Advertisement

Quantitative Nanostructure–Activity Relationships: Methods, Case Studies, and Perspectives

  • Denis FourchesEmail author
  • Ryan Lougee
Chapter
Part of the Nanomedicine and Nanotoxicology book series (NANOMED)

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the development and application of molecular modeling methods to analyze and forecast the experimental properties of nanomaterials. We mainly focus on Quantitative Nanostructure—Activity Relationships (QNAR) to evaluate the extent of biological activities potentially induced by various types of nanomaterials. First, we present the basic principles of QNAR modeling that uses machine-learning techniques to establish quantified links between the biological endpoint of interest (e.g., cytotoxicity, cell death, ROS production) and nanomaterials’ characteristics. Second, we briefly review recently published studies reporting on the QNAR modeling of the largest and most significant datasets of nanomaterials available in the public domain. Third, we discuss some perspectives for the use of molecular modeling on nanomaterials. Overall, we show how molecular modeling can represent a key element for enabling the rational design of nanomaterials with the desired activity and safety profile.

Keywords

Molecular modeling Cheminformatics QNAR Machine learning Virtual screening 

References

  1. 1.
    Drexler KE (2004) Nanotechnology: from feynman to funding. Bull Sci Technol Soc 24:21–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gogotsi Y, Presser V (2014) Carbon nanomaterials, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group LLC, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Helpman E (1998) General purpose technologies and economic growth. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berube D (2006) Nano-hype: the truth behind the nanotechnology buzz. Prometheus Books, Amherst, N.Y. ISBN 978-1-59102-351-7Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roco MC (2011) The long view of nanotechnology development: the national nanotechnology initiative at 10 Years. In: Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020. Science Policy Reports, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. ISBN 978-94-007-1167-9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vance ME, Kuiken T, Vejerano EP, McGinnis SP, Hochella MF, Rejeski D, Hull MS (2015) Nanotechnology in the real world: redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol 6:1769–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li Q, Mahendra S, Lyon DY, Brunet L, Liga MV, Li D, Alvarez PJJ (2008) Antimicrobial nanomaterials for water disinfection and microbial control: potential applications and implications. Water Res 42:4591–4602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wang J (2005) Carbon-nanotube based electrochemical biosensors: a review. Electroanalysis 17:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salata O (2004) Applications of nanoparticles in biology and medicine. J Nanobiotechnol 2:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Crookes WJ, Ding LL, Huang QL, Kimbell JR, Horwitz J, McFall-Ngai MJ (2004) Reflectins: the unusual proteins of squid reflective tissues. Science 303(5655):235–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim JJ, Lee Y, Kim HG, Choi KJ, Kweon HS, Park S, Jeong KH (2012) Biologically inspired LED lens from cuticular nanostructures of firefly lantern. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:18674–18678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Reguera G, McCarthy KD, Mehta T, Nicoll JS, Tuominen MT, Lovley DR (2005) Extracellular electron transfer via microbial nanowires. Nature 435:1098–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franklin AD (2013) Electronics: the road to carbon nanotube transistors. Nature 498:443–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singh RK, Patel KD, Kim JJ, Kim TH, Kim JH, Shin US, Lee EJ, Knowles JC, Kim HW (2014) Multifunctional hybrid nanocarrier: magnetic CNTs ensheathed with mesoporous silica for drug delivery and imaging system. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 6:2201–2208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song W, Zheng Z, Tang W, Wang X (2007) A facile approach to covalently functionalized carbon nanotubes with biocompatible polymer. Polymer (Guildf) 48:3658–3663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kumar A, Kumar P, Anandan A, Fernandes TF, Ayoko GA, Biskos G (2014) Engineered nanomaterials: knowledge gaps in fate, exposure, toxicity, and future directions. J Nanomater 2014:1–16Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Qu G, Bai Y, Zhang Y, Jia Q, Zhang W, Yan B (2009) The effect of multiwalled carbon nanotube agglomeration on their accumulation in and damage to organs in mice. Carbon 48:2060–2069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryman-Rasmussen