4.4 Review

Design and Screening Strategies for alpha-Glucosidase Inhibitors Based on Enzymological Information

期刊

CURRENT TOPICS IN MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 3-12

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/156802609787354306

关键词

alpha-glucosidase; substrate specificity; inhibitor; HTS; virtual screening; in silico; structure based drug design

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture [17790097]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

alpha-Glucosidase inhibitors are marketed as therapeutic drugs for diabetes that act through the inhibition of carbohydrate metabolism. Inhibitors of the alpha-glucosidases that are involved in the biosynthesis of N-linked oligosaccharide chains have been reported to have antitumor, antiviral, and apoptosis-inducing activities, and some have been used clinically. alpha-Glucosidase inhibitors have interesting biological activities, and their design, synthesis, and screening are being actively performed. In quite a few reports, however, alpha-glucosidases with different origins than the target alpha-glucosidases, have been used to evaluate inhibitory activities. There might be confusion regarding the naming of alpha-glucosidases. For example, the term alpha-glucosidase is sometimes used as a generic name for alpha-glucoside hydrolases. Moreover, IUBMB recommends the use of alpha-glucosidase (EC 3.2.1.20) for exo-alpha-1,4-glucosidases, which are further classified into four families based on amino acid sequence similarities. Accordingly, substrate specificity and susceptibility to inhibitors varies markedly among enzymes in the IUBMB alpha-glucosidases. The design and screening of inhibitors without consideration of these differences is not efficient. For the development of a practical inhibitor that is operational in cells, HTS using the target alpha-glucosidase and the computer-aided design of inhibitors based on enzymatic information concerning the same alpha-glucosidase are essential.

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