Molecular modelling study on pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine derivatives as c-Met kinase inhibitors: a combined approach using molecular docking, 3D-QSAR modelling and molecular dynamics simulation

References

• WHO cancer fact sheets: WHO; 2018. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.
   Google Scholar
• Editorial. GLOBOCAN 2018: counting the toll of cancer. The Lancet. 2018;392(10152):985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vlahovic G, Crawford J. Activation of tyrosine kinases in cancer. Oncologist. 2003;8(6):531–538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bottaro DP, Rubin JS, Faletto DL, et al. Identification of the hepatocyte growth factor receptor as the c-met proto-oncogene product. Science. 1991 Feb 15;251(4995):802–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naldini L, Weidner KM, Vigna E, et al. Scatter factor and hepatocyte growth factor are indistinguishable ligands for the MET receptor. EMBO J. 1991 Oct;10(10):2867–2878.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Furge KA, Zhang YW, Vande Woude GF. Met receptor tyrosine kinase: enhanced signaling through adapter proteins. Oncogene. 2000 Nov 20;19(49):5582–5589.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trusolino L, Comoglio PM. Scatter-factor and semaphorin receptors: cell signalling for invasive growth. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002 Apr;2(4):289–300.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birchmeier C, Birchmeier W, Gherardi E, et al. Met, metastasis, motility and more. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2003 Dec;4(12):915–925.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sierra JR. Tsao MS. c-MET as a potential therapeutic target and biomarker in cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2011 Nov;3(Suppl. 1):S21–S35.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Graveel CR, Tolbert D, Vande Woude GF. MET: a critical player in tumorigenesis and therapeutic target. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013 Jul 1;5(7):a009209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma PC, Maulik G, Christensen J, et al. c-Met: structure, functions and potential for therapeutic inhibition. Cancer Metast Rev. 2003 Dec;22(4):309–325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho-Yen CM, Jones JL, Kermorgant S. The clinical and functional significance of c-Met in breast cancer: a review. Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Apr 8;17:52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim YC, Kang HJ, Moon JH. C-Met pathway promotes self-renewal and tumorigenecity of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma stem-like cell. Oral Oncol. 2014 Jul;50(7):633–639.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park CH, Cho SY, Ha JD, et al. Novel c-Met inhibitor suppresses the growth of c-Met-addicted gastric cancer cells. BMC Cancer. 2016 Jan 22;16:35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruco L, Scarpino S. The pathogenetic role of the HGF/c-Met system in papillary carcinoma of the thyroid. Biomedicines. 2014 Oct 24;2(4):263–274.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berthou S, Aebersold DM, Schmidt LS, et al. The Met kinase inhibitor SU11274 exhibits a selective inhibition pattern toward different receptor mutated variants. Oncogene. 2004 Jul 8;23(31):5387–5393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dussault I, Bellon SF. c-Met inhibitors with different binding modes: two is better than one. Cell Cycle. 2008 May 1;7(9):1157–1160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parikh PK, Ghate MD. Recent advances in the discovery of small molecule c-Met kinase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2018 Jan 1;143:1103–1138.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang QW, Ye ZD, Shi L. c-Met kinase inhibitors: an update patent review (2014–2017). Expert Opin Ther Pat. 2019 Jan;29(1):25–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li S, Huang Q, Liu Y, et al. Design, synthesis and antitumour activity of bisquinoline derivatives connected by 4-oxy-3-fluoroaniline moiety. Eur J Med Chem. 2013 Jun;64:62–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao S, Zhang Y, Zhou H, et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of 4-(2-fluorophenoxy)-3,3'-bipyridine derivatives as potential c-met inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2016 Sep 14;120:37–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang Q, Wang L, Duan Y, et al. Discovery of novel 7-azaindole derivatives bearing dihydropyridazine moiety as c-Met kinase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2017 Jun 16;133:97–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tang Q, Wang L, Tu Y, et al. Discovery of novel pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine derivatives bearing 1,2,3-triazole moiety as c-Met kinase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2016 Apr 1;26(7):1680–1684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang LX, Liu X, Xu S, et al. Discovery of novel pyrrolo-pyridine/pyrimidine derivatives bearing pyridazinone moiety as c-Met kinase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2017 Dec 1;141:538–551.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu W, Wang W, Xu S, et al. Design, synthesis, and docking studies of phenylpicolinamide derivatives bearing 1H-pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine moiety as c-Met inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem. 2016 Feb 15;24(4):812–819.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu W, Wang W, Xu S, et al. Synthesis, and docking studies of phenylpyrimidine-carboxamide derivatives bearing 1H-pyrrolo[2,3-b]pyridine moiety as c-Met inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem. 2016 Apr 15;24(8):1749–1756.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem. 2014;57(12):4977–5010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paola G. Principles of QSAR Modeling: comments and suggestions from personal experience. Int J Quant Struct Prop Relat. 2020;5(3):1–37.
