4.4 Article

Application of shape-based and pharmacophore-based in silico screens for identification of Type II protein kinase inhibitors

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 569-581

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10822-011-9442-0

关键词

Type II kinase inhibitors; Virtual screening; Pharmacophore; ROCS; Shape-based screening

资金

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
  2. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Development

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The identification of new, potent and selective inhibitors of important protein kinase targets is a major goal of drug discovery. Here we analyze the crystal structures of 55 protein kinase complexes with Type II inhibitors and find they adopt a conserved twisted V-shape, with an angle of 121 +/- A 8A degrees and twist of 78 +/- A 8A degrees. The tightly conserved twist appears important in ensuring ligands curve around the protein backbone and towards the deep pocket. From this, we develop predictive pharmacophore- and shape-based screens to identify Type II inhibitors from a database which also contains Type I inhibitors as decoys. Both approaches exhibit a good level of discrimination for Type II molecules. The most effective pharmacophore model requires six features and three excluded volume regions. Shape-based screening using ROCS generally performs at least as well as pharmacophore approaches. There is only a moderate dependence of shape-based or pharmacophore-based screens on the underlying conformer generator (MOE, Macromodel, Omega and SPE), as well as on ligand linkage chemistry (amide and urea). Finally, we apply our approach to retrieval of Type II inhibitors from a modified version of the DUD database, containing over 104,000 compounds. We observe good enrichment, providing further evidence that the in silico screens developed here will constitute useful guides for identification of small molecule inhibitors targetting protein kinases in their inactive conformational state.

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