4.7 Article

Investigation of Phospholipase Cγ1 Interaction with SLP76 Using Molecular Modeling Methods for Identifying Novel Inhibitors

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20194721

关键词

phospholipase C gamma 1; SLP76; virtual screening; pharmacophore mapping; molecular docking; molecular dynamics

资金

  1. Institut National Contre le Cancer (INCA)
  2. Region Pays de la Loire
  3. Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)
  4. INCa PLBIO-2018
  5. Ligue contre le cancer equipe labellisee 2016-2019
  6. Fondation ARC 2017-2019
  7. [ANR-17-CE15-0027]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The enzyme phospholipase C gamma 1 (PLC gamma 1) has been identified as a potential drug target of interest for various pathological conditions such as immune disorders, systemic lupus erythematosus, and cancers. Targeting its SH3 domain has been recognized as an efficient pharmacological approach for drug discovery against PLC gamma 1. Therefore, for the first time, a combination of various biophysical methods has been employed to shed light on the atomistic interactions between PLC gamma 1 and its known binding partners. Indeed, molecular modeling of PLC gamma 1 with SLP76 peptide and with previously reported inhibitors (ritonavir, anethole, daunorubicin, diflunisal, and rosiglitazone) facilitated the identification of the common critical residues (Gln805, Arg806, Asp808, Glu809, Asp825, Gly827, and Trp828) as well as the quantification of their interaction through binding energies calculations. These features are in agreement with previous experimental data. Such an in depth biophysical analysis of each complex provides an opportunity to identify new inhibitors through pharmacophore mapping, molecular docking and MD simulations. From such a systematic procedure, a total of seven compounds emerged as promising inhibitors, all characterized by a strong binding with PLC gamma 1 and a comparable or higher binding affinity to ritonavir (G(bind) < -25 kcal/mol), one of the most potent inhibitor reported till now.

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

4.7
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