4.5 Article

QSAR, ADME-Tox, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations of novel selective glycine transporter type 1 inhibitors with memory enhancing properties

期刊

HELIYON
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13706

关键词

QSAR; GlyT1; ADME-Tox; CNS; DAT; Molecular docking; MD simulations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A structural class of forty GlyT1 inhibitors was studied using molecular modeling techniques. QSAR analysis showed that human GlyT1 activity is influenced by various descriptors. In silico pharmacokinetics predicted that L28 and L30 are non-toxic inhibitors with good ADME profiles and high permeability through the CNS. Molecular docking and MD simulation confirmed the specific binding of the predicted inhibitors to key amino acids of DAT, suggesting their potential as therapeutics for memory improvement.
A structural class of forty glycine transporter type 1 (GlyT1) inhibitors, was examined using molecular modeling techniques. The quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) tech-nology confirmed that human GlyT1 activity is strongly and significantly affected by constitu-tional, geometrical, physicochemical and topological descriptors. ADME-Tox in-silico pharmacokinetics revealed that L28 and L30 ligands were predicted as non-toxic inhibitors with a good ADME profile and the highest probability to penetrate the central nervous system (CNS). Molecular docking results indicated that the predicted inhibitors block GlyT1, reacting specif-ically with Phe319, Phe325, Tyr123, Tyr 124, Arg52, Asp475, Ala117, Ala479, Ile116 and Ile483 amino acids of the dopamine transporter (DAT) membrane protein. These results were qualified and strengthened using molecular dynamics (MD) study, which affirmed that the established intermolecular interactions for (L28, L30-DAT protein) complexes remain perfectly stable along 50 ns of MD simulation time. Therefore, they could be strongly recommended as therapeutics in medicine to improve memory performance.

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

4.5
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