3.8 Article

Discovery of novel inhibitors for c-Met by virtual screening and pharmacophore analysis

出版社

CHINESE INST CHEMICAL ENGINEER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcice.2008.05.009

关键词

c-Met; Tyrosine kinase; Docking; Pharmacophore; Acceptor; Inhibitors

资金

  1. National Science Council of China Taiwan [NSC 96-2320-B-039-014-MY2]
  2. China Medical University [CMU 96-239, CMU 96-178]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The overexpression of human c-Met tyrosine kinase induces the tumor proliferation and migration. Commercial drug is still not available for inhibiting this target. The structure of human c-Met was simulated and validated by molecular modeling. Compounds from our laboratory database, including natural products and anticancer agents, were employed for the docking analysis. De Novo drug design was further performed for three compounds with highest DockScore value to discover the novel inhibitors. Through the adsorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity (ADMET) descriptor, only compounds A(2), B-3, C-2 and C-5 were selected. Through the pharmacophore analysis. AGR1086, HIS1088, AGR1208, ASN1209, ALA1226. ARG1227, ASP1228, TYR1230, and GLU1233 were suggested as the key residues because of strong pharmacophore features. In addition, the pharmacophore features of candidates consisted with the active site properties. The added fragments produced the strong interaction with the surrounding residues and yielded hydrogen bonds (HBs). Thus, the interaction energy between the ligand and the receptor was enhanced. Besides, the values of several scoring functions (PLP1, PLP2, and DockScore) of candicates were comparatively higher than compounds A. B. C. and Kirin. According to the aforementioned analyses, compounds A, A(2), B, B-3, C, C-2 and C-5 were suggested as the potent c-Met inhibitors. Besides, the scaffolds of compounds A, B, and C provided the direction for further drug design. (C) 2008 Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

3.8
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