Novel inhibitors design through structural investigations and simulation studies for human PKMTs (SMYD2) involved in cancer

References

• Luo M. Chemical and biochemical perspectives of protein lysine methylation. Chem Rev. 2018;118:6656–6705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer EL, Shi Y. Histone methylation: a dynamic mark in health, disease and inheritance. Nat Rev Genet. 2012;13:343–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eggert E, Hillig RC, Koehr S, et al. Discovery and characterization of a highly potent and selective aminopyrazoline-based in vivo probe (BAY-598) for the protein lysine methyltransferase SMYD2. J Med Chem. 2016;59:4578–4600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamamoto R, Saloura V, Nakamura Y. Critical roles of non-histone protein lysine methylation in human tumorigenesis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015;15:110–124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen H, Allali-Hassani A, Antonysamy S, et al. LLY-507, a cell-active, potent, and selective inhibitor of protein-lysine methyltransferase SMYD2. J Biol Chem. 2015;290:13641–13653.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang J, Perez-Burgos L, Placek BJ, et al. Repression of p53 activity by Smyd2-mediated methylation. Nature. 2006;444:629–632.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saddic LA, West LE, Aslanian A, et al. Methylation of the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor by SMYD2. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:37733–37740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho H-S, Hayami S, Toyokawa G, et al. RB1 methylation by SMYD2 enhances cell cycle progression through an increase of RB1 phosphorylation. Neoplasia. 2012;14:476–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voelkel T, Andresen C, Unger A, et al. Lysine methyltransferase Smyd2 regulates Hsp90-mediated protection of the sarcomeric titin springs and cardiac function. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1833:812–822.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakakido M, Deng Z, Suzuki T, et al. Dysregulation of AKT pathway by SMYD2-mediated lysine methylation on PTEN. Neoplasia. 2015;17:367–373.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Tanaka K, Yan J, et al. Regulation of estrogen receptor by histone methyltransferase SMYD2-mediated protein methylation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110:17284–17289.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li LX, Fan LX, Zhou JX, et al. Lysine methyltransferase SMYD2 promotes cyst growth in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. J Clin Invest. 2017;127:2751–2764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piao L, Kang D, Suzuki T, et al. The histone methyltransferase SMYD2 methylates PARP1 and promotes poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation activity in cancer cells. Neoplasia. 2014;16:257–264.e2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarrell DK, Hassell KN, Crans DC, et al. Characterizing the role of SMYD2 in mammalian embryogenesis – future directions. Vet Sci. 2020. [cited 2020 Aug 30]:7. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7357037/
   Google Scholar
• Yadav AK, Singh TR. Novel structural and functional impact of damaging single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on human SMYD2 protein using computational approaches. Meta Gene. 2021;28:100871.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houston DR, Walkinshaw MD. Consensus docking: improving the reliability of docking in a virtual screening context. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53:384–390.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shukla R, Singh TR. Virtual screening, pharmacokinetics, molecular dynamics and binding free energy analysis for small natural molecules against cyclin-dependent kinase 5 for Alzheimer’s disease. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2020;38:248–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aliebrahimi S, Montasser Kouhsari S, Ostad SN, et al. Identification of phytochemicals targeting c-Met kinase domain using consensus docking and molecular dynamics simulation studies. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2018;76:135–145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins. BMC Bioinform. 2015;16(S3.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar V, Krishna S, Siddiqi MI. Virtual screening strategies: recent advances in the identification and design of anti-cancer agents. Methods. 2015;71:64–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razzaghi-Asl N, Mirzayi S, Mahnam K, et al. Identification of COX-2 inhibitors via structure-based virtual screening and molecular dynamics simulation. J. Mol. Graph. 2018;83:138–152.
   Google Scholar
• Chu C-H, Wang L-Y, Hsu K-C, et al. KDM4B as a target for prostate cancer: structural analysis and selective inhibition by a novel inhibitor. J Med Chem. 2014;57:5975–5985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meng F, Cheng S, Ding H, et al. Discovery and optimization of novel, discovery and optimization of novel, selective histone methyltransferase SET7 inhibitors by pharmacophore- and docking-based virtual screening. J Med Chem. 2015;58:8166–8181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang S, Song C, Wang X, et al. Discovery of new SIRT2 inhibitors by utilizing a consensus docking/scoring strategy and structure-activity relationship analysis. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57:669–679.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Xu J, Li Y, et al. Identification of a novel protein arginine methyltransferase 5 inhibitor in non-small cell lung cancer by structure-based virtual screening. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9(173.
   Google Scholar
• Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, et al. UCSF chimera?A visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004;25:1605–1612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponder JW, Case DA. Advances in protein chemistry. Adv Protein Chem. 2003;66:27–85.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irwin JJ, Shoichet BK. ZINC − a free database of commercially available compounds for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2005;45:177–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31:455–461.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koes DR, Baumgartner MP, Camacho CJ. Lessons learned in empirical scoring with Smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53:1893–1904.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Leung K-S, Wong M-H. idock: a multithreaded virtual screening tool for flexible ligand docking. 2012 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (CIBCB) [Internet]. San Diego, CA, USA: IEEE; 2012 [cited 2020 Sep 3]. p. 77–84. Available from: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6217214/.
   Google Scholar
• Jaghoori MM, Bleijlevens B, Olabarriaga SD. Ways to run AutoDock Vina for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 1001;2016(30):237–249.
   Google Scholar
• Cheng F, Li W, Zhou Y, et al. admetSAR: a comprehensive source and free tool for assessment of chemical ADMET properties. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52:3099–3105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pires DEV, Blundell TL, Ascher DB. pkCSM: predicting small-molecule pharmacokinetic and toxicity properties using graph-based signatures. J Med Chem. 2015;58:4066–4072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Ai H, Chen W, et al. CarcinoPred-EL: Novel models for predicting the carcinogenicity of chemicals using molecular fingerprints and ensemble learning methods. Sci Rep. 2017;7:2118.
   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;30:2785–2791.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hess B, Kutzner C, van der Spoel D, et al. GROMACS 4: algorithms for highly efficient, load-balanced, and scalable molecular simulation. J Chem Theory Comput. 2008;4:435–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pronk S, Páll S, Schulz R, et al. GROMACS 4.5: a high-throughput and highly parallel open source molecular simulation toolkit. Bioinformatics. 2013;29:845–854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berendsen HJC, Grigera JR, Straatsma TP. The missing term in effective pair potentials. J Phys Chem. 1987;91:6269–6271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aw S, Dm van A. PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput crystallography of protein-ligand complexes. Acta Crystallographica. Section D, Biological crystallography. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr; 2004 [cited 2020 Nov 17]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15272157/.
   Google Scholar
• Huang W, Lin Z, van Gunsteren WF. Validation of the GROMOS 54A7 force field with respect to β-peptide folding. J Chem Theory Comput. 2011;7:1237–1243.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shukla R, Munjal NS, Singh TR. Identification of novel small molecules against GSK3β for Alzheimer’s disease using chemoinformatics approach. J Mol Graph. 2019;91:91–104.
   Google Scholar