JP, Cesta MF, Brody AR, Shipley-Phillips JK, Everitt JI, Tewksbury EW, Moss OR, Wong BA, Dodd DE, Andersen ME, Bonner JC (2009) Inhaled carbon nanotubes reach the subpleural tissue in mice. Nat Nanotechnol 4:747–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Moore MN (2006) Do nanoparticles present ecotoxicological risks for the health of the aquatic environment? Environ Int 32:967–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dix DJ, Houck KA, Martin MT, Richard AM, Setzer RW, Kavlock RJ (2007) The ToxCast program for prioritizing toxicity testing of environmental chemicals. Toxicol Sci 95:5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sipes NS, Martin MT, Kothiya P, Reif DM, Judson RS, Richard AM, Houck KA, Dix DJ, Kavlock RJ, Knudsen TB (2013) Profiling 976 ToxCast chemicals across 331 enzymatic and receptor signaling assays. Chem Res Toxicol 26:878–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thomas RS, Black MB, Li L, Healy E, Chu TM, Bao W, Andersen ME, Wolfinger RD (2012) A comprehensive statistical analysis of predicting in vivo hazard using high-throughput in vitro screening. Toxicol Sci 128:398–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roco M, Chen H (2009) Mapping nanotechnology innovations and knowledge. Springer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Niemeyer CM (2001) Nanoparticles, proteins, and nucleic acids: biotechnology meets materials science. Angew Chemie Int Ed 40:4128–4158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ju-Nam Y, Lead JR (2008) Manufactured nanoparticles: an overview of their chemistry, interactions and potential environmental implications. Sci Total Environ 400:396–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rotello V (2004) Nanoparticles: building blocks for nanotechnology. Nanostructure Science and Technology. Springer US. ISBN 978-1-4613-4770-5Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Puzyn T, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2009) Toward the development of “nano-QSARs”: advances and challenges. Small 5:2494–2509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verhaar HJM, van Leeuwen CJ, Hermens JLM (1992) Classifying environmental pollutants. Chemosphere 25:471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fourches D, Pu D, Tropsha A (2011) Exploring quantitative nanostructure-activity relationships (QNAR) modeling as a tool for predicting biological effects of manufactured nanoparticles. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 14:217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, Varnek A, Baskin II, Cronin M, Dearden J, Gramatica P, Martin YC, Todeschini R, Consonni V, Kuz’min VE, Cramer R, Benigni R, Yang C, Rathman J, Terfloth L, Gasteiger J, Richard A, Tropsha A (2014) QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem 57:4977–5010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thomas DG, Pappu RV, Baker NA (2011) NanoParticle Ontology for cancer nanotechnology research. J Biomed Inform 44:59–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomas DG, Klaessig F, Harper SL, Fritts M, Hoover MD, Gaheen S, Stokes TH, Reznik-Zellen R, Freund ET, Klemm JD, Paik DS, Baker NA (2011) Informatics and standards for nanomedicine technology. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 3(5):511Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harper B, Thomas D, Chikkagoudar S, Baker N, Tang K, Heredia-Langner A, Lins R, Harper S (2015) Comparative hazard analysis and toxicological modeling of diverse nanomaterials using the embryonic zebrafish (EZ) metric of toxicity. J Nanopart Res 17:250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tropsha A (2010) Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inform 29:476–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nagarajan R (2008) Nanoparticles: building blocks for nanotechnology. ACS Symp Ser 996:2–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A (2010) Trust, but verify: on the importance of chemical structure curation in cheminformatics and QSAR modeling research. J Chem Inf Model 50:1189–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A (2015) Curation of chemogenomics data. Nat Chem Biol 11:535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gajewicz A, Schaeublin N, Rasulev B, Hussain S, Leszczynska D, Puzyn T, Leszczynski J (2014) Towards understanding mechanisms governing cytotoxicity of metal oxides nanoparticles: hints from nano-QSAR studies. Nanotoxicology 1–13Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burello E, Worth AP (2011) A theoretical framework for predicting the oxidative stress potential of oxide nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology 5:228–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mikolajczyk A, Gajewicz A, Rasulev B, Schaeublin N, Maurer-Gardner E, Hussain S, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2015) Zeta potential for metal oxide nanoparticles: a predictive model developed by a nano-quantitative structure-property relationship approach. Chem Mater 27:2400–2407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wyrzykowska E, Mikolajczyk A, Sikorska C, Puzyn T (2016) Development of a novel in silico model of zeta potential for metal oxide nanoparticles: a nano-QSPR approach. Nanotechnology 27:445702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kar S, Gajewicz A, Puzyn T, Roy K (2014) Nano-quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling using easily computable and interpretable descriptors for uptake of magnetofluorescent engineered nanoparticles in pancreatic cancer cells. Toxicol In Vitro 28:600–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Puzyn T, Rasulev B, Gajewicz A, Hu X, Dasari TP, Michalkova A, Hwang HM, Toropov A, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2011) Using nano-QSAR to predict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol 6:175–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tantra R, Oksel C, Puzyn T, Wang J, Robinson KN, Wang XZ, Ma CY, Wilkins T (2015) Nano(Q)SAR: challenges, pitfalls and perspectives. Nanotoxicology. 9:636–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bigdeli A, Hormozi-Nezhad MR, Parastar H, Rother J, Sunnick E, Rosman C, Pierrat S, Sönnichsen C, Wegener J, Janshoff A, Sperling R, Schmid G, Simon U, Parak WJ, Semmler-Behnke M (2015) Using nano-QSAR to determine the most responsible factor(s) in gold nanoparticle exocytosis. RSC Adv 5:57030–57037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zhou H, Mu Q, Gao N, Liu A, Xing Y, Gao S, Zhang Q, Qu G, Chen Y, Liu G, Zhang B, Yan B (2008) A nano-combinatorial library strategy for the discovery of nanotubes with reduced protein-binding, cytotoxicity, and immune response. Nano Lett 8:859–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Singh R, Pantarotto D, Lacerda L, Pastorin G, Klumpp C, Prato M, Bianco A, Kostarelos K (2006) Tissue biodistribution and blood clearance rates of intravenously administered carbon nanotube radiotracers. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:3357–3362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vardharajula S, Ali SZ, Tiwari PM, Eroğlu E, Vig K, Dennis VA, Singh SR (2012) Functionalized carbon nanotubes: biomedical applications. Int J Nanomed 7:5361–5374Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dumortier H, Lacotte S, Pastorin G, Marega R, Wu W, Bonifazi D, Briand JP, Prato M, Muller S, Bianco A (2006) Functionalized carbon nanotubes are non-cytotoxic and preserve the functionality of primary immune cells. Nano Lett 6:1522–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Liu Z, Cai W, He L, Nakayama N, Chen K, Sun X, Chen X, Dai H (2007) In vivo biodistribution and highly efficient tumour targeting of carbon nanotubes in mice. Nat Nanotechnol 2:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu Z, Davis C, Cai W, He L, Chen X, Dai H (2008) Circulation and long-term fate of functionalized, biocompatible single-walled carbon nanotubes in mice probed by Raman spectroscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:1410–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Sayes CM, Liang F, Hudson JL, Mendez J, Guo W, Beach JM, Moore VC, Doyle CD, West JL, Billups WE, Ausman KD, Colvin VL (2006) Functionalization density dependence of single-walled carbon nanotubes cytotoxicity in vitro. Toxicol Lett 161:135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Chen X, Tam UC, Czlapinski JL, Lee GS, Rabuka D, Zettl A, Bertozzi CR (2006) Interfacing carbon nanotubes with living cells. J Am Chem Soc 128:6292–6293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Monajjemi M, Mollaamin F (2011) Molecular modeling study of drug-DNA combined to single walled carbon nanotube. J Clust Sci 23:259–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mu Q, Jiang G, Chen L, Zhou H, Fourches D, Tropsha A, Yan B (2014) Chemical basis of interactions between engineered nanoparticles and biological systems. Chem Rev 114(15):7740–7781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Fourches D, Pu D, Tassa C, Weissleder R, Shaw SY, Mumper RJ, Tropsha A (2010) Quantitative nanostructure-activity relationship modeling. ACS Nano 4:5703–5712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zhu H, Tropsha A, Fourches D, Varnek A, Papa E, Gramatica P, Oberg T, Dao P, Cherkasov A, Tetko IV (2008) Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against Tetrahymena pyriformis. J Chem Inf Model 48:766–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sushko I, Novotarskyi S, Körner R, Pandey AK, Cherkasov A, Li J, Gramatica P, Hansen K, Schroeter T, Müller KR, Xi L, Liu H, Yao X, Öberg T, Hormozdiari F, Dao P, Sahinalp C, Todeschini R, Polishchuk P, Artemenko A, Kuz’min V, Martin TM, Young DM, Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A, Baskin I, Horvath D, Marcou G, Muller C, Varnek A, Prokopenko VV, Tetko IV (2010) Applicability domains for classification problems: benchmarking of distance to models for Ames mutagenicity set. J Chem Inf Model 50:2094–2111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Gajewicz A, Cronin MTD, Rasulev B, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2015) Novel approach for efficient predictions properties of large pool of nanomaterials based on limited set of species: nano-read-across. Nanotechnology. 26:15701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Low Y, Sedykh A, Fourches D, Golbraikh A, Whelan M, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2013) Integrative chemical-biological read-across approach for chemical hazard classification. Chem Res Toxicol 26:1199–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Rusyn I, Sedykh A, Low Y, Guyton KZ, Tropsha A (2012) Predictive modeling of chemical hazard by integrating numerical descriptors of chemical structures and short-term toxicity assay data. Toxicol Sci 127:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Low Y, Uehara T, Minowa Y, Yamada H, Ohno Y, Urushidani T, Sedykh A, Muratov E, Kuz’min V, Fourches D, Zhu H, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2011) Predicting drug-induced hepatotoxicity using QSAR and toxicogenomics approaches. Chem Res Toxicol 24:1251–1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Zhu XW, Sedykh A, Liu SS (2013) Hybrid in silico models for drug-induced liver injury using chemical descriptors and in vitro cell-imaging information. J Appl Toxicol 34(3):281–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Sedykh A, Zhu H, Tang H, Zhang L, Richard A, Rusyn I, Tropsha A (2011) Use of in vitro HTS-derived concentration-response data as biological descriptors improves the accuracy of QSAR models of in vivo toxicity. Environ Health Perspect 119:364–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Elkins JM, Fedele V, Szklarz M, Abdul Azeez KR, Salah E, Mikolajczyk J, Romanov S, Sepetov N, Huang XP, Roth BL, Al Haj Zen A, Fourches D, Muratov E, Tropsha A, Morris J, Teicher BA, Kunkel M, Polley E, Lackey KE, Atkinson FL, Overington JP, Bamborough P, Müller S, Price DJ, Willson TM, Drewry DH, Knapp S, Zuercher WJ (2015) Comprehensive characterization of the published kinase inhibitor set. Nat Biotechnol 34:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ (2006) Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins. 65:15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shoichet BK (2004) Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 432:862–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kitchen DB, Decornez H, Furr JR, Bajorath J (2004) Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat Rev Drug Discov 3:935–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Damm-Ganamet KL, Smith RD, Dunbar JB, Stuckey JA, Carlson HA (2013) CSAR benchmark exercise 2011-2012: evaluation of results from docking and relative ranking of blinded congeneric series. J Chem Inf Model 53:1853–1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Fourches D, Muratov E, Ding F, Dokholyan NV, Tropsha A (2013) Predicting binding affinity of CSAR ligands using both structure-based and ligand-based approaches. J Chem Inf Model 53:1915–1922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mortier J, Rakers C, Bermudez M, Murgueitio MS, Riniker S, Wolber G (2015) The impact of molecular dynamics on drug design: applications for the characterization of ligand–macromolecule complexes. Drug Discov Today 20:686–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shivakumar D, Williams J, Wu Y, Damm W, Shelley J, Sherman W (2010) Prediction of absolute solvation free energies using molecular dynamics free energy perturbation and the OPLS force field. J Chem Theory Comput 6:1509–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Oliveira OV (2009) Atomistic molecular dynamics simulation of the CeO2 nanoparticle aggregation. International conference on advanced materials, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Argyris D, Ho T, Cole DR, Striolo A (2011) Molecular dynamics studies of interfacial water at the alumina surface. J Phys Chem C 115:2038–2046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Sayle TXT, Molinari M, Das S, Bhatta UM, Möbus G, Parker SC, Seal S, Sayle DC (2013) Environment-mediated structure, surface redox activity and reactivity of ceria nanoparticles. Nanoscale 5:6063–6073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Proctor EA, Yin S, Tropsha A, Dokholyan NV (2012) Discrete molecular dynamics distinguishes nativelike binding poses from decoys in difficult targets. Biophys J 102:144–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemistry, Bioinformatics Research CenterNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations