Med Chem Notes
Med Chem Notes
Med Chem Notes
1.2 Introduction
Drug discovery and developing a new medicine is a long, complex, costly and highly risky
process that has few peers in the commercial world. This is why computer-aided drug
design (CADD) approaches are being widely used in the pharmaceutical industry to
accelerate the process. The cost benefit of using computational tools in the lead
optimization phase of drug development is substantial. On an average, it takes 10-15 years
and US $500-800 million to introduce a drug into the market, with synthesis and testing of
lead analogs being a large contributor to that sum.1 Therefore, it is beneficial to apply
computational tools in hit-to-lead optimization to cover a wider chemical space while
reducing the number of compounds that must be synthesized and tested in vitro. The
computational optimization of a hit compound involves a structure-based analysis of
docking poses and energy profiles for hit analogs, ligand-based screening for compounds
with similar chemical structure or improved predicted biological activity, or prediction of
favorable affinity or optimize drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics (DMPK) or
absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and the potential for toxicity (ADMET)
properties. The comparably low cost of CADD compared with chemical synthesis and
biological characterization of compounds make these methods attractive to focus, reduce,
and diversify the chemical space that is explored.2
CADD is capable of increasing the hit rate of novel drug compounds because it
uses a much more targeted search than traditional high throughput screening (HTS) and
combinatorial chemistry. It not only aims to explain the molecular basis of therapeutic
activity but also to predict possible derivatives that would improve activity. In a drug
discovery campaign, CADD is usually used for three major purposes: (1) filter large
compound libraries into smaller sets of compounds that can be tested experimentally; (2)
1
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
guide the optimization of lead compounds, to increase its DMPK properties including
ADMET; (3) design novel compounds, either by "growing" starting molecules one
functional group at a time or by piecing together fragments into novel chemotypes. 3
CADD can be classified into two general categories: structure-based and ligand-
based. Structure-based CADD relies on the knowledge of the target protein structure to
calculate interaction energies for all the compounds to be tested, whereas ligand-based
CADD exploits the knowledge of known active and inactive molecules through chemical
similarity searches or construction of predictive, quantitative structure-activity relationship
(QSAR) models.4 Structure based CADD is generally preferred where high-resolution
structural data of the target protein are available, i.e., for soluble proteins that can readily
be crystallized. Ligand based CADD is generally preferred when no or little structural
information is available, often for membrane protein targets. The central goal of structure
based CADD is to design compounds that bind tightly to the target, i.e., with larger
reduction in free energy, improved DMPK/ADMET properties, and are target specific, i.e.,
have reduced off-target effects.5 A successful application of these methods will result in a
compound that has been validated in vitro and in vivo and its binding location has been
confirmed, ideally through a co-crystal structure. One of the most common uses in CADD
is the screening of virtual compound libraries, also known as virtual high-throughput
screening (vHTS). Fig. 1.1 illustrates the stages in the drug discovery process6 and Fig. 1.2
explains virtual drug discovery process7.
2
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
3
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
efficacy and their binding to the receptor leads to activation of the intracellular
components involved in the physiological or pharmacological responsiveness of cell or
tissue. This efficacy may be manifested by changes in the activity of an enzyme like
adenylate cyclase or by an alteration in the contractile response of an isolated, intact tissue
preparation. Antagonists bind to the receptor and block the interaction of the agonist while
producing no effect on the tissue on their own. Antagonism can be of several types:
competitive, non-competitive and inverse.11 Competitive antagonism is usually associated
with ligands that interact directly with the agonist binding site i.e. the recognition element
of the receptor. The non-competitive or uncompetitive antagonists interact at sites distinct
from the agonist recognition site and can modulate agonist binding. A third class of ligand
is that of the inverse agonist. Ligands of this class interact with a defined recognition site
on a receptor and are not only able to block the effects of an agonist at the receptor but, to
varying degrees, are also able to produce effects opposite to that of the agonist. It is clear
that a biological response is produced by the interaction of a drug with the biological
receptor. This selective binding and its extent is governed by the molecular recognition
phenomenon. In molecular modeling, this process of molecular recognition is simulated to
understand the drug- receptor interaction. Most of the molecular recognition phenomena of
ligand and receptor involve the following type of interaction:
The rate constant for association of the complex is k1; the rate constant for dissociation of
the complex is k2 and the affinity or association constant
kas = k1 / k2.
The thermodynamic parameters of interest for the above reactions are standard free energy
(G0), enthalpy (H°) and entropy (∆S0) of association. These parameters are related by the
Gibbs free energy equation,
∆G° = -RT ln kas ……………………......…………… (3)
∆G0 = ∆ Ho - T∆So………......................................... (4)
The most fundamental forces12 involved in the interaction of ligand and receptor is
covalent, reinforced ionic, ionic, ion-dipole, dipole-dipole, van der Waals and hydrophobic
forces. In molecular modeling every effort is made to measure the free energy of
4
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
association (∆G). Various computational chemistry methods and assumptions are adopted
to arrive at a measure of association.
5
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
6
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
7
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
convergence to a maximum derivative less than 0.001 kcal mol-1 Å-1 is required to find a
final minimum.
8
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
9
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
A prerequisite for the drug discovery process is the ability to rapidly determine
potential binders to the target of biological interest. Computational methods in drug
discovery allow rapid screening of a large compound library and determination of
potential binders through modeling/simulation and visualization techniques.
1.7.1.1 Preparation of a Target Structure
Success of virtual screening depends upon the amount and quality of structural
information known about both the target and the small molecules being docked. The first
step is to evaluate the target for the presence of an appropriate binding pocket.32-33. This is
usually done through the analysis of known target-ligand co-crystal structures or using in-
silico methods to identify novel binding sites.34
A target structure experimentally determined through X-ray crystallography or
NMR techniques and deposited in the PDB is the ideal starting point for docking.
Structural genomics has accelerated the rate at which target structures are being
determined. In the absence of experimentally determined structures, several successful
virtual screening campaigns have been reported based on comparative models of target
proteins.35-37
1.7.1.2 Homology Modeling
In the absence of experimental structures, computational methods are used to predict the
3D structure of target proteins. Comparative modeling is used to predict target structure
based on a template with a similar sequence, leveraging that protein structure is better
conserved than sequence, i.e., proteins with similar sequences have similar structures.
Homology modeling is a specific type of comparative modeling in which the template and
target proteins share the same evolutionary origin. Comparative modeling involves the
following steps: (1) identification of related proteins to serve as template structures, (2)
sequence alignment of the target and template proteins, (3) copying coordinates for
confidently aligned regions, (4) constructing missing atom coordinates of target structure,
and (5) model refinement and evaluation. Fig. 1.4 illustrates the steps involved in
homology modeling. Several computer programs and web servers exist that automate the
homology modeling process e.g., PSIPRED38 and MODELER.39
1.7.1.3 Molecular dynamics-based detection
The dynamic nature of biomolecules sometimes makes it insufficient to use a single static
structure to predict putative binding sites. Multiple conformations of target are often used
to account for structural dynamics of target. Classic molecular dynamic (MD) simulations
can be used for obtaining an ensemble of target conformations beginning with a single
10
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
11
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
ligand. For the grid representation, the target is encoded as physicochemical features of its
surface. A grid method described by Katchalski-katzir et al49 digitizes molecules using a
3D discrete function that distinguishes the surface from the interior of the target molecule.
Molecules are scanned in relative orientation in three dimensions, and the extent of
overlap between molecules is determined using a correlation function calculated from a
Fourier transform.
1.7.1.5 Sampling Algorithms for Protein-Ligand Docking
Docking methods can be classified as rigid-body docking and flexible docking
applications depending on the degree to which they consider ligand and protein flexibility
during the docking process.50,51 Rigid body docking methods consider only static
geometric/physiochemical complementarities between ligand and target and ignore
flexibility and induced-fit51 binding models. More advanced algorithms consider several
possible conformations of ligand or receptor or both at the same time according to the
conformational selection paradigm.52. Rigid docking simulations are generally preferred
when time is critical, i.e., when a large number of compounds are to be docked during an
initial vHTS. However, flexible docking methods are still needed for refinement and
optimization of poses obtained from an initial rigid docking procedure.
1.7.1.5.1 Systematic Methods
Systematic algorithms incorporate ligand flexibility through a comprehensive exploration
of a molecule’s degrees of freedom. In systematic algorithms, the current state of the
system determines the next state. Systematic methods can be categorized into (1)
exhaustive search algorithms and (2) fragmentation algorithms. Exhaustive searches
elucidate ligand conformations by systematically rotating all possible rotatable bonds at a
given interval. Large conformational space often prohibits an exhaustive systematic
search. Algorithms such as GLIDE53 use heuristics to focus on regions of conformational
space that are likely to contain good scoring ligand poses. Fragmentation methods sample
ligand conformation by incremental construction of ligand conformations from fragments
obtained by dividing the ligand of interest. Ligand conformations are obtained by docking
fragments in the binding site one at a time and incrementally growing them or by docking
all fragments into the binding site and linking them covalently. FLEXX54 uses the “anchor
and grow method” for ligand conformational sampling.
1.7.1.5.2 Molecular Dynamics Simulations
Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation calculates the trajectory of a system by the
application of Newtonian mechanics. However, standard MD methods depend heavily on
12
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
the starting conformation and are not readily appropriate for simulation of ligand-target
interactions. Because of its nature, MD is not able to cross high-energy barriers within the
simulation’s lifetime and is not efficient for traversing the rugged hyper surface of protein-
ligand interactions. Strategies like simulated annealing have been applied for more
efficient use of MD in docking.55
1.7.1.5.3 Monte Carlo Search with Metropolis Criterion (MCM) Simulations
MCM samples conformational space faster than molecular dynamics in that it requires
only energy function evaluation and not the derivative of the energy functions. Although
traditional MD drives a system toward a local energy minimum, the randomness
introduced with Monte Carlo allows hopping over the energy barriers, preventing the
system from getting stuck in local energy minima. MCM simulations have been adopted
for flexible docking applications such as in MCDOCK.56
1.7.1.5.4 Genetic Algorithms
Genetic algorithms introduce molecular flexibility through recombination of parent
conformations to child conformations. In this simulated evolutionary process, the “fittest”
or best scoring conformations are kept for another round of recombination. In this way, the
best possible set of solutions evolves by retaining favorable features from one generation
to the next. In docking, a set of values that describe the ligand pose in the protein are state
variable. State variables may include set of values describing translation, orientation,
conformation, number of hydrogen bonds, etc. The state corresponds to the genotype; the
resulting structural model of the ligand in the protein corresponds to the phenotype, and
binding energy corresponds to the fitness of the individual. Genetic operators may swap
large regions of parent’s genes or randomly change (mutate) the value of certain ligand
states to give rise to new individuals. Genetic Optimization for Ligand Docking (GOLD)57
explores full ligand flexibility with partial target flexibility using a genetic algorithm.
1.7.1.6 Scoring Functions for Evaluation of Protein Ligand Complexes
Docking applications need to rapidly and accurately assess protein-ligand complexes, i.e.,
approximate the energy of the interaction. A ligand docking experiment may generate
hundreds of thousands of target-ligand complex conformations, and an efficient scoring
function is necessary to rank these complexes and differentiate valid binding mode
predictions from invalid predictions.
1.7.1.6.1 Force-Field or Molecular Mechanics-Based Scoring Functions
Force-field scoring functions use classic molecular mechanics for energy calculations. 58
These functions use parameters derived from experimental data and ab initio quantum
13
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
14
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
bind, inhibit, or allosterically alter the protein’s function. To make screening of large
compound libraries within finite time feasible. SB-vHTS often uses limited conformational
sampling of protein and ligand and a simplified approximation of binding energy that can
be rapidly computed. The key steps in SB-vHTS are: (1) preparation of the target protein
and compound library for docking, (2) determining a favorable binding pose for each
compound, and (3) ranking the docked structures.68
1.7.2 Ligand-Based Computer-Aided Drug Design
The ligand-based computer-aided drug discovery (LBDD) approach involves the analysis
of ligands known to interact with a target of interest. These methods use a set of reference
structures collected from compounds known to interact with the target of interest and
analyse their 2D or 3D structures. The overall goal is to represent these compounds in such
a way that the physicochemical properties most important for their desired interactions are
retained, whereas extraneous information not relevant to the interactions is discarded. It is
considered as an indirect approach to the drug discovery in that it does not necessitate
knowledge of the structure of the target of interest. The two fundamental approaches of
LBDD are (1) selection of compounds based on chemical similarity to known actives
using some similarity measure or (2) the construction of a quantitative structure activity
relationship (QSAR) model that predicts biological activity from chemical structure. The
methods are applied for in silico screening for novel compounds possessing the biological
activity of interest, hit-to-lead and lead-to drug optimization, and also for the optimization
of DMPK/ADMET properties. LBDD is based on the similar property principle which
states that molecules that are structurally similar are likely to have similar properties.69
LBDD approaches in contrast to SBDD approaches can also be applied when the structure
of the biological target is unknown. Additionally, active compounds identified by ligand-
based virtual high-throughput screening (LB-vHTS) methods are often more potent than
those identified in SB-vHTS.70
1.7.2.1 Molecular Descriptors
Molecular descriptors can include properties such as molecular weight, geometry, volume,
surface areas, ring content, rotatable bonds, interatomic distances, bond distances, atom
types, planar and nonplanar systems, molecular walk counts, electronegativities,
polarizabilities, symmetry, atom distribution, topological charge indices, functional group
composition, aromaticity indices, solvation properties, and many others.71 These
descriptors are generated through knowledge-based, graph-theoretical methods, molecular
mechanical, or quantum-mechanical tools72,73 and are classified according to the
15
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
“dimensionality” of the chemical representation from which they are computed 74: 1-
dimensional (1D), scalar physicochemical properties such as molecular weight; 2D,
molecular constitution-derived descriptors; 2.5D, molecular configuration-derived
descriptors; 3D, molecular conformation-derived descriptors. These different levels of
complexity, however, are overlapping with the more complex descriptors, often
incorporating information from the simpler ones.
1.7.2.2 Molecular Fingerprint and Similarity Searches
Molecular fingerprint-based techniques attempt to represent molecules in such a way as to
allow rapid structural comparison in an effort to identify structurally similar molecules or
to cluster collections based on structural similarity. These methods are fewer hypotheses
driven and less computationally expensive than pharmacophore mapping or QSAR
models. They rely entirely on chemical structure and omit compound with known
biological activity, making the approach more qualitative in nature than other LBDD
approaches.75 Additionally, fingerprint-based methods consider all parts of the molecule
equally and avoid focusing only on parts of a molecule that are thought to be most
important for activity. This is less error prone to overfitting and requires smaller datasets
to begin with. Fingerprint methods may be used to search databases for compounds similar
in structure to a lead query, providing an extended collection of compounds that can be
tested for improved activity over the lead. In many situations, 2D similarity searches of
databases are performed using chemotype information from first generation hits, leading to
modifications that can be evaluated computationally or ordered for in vitro testing.
1.7.2.3 Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models
Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models describe the mathematical
relation between structural attributes and target response of a set of chemicals.76 Classic
QSAR is known as the Hansch-Fujita approach and involves the correlation of various
electronic, hydrophobic, and steric features with biological activity. In the 1960s, Hansch
and others began to establish QSAR models using various molecular descriptors to
physical, chemical, and biological properties focused on providing computational
estimates for the bioactivity of molecules. 77 In 1964, Free and Wilson78 developed a
mathematical model relating the presence of various chemical substituents to biological
activity (each type of chemical group was assigned an activity contribution), and the two
methods were later combined to create the Hansch/ Free-Wilson method.
The general workflow of a QSAR-based drug discovery project is to first collect a
group of active and inactive ligands and then create a set of mathematical descriptors that
16
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
17
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
18
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
19
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
creates regularly spaced grids around the ligand and the surrounding residues. Probe atoms
that represent a hydrogen bond donor, a hydrogen bond acceptor, and a hydrophobic group
are used to scan the grids. An empirical scoring function, SCORE, is used to describe the
binding constant between probe atoms and the target. SCORE includes terms to account
for van der Waals interactions, metal-ligand bonding, hydrogen bonding, and desolvation
effects upon binding.86 A pharmacophore model is developed by rescoring the grids
followed by clustering and sorting to extract features essential for protein-ligand
interaction.
The most common software packages used for ligand based pharmacophore
generation include Phase87, MOE, Catalyst88, DISCO89, and GASP.90
20
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
21
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
1.11 References
1. Basak SC. Chemobioinformatics: the advancing frontier of computer-aided drug
design in the post-genomic era. Curr. Comput. Aided. Drug. Des. 2012;8:1-2.
2. Enyedy IJ and Egan WJ. Can we use docking and scoring for hit-to-lead
optimization? J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 2008;22:161-168.
3. Veselovsky AV, Ivanov AS. Strategy of computer-aided drug design. Curr. Drug.
Targets. Infect. Disord. 2003;3:33-40.
4. Kalyaanamoorthy S and Chen YP. Structure-based drug design to augment hit
discovery. Drug. Discov. Today. 2011;16:831-839.
5. Jorgensen WL. Drug discovery: Pulled from a protein’s embrace. Nature.
2010;466:42-43.
6. Lombardino JG, Lowe JA. The role of the medicinal chemist in drug discovery
then and now. Nat. Rev. Drug. Discov. 2004;3:853-62.
7. Gershell LJ, Atkins JH. A brief history of novel drug discovery technologies. Nat.
Rev. Drug. Discov. 2003; 2:321-327.
8. Ehrlich, P. Address in pathology on chemotherapeutics: scientific principles,
methods, and results. Lancet. 1993;2:445-451.
9. Michaelis L, Menten ML. The original Michaelis constant: translation of the 1913
Michaelis-Menten paper. Biochem.1913;49:333-369.
10. Williams M, Deecher DC, Sullivan JP. Burger’s Medicinal Chemistry and Drug
Discovery, Wolff, M. E. (Ed.), Vol. I, Wiley Interscience.1995, 349-359.
11. Wold F. In Macromolecules: Structure and Function. Cliffs, E. (Ed.), Prentice-Hall,
New Jersey, 1971, 16-40.
12. Albert, A. In Selective Toxicity. Wiley, New York, 1968, 183.
13. Pensak DA. Molecular modelling: scientific and technological boundaries. Pure &
Appl. Chem.1989;61:601.
14. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M.
CHARMM: A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics
calculations. J. Comput. Chem. 1983;4:187-217.
15. Hagler AT, Lifson S, Dauber P. Consistent force field studies of intermolecular
forces in hydrogen bonded crystals. II. A benchmark for the objective comparison of
alternative force fields. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1979;101:5122-5130.
22
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
16. Maple JR, Hwang MJ, Stockfisch TP, Dinur U, Wladman M, Ewig CS, Hagler AT.
Derivation of Class II force fields. 1. Methodology and quantum force field for the alkyl
functional group and alkane molecules. J. Comput. Chem. 1994;15:162-182.
17. Weiner SJ, Kollman PA, Case DA, Singh UC, Ghio C, Alagona G, Profeta SJr.,
Weiner, P. J. A new force field for molecular mechanical simulation of nucleic
acids and proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984;106,765-784.
18. Van Gunsteren WF, Berendsen HJC. The GROMOS User Manual. Gronongen.
1986.
19. Hermans J, Berendsen HJC, van Gunsteren WF, Postma JPM. A consistent
empirical potential for water-protein interactions. Biopolymers. 1984;23:1513-1518.
20. Ponder JW, Richards FM. An Efficient Newton-like Method for Molecular
Mechanics Energy Minimization of Large Molecules. J. Comput. Chem. 1987;8:1016-
1024.
21. Schlick T, Overton MA. Powerful truncated Newton method for potential energy
minimization. J. Comput. Chem. 1987;8:1025-1039.
22. Fletcher R. Practical Methods of Optimization, Unconstrained Optimization. Wiley.
New York, 1980;1:102-118.
23. Fletcher R, Reeves CM. Function Minimization by Conjugate Gradients. Comput.
J. 1964;7:149-154.
24. Morris GM, Goodsell DS, Halliday RS, Huey R, Hart WE, Belew RK, Olson AJ. J.
Comput. Chem. 1998;19:1639-1662.
25. Wang RX, Gao Y, Lai LH. LigBuilder: A Multi-Purpose Program for Structure-
Based Drug Design. J. Mol. Model. 2000;6:498-516.
26. Wang RX, Fang XL, Lu Y, Wang S. The PDB bind database: collection of binding
affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J. Med.
Chem. 2004;47:2977-2980.
27. Von Itzstein M, Dyason JC, Oliver SW, White HF, Wu WY, Kok GB, Pegg MS. A
study of the active site of influenza virus sialidase: an approach to the rational design of
novel anti-influenza drugs. J. Med. Chem. 1996;39:388-91.
28. Kaldor SW, Kalish VJ, Davies JF, Shetty BV, Fritz JE, Appelt K, Burgess JA,
Campanale KM, Chirgadze NY, Clawson DK, Dressman BA, Hatch SD, Khalil DA, Kosa
MB, Lubbehusen PP, Muesing MA, Patick AK, Reich SH, Su KS, Tatlock JH. Viracept
(nelfinavir mesylate, AG1343): a potent, orally bioavailable inhibitor of HIV-1 protease. J.
Med. Chem. 1997;40:3979-85.
23
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
29. Blackledge G. New developments in cancer treatment with the novel thymidylate
synthase inhibitor raltitrexed ('Tomudex'). Br. J. Cancer. 1998;2:29-37.
30. Adkins JC, Faulds D. Amprenavir. Drugs. 1998;55(6):837-842.
31. Schames JR, Henchman RH, Siegel JS, Sotriffer CA, Ni H, McCammon JA.
Discovery of a novel binding trench in HIV integrase. J. Med. Chem. 2004; 478:1879-
1881.
32. Hajduk PJ, Huth JR, and Tse C. Predicting protein druggability. Drug. Discov.
Today. 2005;10:1675-1682.
33. Fauman EB, Rai BK, and Huang ES. Structure-based druggability assessment-
identifying suitable targets for small molecule therapeutics. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol.
2011;15:463-468.
34. Laurie AT, Jackson RM. Methods for the prediction of protein-ligand binding sites
for structure-based drug design and virtual ligand screening. Curr. Protein. Pept. Sci.
2006;7:395-406.
35. Becker OM, Dhanoa DS, Marantz Y, Chen D, Shacham S, Cheruku S, Heifetz A,
Mohanty P, Fichman M, Sharadendu A. 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. 2006;49:3116-3135.
36. Warner SL, Bashyam S, Vankayalapati H, Bearss DJ, Han H, Mahadevan D, Von
Hoff DD, Hurley LH. Identification of a lead small-molecule inhibitor of the Aurora
kinases using a structure-assisted, fragment-based approach. Mol. Cancer. Ther.
2006;5:1764-1773.
37. Budzik B, Garzya V, Walker G, Woolley-Roberts M, Pardoe J, Lucas A, Tehan B,
Rivero RA, and Langmead CJ. Novel N-substituted benzimidazolones as potent, selective,
CNS-penetrant, and orally active M(1) mAChR agonists. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010;1:244-
248.
38. Buchan DW, Ward SM, Lobley AE, Nugent TC, Bryson K, and Jones DT. Protein
annotation and modelling servers at University College London. Nucleic. Acids. Res.
2010;38:563-568.
39. Martí-Renom MA, Stuart AC, Fiser A, Sánchez R, Melo F, and Sali A.
Comparative protein structure modeling of genes and genomes. Annu. Rev. Biophys.
Biomol. Struct. 2000;29:291-325.
40. Schlitter J, Engels M, Krüger P. Targeted molecular dynamics: a new approach for
searching pathways of conformational transitions. J. Mol. Graph. 1994;12:84-89.
24
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
25
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
26
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
27
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
82. Vedani A, Dobler M, Lill MA. Combining Protein Modeling and 6D-QSAR.
Simulating the Binding of Structurally Diverse Ligands to the Estrogen Receptor. J. Med.
Chem. 2005;48:3700-3703.
83. Wermuth CG. Pharmacophores: historical perspective and viewpoint from a
medicinal chemist, Pharmacophores and Pharmacophore Searches. Wiley-VCH Verlag
GmbH & Co, Weinheim, Germany. 2006;1-13.
84. Yang SY. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges
and recent advances. Drug. Discov. Today. 2010;15:444-450.
85. Wolber G, Seidel T, Bendix F, Langer T. Molecule-pharmacophore
superpositioning and pattern matching in computational drug design. Drug. Discov. Today.
2008;13:23-29.
86. Wang RX, Liu L, Lai L, Tang Y. SCORE: A new empirical method for estimating
the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex. J. Mol. Model. 1998;4:379-394.
87. Dixon SL, Smondyrev AM, Knoll EH, Rao SN, Shaw DE, Friesner RA. 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.
2006;20:647-671.
88. Kurogi Y, Güner OF. Pharmacophore modeling and three-dimensional database
searching for drug design using catalyst. Curr. Med. Chem. 2001;8:1035-1055.
89. Martin YC, Bures MG, Danaher EA, DeLazzer J, Lico I, Pavlik PA. A fast new
approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and
benzodiazepine agonists. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 1993;7:83-102.
90. Jones G, Willett P, Glen RC. A genetic algorithm for flexible molecular overlay
and pharmacophore elucidation. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 1995;9:532-549.
91. SYBYL/ UNITY4.0, Tripos Inc., 1699, S. Hanley Road, St. Louis, MO 63144-
2913, USA.
92. CATALYST, Accelrys, San Diago, USA.
93. Martin YC, Danaher EB, May CS, Weininger D. MENTHOR, a Database System for
the Storage and Retrieval of Three-Dimensional Molecular Structures and Associated
Data Searchable by substructural, biological, physical or geometric properties. J. Comput.
Aided Mol. Des. 1988; 2:15-29.
94. Christie BD, Henry DR, Guner OF, Moock TE. MACCS-3D: A tool for three
dimensional drug design, Online information, Molecular Design Limited. 1990;90:11-13.
28
Chapter 1 Computer Aided Drug Design: An Overview
95. Bartlett PA, Shea GT, Telfer SJ, Waterman S. Molecular Recognition: Chemical and
Biological Problems. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 1989;78:182-196.
96. CMC-3D: Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry 3D, Technical Datasheet,
Molecular Design Limited, San Leandro, Calif. Aug. 1990.
97. FCD-3D: The Three Dimensional version of The Fine Chemicals Directory.
Technical Datasheet, Molecular Design Limited, San Leandro, Calif. Sep. 1990.
98. Standard Drug File 3D Database from Chemical Design. Technical Datasheet,
Derwent Publications, Chemical Design Inc. Mahwah, N. J. Oct. 1992.
99. Bohm HJ. Ludi: Rule-Based Automatic Design of New Substituents for Enzyme
Inhibitor Leads. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 1992;6:593-606.
100. Rotstein SH, Murcko MA. Group build: A fragment-based method for de novo
drug design. J. Med. Chem. 1993;36;1700-1710.
101. DeWitte RS, Shakhnovich EI. SMoG: de Novo Design Method Based on Simple,
Fast, and Accurate Free Energy Estimates. 1. Methodology and Supporting Evidence. J.
Am. Chem. Soc. 1996;118:11733-11744.
102. Miranker A, Karplus M. Functionality Maps of Binding Sites: A Multiple Copy
Simultaneous Search Method. Proteins. Struct. Funct. Genet. 1991;11:29-34.
103. SYBYL, Ligand-Based Design Manual, Tripos Inc., St. Louis, MO.
29