   Google Scholar
• John CD. The history and development of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs). Int J Quant Struct Prop Relat. 2016;1(1):1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Muratov EN, Bajorath J, Sheridan RP, et al. QSAR without borders [10.1039/D0CS00098A]. Chem Soc Rev. 2020;49(11):3525–3564.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma J, Khedkar VM, Coutinho EC. 3D-QSAR in drug design–a review. Curr Top Med Chem. 2010;10(1):95–115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durrant JD, McCammon JA. Molecular dynamics simulations and drug discovery. BMC Biol. 2011 Oct 28;9:71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark M, Cramer RD, Van Opdenbosch N. Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field. J Comput Chem. 1989;10(8):982–1012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gasteiger J, Marsili M. Iterative partial equalization of orbital electronegativity – a rapid access to atomic charges. Tetrahedron. 1980;36(22):3219–3228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qian F, Engst S, Yamaguchi K, et al. Inhibition of tumor cell growth, invasion, and metastasis by EXEL-2880 (XL880, GSK1363089), a novel inhibitor of HGF and VEGF receptor tyrosine kinases. Cancer Res. 2009 Oct 15;69(20):8009–8016.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sali A, Blundell TL. Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints. J Mol Biol. 1993 Dec 5;234(3):779–815.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb B, Sali A. Comparative protein structure modeling using MODELLER. Curr Protoc Bioinform. 2016 Jun 20;54(5):37.
   Google Scholar
• Shen M-Y, Sali A. Statistical potential for assessment and prediction of protein structures. Protein Sci. 2006;15(11):2507–2524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Melo F, Sánchez R, Sali A. Statistical potentials for fold assessment. Protein Sci. 2002;11(2):430–448.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris GM, Huey R, Lindstrom W, et al. Autodock4 and AutoDockTools4: automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J Comput Chem. 2009 Dec;30(16):2785–2791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schrodinger LLC. The PyMOL molecular graphics system, version 1.8; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Abbasi M, Sadeghi-Aliabadi H, Amanlou M. 3D-QSAR, molecular docking, and molecular dynamic simulations for prediction of new Hsp90 inhibitors based on isoxazole scaffold. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2018 May;36(6):1463–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc. 1988 Aug 1;110(18):5959–5967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stahle L, Wold S. Multivariate data analysis and experimental design in biomedical research. Prog Med Chem. 1988;25:291–338.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T. Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J Med Chem. 1994 Nov 25;37(24):4130–4146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cramer RD, Bunce JD, Patterson DE, et al. Crossvalidation, bootstrapping, and partial least squares compared with multiple regression in conventional QSAR studies. Quant Struct-Act Relat. 1988;7(1):18–25.
   Google Scholar
• Roy PP, Leonard JT, Roy K. Exploring the impact of size of training sets for the development of predictive QSAR models. Chemometr Intellig Lab Syst. 2008;90(1):31–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baroni M, Costantino G, Cruciani G, et al. Generating optimal linear PLS estimations (GOLPE): an advanced chemometric tool for handling 3D-QSAR problems. Quant Struct Act Relat. 1993;12(1):9–20.
   Google Scholar
• Roy PP, Roy K. On some aspects of variable selection for partial least squares regression models. QSAR Comb Sci. 2008;27(3):302–313.
   Google Scholar
• Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK. The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb Sci. 2003;22(1):69–77.
   Google Scholar
• Golbraikh A, Tropsha A. Beware of q2!. J Mol Graph Model. 2002 Jan;20(4):269–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy K, Das RN, Ambure P, et al. Be aware of error measures. further studies on validation of predictive QSAR models. Chemometr Intellig Lab Syst. 2016;152:18–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy K, Ambure P, Aher RB. How important is to detect systematic error in predictions and understand statistical applicability domain of QSAR models? Chemometr Intellig Lab Syst. 2017;162:44–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy K, Kar S, Ambure P. On a simple approach for determining applicability domain of QSAR models. Chemometr Intellig Lab Syst. 2015;145:22–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abraham MJ, Murtola T, Schulz R, et al. GROMACS: high performance molecular simulations through multi-level parallelism from laptops to supercomputers. SoftwareX. 2015;1-2:19–25.
   Google Scholar
• Huang W, Lin Z, van Gunsteren WF. Validation of the GROMOS 54A7 force field with respect to beta-peptide folding. J Chem Theory Comput. 2011 May 10;7(5):1237–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malde AK, Zuo L, Breeze M, et al. An automated force field topology builder (ATB) and repository: version 1.0. J Chem Theory Comput. 2011 Dec 13;7(12):4026–4037.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berendsen HJC, Postma JPM, Gunsteren WF, et al. Molecular dynamics with coupling to an external bath. J Chem Phys. 1984;81(8):3684–3690.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Essmann U, Perera L, Berkowitz ML, et al. A smooth particle mesh Ewald method. J Chem Phys. 1995;103(19):8577–8593.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess B. P-LINCS: a parallel linear constraint solver for molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput. 2008 Jan;4(1):116–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bussi G, Donadio D, Parrinello M. Canonical sampling through velocity rescaling. J Chem Phys. 2007 Jan 7;126(1):014101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parrinello M, Rahman A. Polymorphic transitions in single crystals: a new molecular dynamics method. J Appl Phys. 1981;52(12):7182–7190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumari R, Kumar R, Lynn A. G_mmpbsa – a GROMACS tool for high-throughput MM-PBSA calculations. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54(7):1951–1962.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar