4.4 Article

Let's not forget tautomers

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 693-704

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10822-009-9303-2

关键词

Tautomer; Drug design; Hydrophobicity; Protein recognition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A compound exhibits tautomerism if it can be represented by two structures that are related by an intramolecular movement of hydrogen from one atom to another. The different tautomers of a molecule usually have different molecular fingerprints, hydrophobicities and pKa's as well as different 3D shape and electrostatic properties; additionally, proteins frequently preferentially bind a tautomer that is present in low abundance in water. As a result, the proper treatment of molecules that can tautomerize, similar to 25% of a database, is a challenge for every aspect of computer-aided molecular design. Library design that focuses on molecular similarity or diversity might inadvertently include similar molecules that happen to be encoded as different tautomers. Physical property measurements might not establish the properties of individual tautomers with the result that algorithms based on these measurements may be less accurate for molecules that can tautomerize-this problem influences the accuracy of filtering for library design and also traditional QSAR. Any 2D or 3D QSAR analysis must involve the decision of if or how to adjust the observed K (i) or IC50 for the tautomerization equilibria. QSARs and recursive partitioning methods also involve the decision as to which tautomer(s) to use to calculate the molecular descriptors. Docking virtual screening must involve the decision as to which tautomers to include in the docking and how to account for tautomerization in the scoring. All of these decisions are more difficult because there is no extensive database of measured tautomeric ratios in both water and non-aqueous solvents and there is no consensus as to the best computational method to calculate tautomeric ratios in different environments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据