/QSPR. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Karolidis DA, Agatonovic-Kustrin S, Morton DW (2010) Artificial neural network (ANN) based modelling for D1 like and D2 like dopamine receptor affinity and selectivity. Med Chem 6:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kelley LA, Sternberg MJ (2009) Protein structure prediction on the web: a case study using the Phyre server. Nat Protoc 4:363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kennedy T (1997) Managing the drug discovery/development interface. Drug Discov Today 2:436–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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
  50. Kotz J (2013) In silico drug design. SciBX: Science-Business eXchange 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Krivov GG, Shapovalov MV, Dunbrack RL (2009) Improved prediction of protein side-chain conformations with SCWRL4. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf 77:778–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Kubinyi H (2006) Success stories of computer-aided design. In: Ekins S, Wang B (eds) Computer applications in pharmaceutical research and development. Wiley-Interscience, pp 377–424Google Scholar
  53. Kurogi Y, Guner OF (2001) Pharmacophore modeling and three-dimensional database searching for drug design using catalyst. Curr Med Chem 8:1035–1055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lahana R (1999) How many leads from HTS? Drug Discov Today 4:447–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Laurie R, Alasdair T, Jackson RM (2006) Methods for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites for structure-based drug design and virtual ligand screening. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7:395–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ligprep V. 2.3 (2009) Schrodinger. LLC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Lite V (1998) Version 5.0. Accelrys Inc., 9685Google Scholar
  58. Lu I-L et al (2006) Structure-based drug design of a novel family of PPARγ partial agonists: virtual screening, X-ray crystallography, and in vitro/in vivo biological activities. J Med Chem 49:2703–2712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Martinez-Mayorga K, Medina-Franco JL (2009) Chemoinformatics—applications in food chemistry. Adv Food Nutr Res 58:33–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Martí-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sánchez R, Melo F, Šali A (2000) Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 29:291–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McNaught AD, Wilkinson A (1997) Compendium of chemical terminology, IUPAC Recommendations, The Gold Book, 2nd edn. Blackwell Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  62. Misura K, Baker D (2005) Progress and challenges in high-resolution refinement of protein structure models. Proteins: Struct Funct Bioinf 59:15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Misura KM, Chivian D, Rohl CA, Kim DE, Baker D (2006) Physically realistic homology models built with ROSETTA can be more accurate than their templates. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103:5361–5366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Owen D (2002) Channelling drug discovery. Drug Discov World 3:48–61Google Scholar
  65. Put R, Perrin C, Questier F, Coomans D, Massart D, Vander Heyden Y (2003) Classification and regression tree analysis for molecular descriptor selection and retention prediction in chromatographic quantitative structure–retention relationship studies. J Chromatogr A 988:261–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Put R, Xu Q, Massart D, Vander Heyden Y (2004) Multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) in chromatographic quantitative structure–retention relationship studies. J Chromatogr A 1055:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Raval A, Piana S, Eastwood MP, Dror RO, Shaw DE (2012) Refinement of protein structure homology models via long, all-atom molecular dynamics simulations. Proteins: Struct Funct Bioinf 80:2071–2079Google Scholar
  68. Rogers D, Hopfinger AJ (1994) Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure-activity relationships and quantitative structure-property relationships. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 34:854–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rohl CA, Strauss CE, Misura KM, Baker D (2004) Protein structure prediction using Rosetta. Methods Enzymol 383:66–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rose PW et al (2011) The RCSB protein data Bank: redesigned web site and web services. Nucleic Acids Res 39:D392–D401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ruiz FM, Gil-Redondo R, Morreale A, Ortiz AR, Fábrega C, Bravo J (2008) Structure-based discovery of novel non-nucleosidic DNA alkyltransferase inhibitors: virtual screening and in vitro and in vivo activities. J Chem Inf Model 48:844–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schrödinger L (2008a) Glide, version 5.0. Schrödinger. LLC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Schrödinger L (2008b) SCHRODINGER SUITE 2009. Maestro Version 8Google Scholar
  74. Schrödinger M (2009) Version 9.2. LLC, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  75. Silverman B, Platt DE (1996) Comparative molecular moment analysis (CoMMA): 3D-QSAR without molecular superposition. J Med Chem 39:2129–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Söding J, Remmert M (2011) Protein sequence comparison and fold recognition: progress and good-practice benchmarking. Curr Opin Struct Biol 21:404–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Spessard GO (1998) ACD Labs/LogP dB 3.5 and ChemSketch 3.5. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38:1250–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Svetnik V, Liaw A, Tong C, Culberson JC, Sheridan RP, Feuston BP (2003) Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 43:1947–1958CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Taylor RD, Jewsbury PJ, Essex JW (2002) A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16:151–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Terstappen GC, Reggiani A (2001) In silico research in drug discovery. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22:23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 22:4673–4680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tropsha A (2003) Recent trends in quantitative structure activity relationships. In: Abraham D (ed) Burger’s medicinal chemistry and drug discovery, vol 1. Wiley, New York, pp 49–75Google Scholar
  83. Tyagi C, Grover S, Dhanjal JK, Goyal S, Goyal M, Grover A (2013) Mechanistic insights into mode of action of novel natural cathepsin L inhibitors. BMC Genomics 14:S10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tyagi C et al (2015) Targeting the intersubunit cavity of Plasmodium falciparum glutathione reductase by a novel natural inhibitor: computational and experimental evidence. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 61:72–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. van de Waterbeemd H (2002) High-throughput and in silico techniques in drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics. Curr Opin Drug Discov Devel 5:33–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Van De Waterbeemd H, Gifford E (2003) ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2:192–204PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. van Drie JH (2003) Pharmacophore discovery-lessons learned. Curr Pharm Des 9:1649–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Van Drie JH (2007) Computer-aided drug design: the next 20 years. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:591–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Verma J, Khedkar VM, Coutinho EC (2010) 3D-QSAR in drug design-a review. Curr Top Med Chem 10:95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vlife M (2008) Software package, version 3.0, supplied by Vlifescience Technologies Pvt. Ltd., PuneGoogle Scholar
  91. Warner SL et al (2006) Identification of a lead small-molecule inhibitor of the aurora kinases using a structure-assisted, fragment-based approach. Mol Cancer Ther 5:1764–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wikel JH, Dow ER (1993) The use of neural networks for variable selection in QSAR. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 3:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wolber G, Seidel T, Bendix F, Langer T (2008) Molecule-pharmacophore superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug Discov Today 13:23–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Xiang Z (2006) Advances in homology protein structure modeling. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7:217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Xue L, Godden JW, Bajorath J (2000) Evaluation of descriptors and mini-fingerprints for the identification of molecules with similar activity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 40:1227–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Yang S-Y (2010) Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov Today 15:444–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhao L et al (2006) FK506-binding protein ligands: structure-based design, synthesis, and neurotrophic/neuroprotective properties of substituted 5, 5-dimethyl-2-(4-thiazolidine) carboxylates. J Med Chem 49:4059–4071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zhou T et al (2010) Anti-AIDS agents 79. Design, synthesis, molecular modeling and structure–activity relationships of novel dicamphanoyl-2′, 2′-dimethyldihydropyranochromone (DCP) analogs as potent anti-HIV agents. Bioorg Med Chem 18:6678–6689CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sukriti Goyal
    • 1
  • Salma Jamal
    • 1
  • Abhinav Grover
    • 2
  • Asheesh Shanker
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Bioscience and BiotechnologyBanasthali VidyapithRajasthanIndia
  2. 2.School of BiotechnologyJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew DelhiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Bioinformatics, Central University of South BiharGayaIndia

Personalised recommendations