Advertisement

Computer-Aided Drug Design Approaches to Study Key Therapeutic Targets in Alzheimer’s Disease

  • Agostinho Lemos
  • Rita Melo
  • Irina S. Moreira
  • M. Natália D. S. Cordeiro
Protocol
Part of the Neuromethods book series (NM, volume 132)

Abstract

Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) is one of the most common and complex age-related neurodegenerative disorders in elderly people. Currently there is no cure for AD, and available therapeutic alternatives only improve both cognitive and behavioral functions. For that reason, the search for anti-AD therapeutic agents with neuroprotective properties is highly demanding. Several research studies have implicated the involvement of G-Protein-Coupled Receptors (GPCRs) in diverse neurotransmitter systems that are dysregulated in AD, mainly in modulation of amyloidogenic processing of Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) and of microtubule-associated protein tau phosphorylation and in learning and memory activities in in vivo AD models subjected to numerous behavioral procedures. In this chapter, a special focus will be given to the structure- and ligand-based in silico approaches and their applicability on the development of small molecules that target various GPCRs potentially involved in AD such as 5-hydroxytryptamine receptors, adenosine receptors, adrenergic receptors, chemokine receptors, histamine receptors, metabotropic glutamate receptors, muscarinic acetylcholine receptors, and opioid receptors.

Key words

Alzheimer’s disease GPCRs G-proteins Drug design Docking Pharmacophore QSAR 

Notes

Acknowledgments and Funding

This work had the financial support of Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT/MEC) through national funds and cofinanced by FEDER, under the Partnership Agreement PT2020 (projects UID/QUI/50006/2013 and POCI/01/0145/FEDER/007265). Irina S. Moreira acknowledges support by the FCT – Investigator Programme – IF/00578/2014 (cofinanced by European Social Fund and Programa Operacional Potencial Humano), a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Individual Fellowship MSCA-IF-2015 [MEMBRANEPROT 659826]. This work was also financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), through the Centro 2020 Regional Operational Programme under project CENTRO-01-0145-FEDER-000008, BrainHealth 2020, and through the COMPETE 2020 – Operational Programme for Competitiveness and Internationalisation and Portuguese national funds via FCT, under project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007440. Rita Melo acknowledges support from the FCT (SFRH/BPD/97650/2013 and UID/Multi/04349/2013 project). MNDSC further acknowledges FCT for the sabbatical grant SFRH/BSAB/127789/2016.

References

  1. 1.
    Bartus RT (2000) On neurodegenerative diseases, models, and treatment strategies: lessons learned and lessons forgotten a generation following the cholinergic hypothesis. Exp Neurol 163(2):495–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Craig LA, Hong NS, McDonald RJ (2011) Revisiting the cholinergic hypothesis in the development of Alzheimer's disease. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35(6):1397–1409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hardy J, Selkoe DJ (2002) The amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer's disease: progress and problems on the road to therapeutics. Science 297(5580):353–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karran E, Mercken M, Strooper BD (2011) The amyloid cascade hypothesis for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal for the development of therapeutics. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10(9):698–712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tolnay M, Probst A (1999) Review: tau protein pathology in Alzheimer's disease and related disorders. Neuropathol Appl Neurobiol 25(3):171–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Maccioni RB, Farias G, Morales I, Navarrete L (2010) The revitalized tau hypothesis on Alzheimer's disease. Arch Med Res 41(3):226–231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nitsch RM, Deng M, Growdon JH, Wurtman RJ (1996) Serotonin 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors stimulate amyloid precursor protein ectodomain secretion. J Biol Chem 271(8):4188–4194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Price DL, Bonhaus DW, McFarland K (2012) Pimavanserin, a 5-HT2A receptor inverse agonist, reverses psychosis-like behaviors in a rodent model of Alzheimer’s disease. Behav Pharmacol 23(4):426–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arjona AA, Pooler AM, Lee RK, Wurtman RJ (2002) Effect of a 5-HT2C serotonin agonist, dexnorfenfluramine, on amyloid precursor protein metabolism in guinea pigs. Brain Res 951(1):135–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giannoni P, Gaven F, De Bundel D, Baranger K, Marchetti-Gauthier E, Roman FS, Valjent E, Marin P, Bockaert J, Rivera S (2013) Early administration of RS 67333, a specific 5-HT4 receptor agonist, prevents amyloidogenesis and behavioral deficits in the 5xFAD mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. Front Aging Neurosci 5:96. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2013.00096. eCollection 2013PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pimenova AA, Thathiah A, De Strooper B, Tesseur I (2014) Regulation of amyloid precursor protein processing by serotonin signaling. PLoS One 9(1):e87014. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087014
  12. 12.
    Robert SJ, Zugaza JL, Fischmeister R, Gardier AM, Lezoualc'h F (2001) The human serotonin 5-HT4 receptor regulates secretion of non-amyloidogenic precursor protein. J Biol Chem 276(48):44881–44888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tesseur I, Pimenova AA, Lo AC, Ciesielska M, Lichtenthaler SF, De Maeyer JH, Schuurkes JA, D'Hooge R, De Strooper B (2013) Chronic 5-HT4 receptor activation decreases Aβ production and deposition in hAPP/PS1 mice. Neurobiol Aging 34(7):1779–1789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benhamú B, Martín-Fontecha M, Vázquez-Villa H, Pardo L, López-Rodríguez ML (2014) Serotonin 5-HT6 receptor antagonists for the treatment of cognitive deficiency in Alzheimer’s disease. J Med Chem 57(17):7160–7181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maher-Edwards G, Zvartau-Hind M, Hunter A, Gold M, Hopton G, Jacobs G, Davy M, Williams P (2010) Double-blind, controlled phase II study of a 5-HT6 receptor antagonist, SB-742457, in Alzheimer's disease. Curr Alzheimer Res 7(5):374–385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosse G, Schaffhauser H (2010) 5-HT6 receptor antagonists as potential therapeutics for cognitive impairment. Curr Top Med Chem 10(2):207–221PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Upton N, Chuang TT, Hunter AJ, Virley DJ (2008) 5-HT6 receptor antagonists as novel cognitive enhancing agents for Alzheimer's disease. Neurotherapeutics 5(3):458–469PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Arendash G, Schleif W, Rezai-Zadeh K, Jackson E, Zacharia L, Cracchiolo J, Shippy D, Tan J (2006) Caffeine protects Alzheimer’s mice against cognitive impairment and reduces brain β-amyloid production. Neuroscience 142(4):941–952PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Giunta S, Andriolo V, Castorina A (2014) Dual blockade of the A1 and A2A adenosine receptor prevents amyloid β toxicity in neuroblastoma cells exposed to aluminum chloride. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 54:122–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Angulo E, Casadó V, Mallol J, Canela EI, Viñals F, Ferrer I, Lluis C, Franco R (2003) A1 adenosine receptors accumulate in neurodegenerative structures in Alzheimer's disease and mediate both amyloid precursor protein processing and tau phosphorylation and translocation. Brain Pathol 13(4):440–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Canas PM, Porciúncula LO, Cunha GM, Silva CG, Machado NJ, Oliveira JM, Oliveira CR, Cunha RA (2009) Adenosine A2A receptor blockade prevents synaptotoxicity and memory dysfunction caused by β-amyloid peptides via p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. J Neurosci 29(47):14741–14751PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Espinosa J, Rocha A, Nunes F, Costa MS, Schein V, Kazlauckas V, Kalinine E, Souza DO, Cunha RA, Porciúncula LO (2013) Caffeine consumption prevents memory impairment, neuronal damage, and adenosine A2A receptors upregulation in the hippocampus of a rat model of sporadic dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 34(2):509–518PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nagpure BV, Bian JS (2014) Hydrogen sulfide inhibits A2A adenosine receptor agonist induced β-amyloid production in SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells via a cAMP dependent pathway. PLoS One 9(2):e88508. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088508. eCollection 2014PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Orr AG, Hsiao EC, Wang MM, Ho K, Kim DH, Wang X, Guo W, Kang J, Yu GQ, Adame A (2015) Astrocytic adenosine receptor A2A and Gs-coupled signaling regulate memory. Nat Neurosci 18(3):423–434PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen Y, Peng Y, Che P, Gannon M, Liu Y, Li L, Bu G, van Groen T, Jiao K, Wang Q (2014) α 2A adrenergic receptor promotes amyloidogenesis through disrupting APP-SorLA interaction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111(48):17296–17301PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Branca C, Wisely EV, Hartman LK, Caccamo A, Oddo S (2014) Administration of a selective β 2 adrenergic receptor antagonist exacerbates neuropathology and cognitive deficits in a mouse model of Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 35(12):2726–2735PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ni Y, Zhao X, Bao G, Zou L, Teng L, Wang Z, Song M, Xiong J, Bai Y, Pei G (2006) Activation of β 2-adrenergic receptor stimulates γ-secretase activity and accelerates amyloid plaque formation. Nat Med 12(12):1390–1396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wisely EV, Xiang YK, Oddo S (2014) Genetic suppression of β 2-adrenergic receptors ameliorates tau pathology in a mouse model of tauopathies. Hum Mol Genet 23(15):4024–4034PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    El Khoury J, Toft M, Hickman SE, Means TK, Terada K, Geula C, Luster AD (2007) CCR2 deficiency impairs microglial accumulation and accelerates progression of Alzheimer-like disease. Nat Med 13(4):432–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Westin K, Buchhave P, Nielsen H, Minthon L, Janciauskiene S, Hansson O (2012) CCL2 is associated with a faster rate of cognitive decline during early stages of Alzheimer's disease. PLoS One 7(1):e30525. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030525 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bakshi P, Margenthaler E, Laporte V, Crawford F, Mullan M (2008) Novel role of CXCR2 in regulation of γ-secretase activity. ACS Chem Biol 3(12):777–789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bakshi P, Jin C, Broutin P, Berhane B, Reed J, Mullan M (2009) Structural optimization of a CXCR2-directed antagonist that indirectly inhibits γ-secretase and reduces Aβ. Bioorg Med Chem 17(23):8102–8112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bakshi P, Margenthaler E, Reed J, Crawford F, Mullan M (2011) Depletion of CXCR2 inhibits γ-secretase activity and amyloid-β production in a murine model of Alzheimer’s disease. Cytokine 53(2):163–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carroll JC, Iba M, Bangasser DA, Valentino RJ, James MJ, Brunden KR, Lee VMY, Trojanowski JQ (2011) Chronic stress exacerbates tau pathology, neurodegeneration, and cognitive performance through a corticotropin-releasing factor receptor-dependent mechanism in a transgenic mouse model of tauopathy. J Neurosci 31(40):14436–14449PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Justice NJ, Huang L, Tian JB, Cole A, Pruski M, Hunt AJ, Flores R, Zhu MX, Arenkiel BR, Zheng H (2015) Posttraumatic stress disorder-like induction elevates β-amyloid levels, which directly activates corticotropin-releasing factor neurons to exacerbate stress responses. J Neurosci 35(6):2612–2623PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rissman RA, Staup MA, Lee AR, Justice NJ, Rice KC, Vale W, Sawchenko PE (2012) Corticotropin-releasing factor receptor-dependent effects of repeated stress on tau phosphorylation, solubility, and aggregation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(16):6277–6282PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Scullion GA, Hewitt KN, Pardon MC (2013) Corticotropin-releasing factor receptor 1 activation during exposure to novelty stress protects against Alzheimer's disease-like cognitive decline in AβPP/PS1 mice. J Alzheimers Dis 34(3):781–793PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cai Z, Ratka A (2012) Opioid system and Alzheimer’s disease. NeuroMolecular Med 14(2):91–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Medhurst AD, Atkins AR, Beresford IJ, Brackenborough K, Briggs MA, Calver AR, Cilia J, Cluderay JE, Crook B, Davis JB, Davis RK, Davis RP, Dawson LA, Foley AG, Gartlon J, Gonzalez MI, Heslop T, Hirst WD, Jennings C, Jones DNC, Lacroix LP, Martyn A, Ociepka S, Ray A, Regan CM, Roberts JC, Schogger J, Southam E, Stean TO, Trail BK, Upton N, Wadsworth G, Wald JA, White T, Witherington J, Woolley ML, Worby A, Wilson DM (2007) GSK189254, a novel H3 receptor antagonist that binds to histamine H3 receptors in Alzheimer's disease brain and improves cognitive performance in preclinical models. J Pharm Exp Ther 321(3):1032–1045Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nathan PJ, Boardley R, Scott N, Berges A, Maruff P, Sivananthan T, Upton N, Lowy MT, Nestor PJ, Lai R (2013) The safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and cognitive effects of GSK239512, a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a preliminary investigation. Curr Alzheimer Res 10(3):240–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Haig GM, Pritchett Y, Meier A, Othman AA, Hall C, Gault LM, Lenz RA (2014) A randomized study of H3 antagonist ABT-288 in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's dementia. J Alzheimer Dis 42(3):959–971Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim SH, Fraser PE, Westaway D, George-Hyslop PHS, Ehrlich ME, Gandy S (2010) Group II metabotropic glutamate receptor stimulation triggers production and release of Alzheimer's amyloid β42 from isolated intact nerve terminals. J Neurosci 30(11):3870–3875PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kirazov L, Löffler T, Schliebs R, Bigl V (1997) Glutamate-stimulated secretion of amyloid precursor protein from cortical rat brain slices. Neurochem Int 30(6):557–563PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee R, Wurtman RJ, Cox AJ, Nitsch RM (1995) Amyloid precursor protein processing is stimulated by metabotropic glutamate receptors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92(17):8083–8087PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nitsch RM, Deng A, Wurtman RJ, Growdon JH (1997) Metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype mGluR1α stimulates the secretion of the amyloid β-protein precursor ectodomain. J Neurochem 69(2):704–712PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lee HG, Zhu X, Casadesus G, Pallàs M, Camins A, O'Neill MJ, Nakanishi S, Perry G, Smith MA (2009) The effect of mGluR2 activation on signal transduction pathways and neuronal cell survival. Brain Res 1249:244–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Spinelli S, Ballard T, Gatti-McArthur S, Richards GJ, Kapps M, Woltering T, Wichmann J, Stadler H, Feldon J, Pryce CR (2005) Effects of the mGluR2/3 agonist LY354740 on computerized tasks of attention and working memory in marmoset monkeys. Psychopharmacol 179(1):292–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Um JW, Kaufman AC, Kostylev M, Heiss JK, Stagi M, Takahashi H, Kerrisk ME, Vortmeyer A, Wisniewski T, Koleske AJ, Gunther EC, Nygaard HB, Strittmatter SM (2013) Metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 is a coreceptor for Alzheimer Aβ oligomer bound to cellular prion protein. Neuron 79(5):887–902PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Kumar A, Dhull DK, Mishra PS (2015) Therapeutic potential of mGluR5 targeting in Alzheimer's disease. Front Neurosci 9:215. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2015.00215 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Caccamo A, Oddo S, Billings LM, Green KN, Martinez-Coria H, Fisher A, LaFerla FM (2006) M1 receptors play a central role in modulating AD-like pathology in transgenic mice. Neuron 49(5):671–682PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Davis AA, Fritz JJ, Wess J, Lah JJ, Levey AI (2010) Deletion of M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptors increases amyloid pathology in vitro and in vivo. J Neurosci 30(12):4190–4196PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Jiang S, Wang Y, Ma Q, Zhou A, Zhang X, Zhang YW (2012) M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor interacts with BACE1 and regulates its proteosomal degradation. Neurosci Lett 515(2):125–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nitsch RM, Slack BE, Wurtman RJ, Growdon JH (1992) Release of Alzheimer amyloid precursor derivatives stimulated by activation of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Science 258(5080):304–307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Züchner T, Perez-Polo JR, Schliebs R (2004) β-secretase BACE1 is differentially controlled through muscarinic acetylcholine receptor signaling. J Neurosci Res 77(2):250–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Packard MG, Regenold W, Quirion R, White NM (1990) Post-training injection of the acetylcholine M2 receptor antagonist AF-DX 116 improves memory. Brain Res 524(1):72–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Han Y, Moreira IS, Urizar E, Weinstein H, Javitch JA (2009) Allosteric communication between protomers of dopamine class a GPCR dimers modulates activation. Nat Chem Biol 5(9):688–695PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Moreira IS (2014) Structural features of the G-protein/GPCR interactions. Biochim Biophys Acta, Gen Subj 1840(1):16–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Schioth HB, Fredriksson R (2005) The GRAFS classification system of G-protein coupled receptors in comparative perspective. Gen Comp Endocrinol 142(1–2):94–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ji TH, Grossmann M, Ji I (1998) G protein-coupled receptors. I. Diversity of receptor-ligand interactions. J Biol Chem 273(28):17299–17302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rosenbaum DM, Rasmussen SG, Kobilka BK (2009) The structure and function of G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature 459(7245):356–363PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lang M, Beck-Sickinger AG (2006) Structure-activity relationship studies: methods and ligand design for G-protein coupled peptide receptors. Curr Protein Pept Sci 7(4):335–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Marinissen MJ, Gutkind JS (2001) G-protein-coupled receptors and signaling networks: emerging paradigms. Trends Pharmacol Sci 22(7):368–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Birnbaumer L (2007) The discovery of signal transduction by G proteins. A personal account and an overview of the initial findings and contributions that led to our present understanding. Biochim Biophys Acta Biomembr 1768(4):756–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kontoyianni M, Liu Z (2012) Structure-based design in the GPCR target space. Curr Med Chem 19(4):544–556PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shukla AK, Xiao K, Lefkowitz RJ (2011) Emerging paradigms of β-arrestin-dependent seven transmembrane receptor signaling. Trends Biochem Sci 36(9):457–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Lefkowitz RJ (1998) G protein-coupled receptors. III New roles for receptor kinases and β-arrestins in receptor signaling and desensitization. J Biol Chem 273(30):18677–18680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Wolfe BL, Trejo J (2007) Clathrin-dependent mechanisms of G protein-coupled receptor endocytosis. Traffic 8(5):462–470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tsao P, von Zastrow M (2000) Downregulation of G protein-coupled receptors. Curr Opin Neurobiol 10(3):365–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Collins S, Caron MG, Lefkowitz RJ (1991) Regulation of adrenergic receptor responsiveness through modulation of receptor gene expression. Annu Rev Physiol 53:497–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    De Vries L, Zheng B, Fischer T, Elenko E, Farquhar MG (2000) The regulator of G protein signaling family. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 40:235–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ross EM, Wilkie TM (2000) GTPase-activating proteins for heterotrimeric G proteins: regulators of G protein signaling (RGS) and RGS-like proteins. Annu Rev Biochem 69:795–827PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Ghemtio L, Zhang Y, Xhaard H (2012) CoMFA/CoMSIA and pharmacophore modelling as a powerful tools for efficient virtual screening: application to anti-leishmanial betulin derivatives. In: Taha MO (ed) Virtual screening. In Tech, Croatia, pp 55–82. doi: 10.5772/36690 Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yang SY (2010) Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov Today 15(11–12):444–450PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Ghosh E, Kumari P, Jaiman D, Shukla AK (2015) Methodological advances: the unsung heroes of the GPCR structural revolution. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 16(2):69–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Palczewski K, Kumasaka T, Hori T, Behnke CA, Motoshima H, Fox BA, Le Trong I, Teller DC, Okada T, Stenkamp RE, Yamamoto M, Miyano M (2000) Crystal structure of rhodopsin: a G protein-coupled receptor. Science 289(5480):739–745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Costanzi S, Siegel J, Tikhonova IG, Jacobson KA (2009) Rhodopsin and the others: a historical perspective on structural studies of G protein-coupled receptors. Curr Pharm Des 15(35):3994–4002PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Patny A, Desai PV, Avery MA (2006) Homology modeling of G-protein-coupled receptors and implications in drug design. Curr Med Chem 13(14):1667–1691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Cherezov V, Rosenbaum DM, Hanson MA, Rasmussen SG, Thian FS, Kobilka TS, Choi HJ, Kuhn P, Weis WI, Kobilka BK, Stevens RC (2007) High-resolution crystal structure of an engineered human β 2-adrenergic G protein-coupled receptor. Science 318(5854):1258–1265PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Rasmussen SG, Choi HJ, Rosenbaum DM, Kobilka TS, Thian FS, Edwards PC, Burghammer M, Ratnala VR, Sanishvili R, Fischetti RF, Schertler GF, Weis WI, Kobilka BK (2007) Crystal structure of the human β 2 adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 450(7168):383–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Warne T, Serrano-Vega MJ, Baker JG, Moukhametzianov R, Edwards PC, Henderson R, Leslie AG, Tate CG, Schertler GF (2008) Structure of a β 1-adrenergic G-protein-coupled receptor. Nature 454(7203):486–491PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Christopoulos A (2002) Allosteric binding sites on cell-surface receptors: novel targets for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 1(3):198–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Conn PJ, Christopoulos A, Lindsley CW (2009) Allosteric modulators of GPCRs: a novel approach for the treatment of CNS disorders. Nat Rev Drug Discov 8(1):41–54PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Chang SD, Bruchas MR (2014) Functional selectivity at GPCRs: new opportunities in psychiatric drug discovery. Neuropsychopharmacol 39(1):248–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Schrage R, Kostenis E (2017) Functional selectivity and dualsteric/bitopic GPCR targeting. Curr Opin Pharmacol 32:85–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Vishnivetskiy SA, Gimenez LE, Francis DJ, Hanson SM, Hubbeil WL, Klug CS, Gurevich VV (2011) Few residues within an extensive binding interface drive receptor interaction and determine the specificity of arrestin proteins. J Biol Chem 286(27):24288–24299PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Rasmussen SG, DeVree BT, Zou Y, Kruse AC, Chung KY, Kobilka TS, Thian FS, Chae PS, Pardon E, Calinski D, Mathiesen JM, Shah ST, Lyons JA, Caffrey M, Gellman SH, Steyaert J, Skiniotis G, Weis WI, Sunahara RK, Kobilka BK (2011) Crystal structure of the β 2 adrenergic receptor-Gs protein complex. Nature 477(7366):549–555PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Dror RO, Arlow DH, Maragakis P, Mildorf TJ, Pan AC, Xu H, Borhani DW, Shaw DE (2011) Activation mechanism of the β 2-adrenergic receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108(46):18684–18689PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kohlhoff KJ, Shukla D, Lawrenz M, Bowman GR, Konerding DE, Belov D, Altman RB, Pande VS (2014) Cloud-based simulations on Google Exacycle reveal ligand modulation of GPCR activation pathways. Nat Chem 6(1):15–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Bruno A, Costantino G (2012) Molecular dynamics simulations of G protein-coupled receptors. Mol Inform 31(3–4):222–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Cozzini P, Kellogg GE, Spyrakis F, Abraham DJ, Costantino G, Emerson A, Fanelli F, Gohlke H, Kuhn LA, Morris GM, Orozco M, Pertinhez TA, Rizzi M, Sotriffer CA (2008) Target flexibility: an emerging consideration in drug discovery and design. J Med Chem 51(20):6237–6255PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Feixas F, Lindert S, Sinko W, McCammon JA (2014) Exploring the role of receptor flexibility in structure-based drug discovery. Biophys Chem 186:31–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Jo S, Lim JB, Klauda JB, Im W (2009) CHARMM-GUI membrane builder for mixed bilayers and its application to yeast membranes. Biophys J 97(1):50–58PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Wu EL, Cheng X, Jo S, Rui H, Song KC, Dávila-Contreras EM, Qi Y, Lee J, Monje-Galvan V, Venable RM, Klauda JB, Im W (2014) CHARMM-GUI Membrane Builder toward realistic biological membrane simulations. J Comput Chem 35(27):1997–2004PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Ribeiro JV, Bernardi RC, Rudack T, Stone JE, Phillips JC, Freddolino PL, Schulten K (2016) QwikMD - integrative molecular dynamics toolkit for novices and experts. Sci Rep 6:26536. doi: 10.1038/srep26536 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Doerr S, Harvey MJ, Noé F, De Fabritiis G (2016) HTMD: high-throughput molecular dynamics for molecular discovery. J Chem Theory Comput 12(4):1845–1852PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Guo W, Shi L, Filizola M, Weinstein H, Javitch JA (2005) Crosstalk in G protein-coupled receptors: changes at the transmembrane homodimer interface determine activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102(48):17495–17500PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    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(11):935–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Morris GM, Huey R, Olson AJ (2008) Using AutoDock for ligand-receptor docking. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 24:8.14:8.14.1–8.14.40. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0814s24
  99. 99.
    Trott O, Olson AJ (2010) AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31(2):455–461PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Wu G, Robertson DH, Brooks CL 3rd, Vieth M (2003) Detailed analysis of grid-based molecular docking: a case study of CDOCKER-A CHARMm-based MD docking algorithm. J Comput Chem 24(13):1549–1562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Rarey M, Kramer B, Lengauer T, Klebe G (1996) A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J Mol Biol 261(3):470–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Verdonk ML, Cole JC, Hartshorn MJ, Murray CW, Taylor RD (2003) Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 52(4):609–623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Repasky MP, Shelley M, Friesner RA (2007) Flexible ligand docking with GLIDE. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics 18:8.12:8.12.1–8.12.36. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0812s18
  104. 104.
    Neves MA, Totrov M, Abagyan R (2012) Docking and scoring with ICM: the benchmarking results and strategies for improvement. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(6):675–686PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Marcou G, Rognan D (2007) Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 47(1):195–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Kalid O, Toledo Warshaviak D, Shechter S, Sherman W, Shacham S (2012) Consensus induced fit docking (cIFD): methodology, validation, and application to the discovery of novel CRM1 inhibitors. J Comput Aided Mol Des 26(11):1217–1228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rao SN, Head MS, Kulkarni A, LaLonde JM (2007) Validation studies of the site-directed docking program LibDock. J Chem Inf Model 47(6):2159–2171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Bai Q, Shao Y, Pan D, Zhang Y, Liu H, Yao X (2014) Search for β 2 adrenergic receptor ligands by virtual screening via grid computing and investigation of binding modes by docking and molecular dynamics simulations. PLoS One 9(9):e107837. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0107837. eCollection 2014PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Korb O, Stutzle T, Exner TE (2009) Empirical scoring functions for advanced protein-ligand docking with PLANTS. J Chem Inf Model 49(1):84–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Gutiérrez-de-Terán H, Centeno NB, Pastor M, Sanz F (2004) Novel approaches for modeling of the A1 adenosine receptor and its agonist binding site. Proteins: Struct Funct Bioinf 54(4):705–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Kolb P, Phan K, Gao ZG, Marko AC, Sali A, Jacobson KA (2012) Limits of ligand selectivity from docking to models: in Silico screening for A1 adenosine receptor antagonists. PLoS One 7(11):e49910. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049910 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Ke YR, Jin HW, Liu ZM, Zhang LR (2010) Homology modeling and structure validation of the adenosine A1 receptor. Acta Phys -Chim Sin 26(10):2833–2839Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Langmead CJ, Andrews SP, Congreve M, Errey JC, Hurrell E, Marshall FH, Mason JS, Richardson CM, Robertson N, Zhukov A, Weir M (2012) Identification of novel adenosine A2A receptor antagonists by virtual screening. J Med Chem 55(5):1904–1909PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Katritch V, Jaakola VP, Lane J, Lin J, Ijzerman AP, Yeager M, Kufareva I, Stevens RC, Abagyan R (2010) Structure-based discovery of novel chemotypes for adenosine A2A receptor antagonists. J Med Chem 53(4):1799–1809PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Ivanov AA, Barak D, Jacobson KA (2009) Evaluation of homology modeling of G-protein-coupled receptors in light of the A2A adenosine receptor crystallographic structure. J Med Chem 52(10):3284–3292PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Rodríguez D, Gao ZG, Moss SM, Jacobson KA, Carlsson J (2015) Molecular docking screening using agonist-bound GPCR structures: probing the A2A adenosine receptor. J Chem Inf Model 55(3):550–563PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Carlsson J, Yoo L, Gao ZG, Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK, Jacobson KA (2010) Structure-based discovery of A2A adenosine receptor ligands. J Med Chem 53(9):3748–3755PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Ostopovici-Halip L, Curpăn R, Mracec M, Bologa CG (2011) Structural determinants of the α 2 adrenoceptor subtype selectivity. J Mol Graph Model 29(8):1030–1038PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Jayaraman A, Jamil K, Kakarala KK (2013) Homology modelling and docking studies of human α 2-adrenergic receptor subtypes. J Comput Sci Syst Biol 6:136–149Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Kooistra AJ, Vischer HF, McNaught-Flores D, Leurs R, de Esch IJP, de Graaf C (2016) Function-specific virtual screening for GPCR ligands using a combined scoring method. Sci Rep 6:28288. doi: 10.1038/srep28288 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Kolb P, Rosenbaum DM, Irwin JJ, Fung JJ, Kobilka BK, Shoichet BK (2009) Structure-based discovery of β 2-adrenergic receptor ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106(16):6843–6848PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Kothandan G, Gadhe CG, Cho SJ (2012) Structural insights from binding poses of CCR2 and CCR5 with clinically important antagonists: a combined in silico study. PLoS One 7(3):e32864. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032864 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Singh R, Sobhia ME (2013) Structure prediction and molecular dynamics simulations of a G-protein coupled receptor: human CCR2 receptor. J Biomol Struct Dyn 31(7):694–715PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Di Fabio R, Arban R, Bernasconi G, Braggio S, Blaney FE, Capelli AM, Castiglioni E, Donati D, Fazzolari E, Ratti E, Feriani A, Contini S, Gentile G, Ghirlanda D, Sabbatini FM, Andreotti D, Spada S, Marchioro C, Worby A, St-Denis Y (2008) Dihydropyrrole[2,3-d]pyridine derivatives as novel corticotropin-releasing factor-1 antagonists: mapping of the receptor binding pocket by in silico docking studies. J Med Chem 51(22):7273–7286PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Micovic V, Ivanovic MD, Dosen-Micovic L (2009) Docking studies suggest ligand-specific δ-opioid receptor conformations. J Mol Model 15(3):267–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Bautista DL, Asher W, Carpenter L (2005) Development of the human μ-, κ-, and δ-opioid receptors and docking with morphine. J Ky Acad Sci 66(2):107–117Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Sirci F, Istyastono EP, Vischer HF, Kooistra AJ, Nijmeijer S, Kuijer M, Wijtmans M, Mannhold R, Leurs R, de Esch IJP, de Graaf C (2012) Virtual fragment screening: discovery of histamine H3 receptor ligands using ligand-based and protein-based molecular fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model 52(12):3308–3324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Schlegel B, Laggner C, Meier R, Langer T, Schnell D, Seifert R, Stark H, Höltje HD, Sippl W (2007) Generation of a homology model of the human histamine H3 receptor for ligand docking and pharmacophore-based screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21(8):437–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Levoin N, Calmels T, Poupardin-Olivier O, Labeeuw O, Danvy D, Robert P, Berrebi-Bertrand I, Ganellin CR, Schunack W, Stark H, Capet M (2008) Refined docking as a valuable tool for lead optimization: application to histamine H3 receptor antagonists. Arch Pharm (Weinheim) 341(10):610–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Costantino G, Pellicciari R (1996) Homology modeling of metabotropic glutamate receptors. (mGluRs) structural motifs affecting binding modes and pharmacological profile of mGluR1 agonists and competitive antagonists. J Med Chem 39(20):3998–4006PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Chin SP, Buckle MJ, Chalmers DK, Yuriev E, Doughty SW (2014) Toward activated homology models of the human M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor. J Mol Graph Model 49:91–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Swaminathan M, Chee CF, Chin SP, Buckle MJ, Rahman NA, Doughty SW, Chung LY (2014) Flavonoids with M1 muscarinic acetylcholine receptor binding activity. Molecules 19(7):8933–8948PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Kruse AC, Weiss DR, Rossi M, Hu J, Hu K, Eitel K, Gmeiner P, Wess J, Kobilka BK, Shoichet BK (2013) Muscarinic receptors as model targets and antitargets for structure-based ligand discovery. Mol Pharmacol 84(4):528–540PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Gandhimathi A, Sowdhamini R (2016) Molecular modelling of human 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor (5-HT2A) and virtual screening studies towards the identification of agonist and antagonist molecules. J Biomol Struct Dyn 34(5):952–970PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Kanagarajadurai K, Malini M, Bhattacharya A, Panicker MM, Sowdhamini R (2009) Molecular modeling and docking studies of human 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) receptor for the identification of hotspots for ligand binding. Mol BioSyst 5(12):1877–1888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Brea J, Rodrigo J, Carrieri A, Sanz F, Cadavid MI, Enguix MJ, Villazón M, Mengod G, Caro Y, Masaguer CF, Raviña E, Centeno NB, Carotti A, Loza MI (2002) New serotonin 5-HT2A, 5-HT2B, and 5-HT2C receptor antagonists: synthesis, pharmacology, 3D-QSAR, and molecular modeling of (aminoalkyl)benzo and heterocycloalkanones. J Med Chem 45(1):54–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Ahmed A, Nagarajan S, Doddareddy MR, Cho YS, Pae AN (2011) Binding mode prediction of 5-hydroxytryptamine 2C receptor ligands by homology modeling and molecular docking analysis. Bull Kor Chem Soc 32(6):2008–2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Perkins R, Fang H, Tong W, Welsh WJ (2003) Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 22(8):1666–1679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Dudek AZ, Arodz T, Galvez J (2006) Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): a review. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen 9(3):213–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Roy K, Kar S, Das RN (2015) Statistical methods in QSAR/QSPR. In: A primer on QSAR/QSPR modeling. SpringerBriefs in Molecular Science, Cham, pp 37–59Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Alexopoulos EC (2010) Introduction to multivariate regression analysis. Hippokratia 14(1):23–28PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Abdi H (2003) Partial least square regression (PLS regression). In: Lewis-Beck M et al (eds) Encyclopedia of social sciences research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 792–795Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Speck-Planche A, Kleandrova VV, Luan F, Cordeiro MN (2013) Multi-target inhibitors for proteins associated with Alzheimer: in silico discovery using fragment-based descriptors. Curr Alzheimer Res 10(2):117–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Speck-Planche A, Kleandrova VV (2012) QSAR and molecular docking techniques for the discovery of potent monoamine oxidase B inhibitors: computer-aided generation of new rasagiline bioisosteres. Curr Top Med Chem 12(16):1734–1747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Chapelle O, Vapnik V, Bousquet O, Mukherjee S (2002) Choosing multiple parameters for support vector machines. Mach Learn 46(1):131–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    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(18):5959–5967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Kubinyi H (2008) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). In: Gasteiger J (ed) Handbook of Chemoinformatics: from data to knowledge in 4 volumes. Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, Weinheim, pp 1555–1574. doi: 10.1002/9783527618279.ch44d CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    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(24):4130–4146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Robinson DD, Winn PJ, Lyne PD, Richards WG (1999) Self-organizing molecular field analysis: a tool for structure-activity studies. J Med Chem 42(4):573–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Li M, Du L, Wu B, Xia L (2003) Self-organizing molecular field analysis on α 1A-adrenoreceptor dihydropyridine antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem 11(18):3945–3951PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Moda TL, Montanari CA, Andricopulo AD (2007) Hologram QSAR model for the prediction of human oral bioavailability. Bioorg Med Chem 15:7738–7745PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Doddareddy MR, Lee YJ, Cho YS, Choi KI, KohHY PAN (2004) Hologram quantitative structure activity relationship studies on 5-HT6 antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem 12(14):3815–3824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Palangsuntikul R, Berner H, Berger ML, Wolschann P (2013) Holographic quantitative structure-activity relationships of tryptamine derivatives at NMDA, 5HT1A and 5HT2A receptors. Molecules 18(8):8799–8811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  154. 154.
    Muñoz-Gutiérrez C, Caballero J, Morales-Bayuelo A (2016) HQSAR and molecular docking studies of furanyl derivatives as adenosine A2A receptor antagonists. Med Chem Res 25(7):1316–1328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Doytchinova I (2001) CoMFA-based comparison of two models of binding site on adenosine A1 receptor. J Comput Aided Mol Des 15(1):29–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  156. 156.
    Lima E, Teixeira-Salmela LF, Simoes L, Guerra AC, Lemos A (2016) Assessment of the measurement properties of the post stroke motor function instruments available in Brazil: a systematic review. Braz J Phys Ther 20(2):114–125PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Pourbasheer E, Shokouhi Tabar S, Masand V, Aalizadeh R, Ganjali M (2015) 3D-QSAR and docking studies on adenosine A2A receptor antagonists by the CoMFA method. SAR QSAR Environ Res 26(6):461–477PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Rieger JM, Brown ML, Sullivan GW, Linden J, Macdonald TL (2001) Design, synthesis, and evaluation of novel A2A adenosine receptor agonists. J Med Chem 44(4):531–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    Baraldi PG, Borea PA, Bergonzoni M, Cacciari B, Ongini E, Recanatini M, Spalluto G (1999) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) of a series of selective adenosine receptor A2A antagonists. Drug. Dev Res 46(2):126–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Doytchinova I, Valkova I, Natcheva R (2001) CoMFA study on adenosine A2A receptor agonists. Quant Struct-Act Relat 20(2):124–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Vilar S, Karpiak J, Costanzi S (2010) Ligand and structure-based models for the prediction of ligand-receptor affinities and virtual screenings: development and application to the β 2-adrenergic receptor. J Comput Chem 31(4):707–720PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Senthil Kumar P, Bharatam PV (2010) Comparative 3D QSAR study on β 1-, β 2-, and β 3-adrenoceptor agonists. Med Chem Res 19(9):1121–1140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Jozwiak K, Khalid C, Tanga MJ, Berzetei-Gurske I, Jimenez L, Kozocas JA, Woo A, Zhu W, Xiao RP, Abernethy DR, Wainer IW (2007) Comparative molecular field analysis of the binding of the stereoisomers of fenoterol and fenoterol derivatives to the β 2 adrenergic receptor. J Med Chem 50(12):2903–2915PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Jozwiak K, Woo AY, Tanga MJ, Toll L, Jimenez L, Kozocas JA, Plazinska A, Xiao RP, Wainer IW (2010) Comparative molecular field analysis of fenoterol derivatives: a platform towards highly selective and effective β 2-adrenergic receptor agonists. Bioorg Med Chem 18(2):728–736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Plazinska A, Pajak K, Rutkowska E, Jimenez L, Kozocas J, Koolpe G, Tanga M, TollL WIW, Jozwiak K (2014) Comparative molecular field analysis of fenoterol derivatives interacting with an agonist-stabilized form of the β 2-adrenergic receptor. Bioorg Med Chem 22(1):234–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Gunda SK, Anugolu RK, Tata SR, Mahmood S (2012) Structural investigations of CXCR2 receptor antagonists by CoMFA, CoMSIA and flexible docking studies. Acta Pharma 62(3):287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  167. 167.
    Peng Y, Keenan SM, Zhang Q, Welsh WJ (2005) 3D-QSAR comparative molecular field analysis on δ opioid receptor agonist SNC80 and its analogs. J Mol Graph Model 24(1):25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Ghasemi JB, Tavakoli H (2012) Improvement of the prediction power of the CoMFA and CoMSIA models on histamine H3 antagonists by different variable selection methods. Sci Pharm 80(3):547–566PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Chen HF (2008) Computational study of histamine H3-receptor antagonist with support vector machines and three dimension quantitative structure activity relationship methods. Anal Chim Acta 624(2):203–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Rivara S, Mor M, Bordi F, Silva C, Zuliani V, Vacondio F, Morini G, Plazzi P, Carrupt PA, Testa B (2003) Synthesis and three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis of H3 receptor antagonists containing a neutral heterocyclic polar group. Drug Des Discov 18(2–3):65–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Sekhar YN, Ravikumar M, Nayana MRS, Mallena SC, Kumar MK (2008) 3D-QSAR studies of triazafluorenone inhibitors of metabotropic glutamate receptor subtype 1. Eur J Med Chem 43(5):1025–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Sekhar YN, Nayana MRS, Ravikumar M, Mahmood S (2007) Comparative molecular field analysis of quinoline derivatives as selective and noncompetitive mGluR1 antagonists. Chem Biol Drug Des 70(6):511–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Tresadern G, Cid JM, Trabanco AA (2014) QSAR design of triazolopyridine mGlu2 receptor positive allosteric modulators. J Mol Graph Model 53:82–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    de Paulis T, Hemstapat K, Chen Y, Zhang Y, Saleh S, Alagille D, Baldwin RM, Tamagnan GD, Conn PJ (2006) Substituent effects of N-(1,3-Diphenyl-1H-pyrazol-5-yl)benzamides on positive allosteric modulation of the metabotropic glutamate-5 receptor in rat cortical astrocytes. J Med Chem 49(11):3332–3344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Lowe JEW, Ferrebee A, Rodriguez AL, Conn PJ, Meiler J (2010) 3D-QSAR CoMFA study of benzoxazepine derivatives as mGluR5 positive allosteric modulators. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 20(19):5922–5924PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Selvam C, Thilagavathi R, Narasimhan B, Kumar P, Jordan BC, Ranganna K (2016) Computer-aided design of negative allosteric modulators of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 (mGluR5): comparative molecular field analysis of aryl ether derivatives. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 26(4):1140–1144PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  177. 177.
    Zlotos DP, Buller S, Stiefl N, Baumann K, Mohr K (2004) Probing the pharmacophore for allosteric ligands of muscarinic M2 receptors: SAR and QSAR studies in a series of bisquaternary salts of caracurine V and related ring systems. J Med Chem 47(14):3561–3571PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Niu YY, Yang LM, Deng KM, Yao JH, Zhu L, Chen CY, Zhang M, Zhou JE, Shen TX, Chen HZ (2007) Quantitative structure–selectivity relationship for M2 selectivity between M1 and M2 of piperidinyl piperidine derivatives as muscarinic antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 17(8):2260–2266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Silva ME, Heim R, Strasser A, Elz S, Dove S (2011) Theoretical studies on the interaction of partial agonists with the 5-HT2A receptor. J Comput Aided Mol Des 25(1):51–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Moeller D, Salama I, Kling RC, Hübner H, Gmeiner P (2015) 1,4-Disubstituted aromatic piperazines with high 5-HT2A/D2 selectivity: quantitative structure-selectivity investigations, docking, synthesis and biological evaluation. Bioorg Med Chem 23(18):6195–6209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Raviña E, Negreira J, Cid J, Masaguer CF, Rosa E, Rivas ME, Fontenla JA, Loza MI, Tristán H, Cadavid MI, Sanz F, Lozoya E, Carotti A, Carrieri A (1999) Conformationally constrained butyrophenones with mixed dopaminergic (D2) and serotoninergic (5-HT2A, 5-HT2C) affinities: synthesis, pharmacology, 3D-QSAR, and molecular modeling of (aminoalkyl)benzo- and -thienocycloalkanones as putative atypical antipsychotics. J Med Chem 42(15):2774–2797PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Zhang Z, An L, Hu W, Xiang Y (2007) 3D-QSAR study of hallucinogenic phenylalkylamines by using CoMFA approach. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21(4):145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Bromidge SM, Dabbs S, Davies DT, Duckworth DM, Forbes IT, Ham P, Jones GE, King FD, Saunders DV, Starr S, Thewlis KM, Wyman PA, Blaney FE, Naylor CB, Bailey F, Blackburn TP, Holland V, Kennett GJ, Riley GJ, Wood MD (1998) Novel and selective 5-HT2C/2B receptor antagonists as potential anxiolytic agents: synthesis, quantitative structure−activity relationships, and molecular modeling of substituted 1-(3-pyridylcarbamoyl)indolines. J Med Chem 41(10):1598–1612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Lopez-Rodriguez ML, Murcia M, Benhamú B, Viso A, Campillo M, Pardo L (2001) 3D-QSAR/CoMFA and recognition models of benzimidazole derivatives at the 5-HT4 receptor. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 11(21):2807–2811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    López-Rodríguez ML, Murcia M, Benhamú B, Viso A, Campillo M, Pardo L (2002) Benzimidazole derivatives. 3. 3D-QSAR/CoMFA model and computational simulation for the recognition of 5-HT4 receptor antagonists. J Med Chem 45(22):4806–4815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Iskander MN, Leung LM, Buley T, Ayad F, Di Iulio J, Tan YY, Coupar IM (2006) Optimization of a pharmacophore model for 5-HT4 agonists using CoMFA and receptor based alignment. Eur J Med Chem 41(1):16–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  187. 187.
    Suzuki T, Imanishi N, Itahana H, Watanuki S, Miyata K, Ohta M, Nakahara H, Yamagiwa Y, Mase T (1998) Novel 5-hydroxytryptamine 4 (5-HT4) receptor agonists. Synthesis and Gastroprokinetic activity of 4-amino-N (2-(1-aminocycloalkan-1-yl) ethyl)-5-chloro-2 methoxybenzamides. Chem Pharm Bull 46(7):1116–1124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Doddareddy MR, Cho YS, Koh HY, Pae AN (2004) CoMFA and CoMSIA 3D QSAR analysis on N 1-arylsulfonylindole compounds as 5-HT6 antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem 12(15):3977–3985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Guner OF (2005) The impact of pharmacophore modeling in drug design. IDrugs 8(7):567–572PubMedGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Sun H (2008) Pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Curr Med Chem 15(10):1018–1024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Dixon SL, Smondyrev AM, Knoll EH, Rao SN, Shaw DE, Friesner RA (2006) PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results. J Comput Aided Mol Des 20(10–11):647–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Golender V, Vesterman B, Eliyahu O, Kardash A, Kletzin M, Shokhen M, Vorpagel E (1994) Knowledge engineering approach to drug design and its implementation in the APEX-3D Expert System. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Symposium on Structure-Activity Relationships, Barcelona: Prous Science, pp 249–254Google Scholar
  193. 193.
    Harris DL, Loew G (2008) Development and assessment of a 3D pharmacophore for ligand recognition of BDZR/GABAA receptors initiating the anxiolytic response. Bioorg Med Chem 8(11):2527–2538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    Mills JEJ, de Esch IJP, Perkins TDJ, Dean PM (2001) SLATE: a method for the superposition of flexible ligands. J Comput Aided Mol Des 15(1):81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Wolber G, Langer T (2005) LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. J Chem Inf Model 45(1):160–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Huang P, Kim S, Loew G (1997) Development of a common 3D pharmacophore for δ-opioid recognition from peptides and non-peptides using a novel computer program. J Comput Aided Mol Des 11(1):21–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Clark M, Cramer RD, Van Opdenbosch N (1989) Validation of the general purpose Tripos 5.2 force field. J Comput Chem 10(8):982–1012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Patel Y, Gillet VJ, Bravi G, Leach AR (2002) A comparison of the pharmacophore identification programs: CATALYST, DISCO and GASP. J Comput Aided Mol Des 16(8–9):653–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Chen IJ, Foloppe N (2008) Conformational sampling of druglike molecules with MOE and CATALYST: implications for pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 48(9):1773–1791PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Mustyala KK, Chitturi AR, Naikal James PS, Vuruputuri U (2012) Pharmacophore mapping and in silico screening to identify new potent leads for A2A adenosine receptor as antagonists. J Recept Signal Transduct Res 32(2):102–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Bacilieri M, Ciancetta A, Paoletta S, Federico S, Cosconati S, Cacciari B, Taliani S, Da Settimo F, Novellino E, Klotz KN, Spalluto G, Moro S (2013) Revisiting a receptor-based pharmacophore hypothesis for human A2A adenosine receptor antagonists. J Chem Inf Model 53(7):1620–1637PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    Wei J, Wang S, Gao S, Dai X, Gao Q (2007) 3D-Pharmacophore models for selective A2A and A2B adenosine receptor antagonists. J Chem Inf Model 47(2):613–625PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Khanfar MA, Al-Qtaishat S, Habash M, Taha MO (2016) Discovery of potent adenosine A2A antagonists as potential anti-Parkinson disease agents. Non-linear QSAR analyses integrated with pharmacophore modeling. Chem Biol Interact 254:93–101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    Balogh B, Jójárt B, Wágner Z, Kovács P, Máté G, Gyires K, Zádori Z, Falkay G, Márki Á, Viskolcz B, Mátyus P (2007) 3D QSAR models for α 2A-adrenoceptor agonists. Neurochem Int 51(5):268–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Kothandan G, Gadhe CG, Madhavan T, Cho SJ (2011) Binding site analysis of CCR2 through in silico methodologies: docking, CoMFA, and CoMSIA. Chem Biol Drug Des 78(1):161–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Singh R, Balupuri A, Sobhia ME (2013) Development of 3D-pharmacophore model followed by successive virtual screening, molecular docking and ADME studies for the design of potent CCR2 antagonists for inflammation-driven diseases. Mol Simul 39(1):49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Ye Y, Liao Q, Wei J, Gao Q (2010) 3D-QSAR study of corticotropin-releasing factor 1 antagonists and pharmacophore-based drug design. Neurochem Int 56(5):107–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    Whitten JP, Xie YF, Erickson PE, Webb TR, De Souza EB, Grigoriadis DE, McCarthy JR (1996) Rapid microscale synthesis, a new method for lead optimization using robotics and solution phase chemistry: application to the synthesis and optimization of corticotropin-releasing factor 1 receptor antagonists. J Med Chem 39(22):4354–4357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Kaur P, Sharma V, Kumar V (2012) pharmacophore modelling and 3D-QSAR studies on N 3-phenylpyrazinones as corticotropin-releasing factor 1 receptor antagonists. Int J Med Chem 2012:452325. doi: 10.1155/2012/452325
  210. 210.
    Bernard D, Coop A, MacKerell AD (2003) 2D conformationally sampled pharmacophore: a ligand-based pharmacophore to differentiate δ opioid agonists from antagonists. J Am Chem Soc 125(10):3101–3107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  211. 211.
    Coop A, Jacobson AE (1999) The LMC δ opioid recognition pharmacophore: comparison of SNC80 and oxymorphindole. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 9(3):357–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Bernard D, Coop A, MacKerell AD (2005) Conformationally sampled pharmacophore for peptidic δ opioid ligands. J Med Chem 48(24):7773–7780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Levoin N, Labeeuw O, Krief S, Calmels T, Poupardin-Olivier O, Berrebi-Bertrand I, Lecomte JM, Schwartz JC, Capet M (2013) Determination of the binding mode and interacting amino-acids for dibasic H3 receptor antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem 21(15):4526–4529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    De Esch IJP, Mills JEJ, Perkins TDJ, Romeo G, Hoffmann M, Wieland K, Leurs R, WMPB M, PHJ N, Dean PM, Timmerman H (2001) Development of a pharmacophore model for histamine H3 receptor antagonists, using the newly developed molecular modeling program SLATE. J Med Chem 44(11):1666–1674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Axe FU, Bembenek SD, Szalma S (2006) Three-dimensional models of histamine H3 receptor antagonist complexes and their pharmacophore. J Mol Graph Model 24(6):456–464PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  216. 216.
    Jullian N, Brabet I, Pin JP, Acher FC (1999) Agonist selectivity of mGluR1 and mGluR2 metabotropic receptors: a different environment but similar recognition of an extended glutamate conformation. J Med Chem 42(9):1546–1555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  217. 217.
    Filizola M, Tasso SM, Loew GH, Villar HO (2001) Global physicochemical properties as activity discriminants for the mGluR1 subtype of metabotropic glutamate receptors. J Comput Chem 22(16):2018–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  218. 218.
    Zhang MQ, Zhang XL, Li Y, Fan WJ, Wang YH, Hao M, Zhang SW, Ai CZ (2011) Investigation on quantitative structure activity relationships and pharmacophore modeling of a series of mGluR2 antagonists. Int J Mol Sci 12(9):5999–6023PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  219. 219.
    Lu C, Jin F, Li C, Li W, Liu G, Tang Y (2011) Insights into binding modes of 5-HT2C receptor antagonists with ligand-based and receptor-based methods. J Mol Model 17(10):2513–2523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  220. 220.
    Ahmed A, Choo H, Cho YS, Park WK, Pae AN (2009) Identification of novel serotonin 2C receptor ligands by sequential virtual screening. Bioorg Med Chem 17(13):4559–4568PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  221. 221.
    Iskander MN, Coupar IM, Winkler DA (1999) Investigation of 5-HT4 agonist activities using molecular field analysis. J Chem Soc Perkin Trans 2(2):153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  222. 222.
    Bureau R, Daveu C, Lemaître S, Dauphin F, Landelle H, Lancelot JC, Rault S (2002) Molecular design based on 3D-pharmacophore. Application to 5-HT4 receptor. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 42(4):962–967PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  223. 223.
    López-Rodríguez ML, Benhamú B, de la Fuente T, Sanz A, Pardo L, Campillo M (2005) A three-dimensional pharmacophore model for 5-hydroxytryptamine 6 (5-HT6) receptor antagonists. J Med Chem 48(13):4216–4219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  224. 224.
    Kim HJ, Doddareddy MR, Choo H, Cho YS, No KT, Park WK, Pae AN (2008) New serotonin 5-HT6 ligands from common feature pharmacophore hypotheses. J Chem Inf Model 48(1):197–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  225. 225.
    Hayat F, Cho S, Rhim H, Indu Viswanath AN, Pae AN, Lee JY, Choo DJ, Choo HY (2013) Design and synthesis of novel series of 5-HT6 receptor ligands having indole, a central aromatic core and 1-amino-4-methyl piperazine as a positive ionizable group. Bioorg Med Chem 21(17):5573–5582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LAQV@REQUIMTE, Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Faculty of SciencesUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.GIGA Cyclotron Research Centre In Vivo ImagingUniversity of LiègeLiègeBelgium
  3. 3.CNC – Center for Neuroscience and Cell BiologyFaculty of Medicine, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.Center for Nuclear Sciences and TechnologiesInstituto Superior Técnico, University of LisbonBobadela LRSPortugal
  5. 5.Bijvoet Center for Biomolecular ResearchFaculty of Science - Chemistry, Utrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.(MNDSC) LAQV@REQUIMTE/Department of Chemistry and BiochemistryUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  7. 7.(ISM) CNC – Center for Neuroscience and Cell BiologyFaculty of Medicine, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations