An explorative study on potent Gram-negative specific LpxC inhibitors: CoMFA, CoMSIA, HQSAR and molecular docking

References

• Brown MF, Reilly U, Abramite JA, et al. Potent inhibitors of LpxC for the treatment of Gram-negative infections. J Med Chem. 2012;55:914–923.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gennadios HA, Whittington DA, Li X, et al. Mechanistic inferences from the binding of ligands to LpxC, a metal-dependent deacetylase. Biochemistry. 2006;45:7940–7948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghasemi JB, Safavi-Sohi R, Barbosa EG. 4D-LQTA-QSAR and docking study on potent gram-negative specific LpxC inhibitors: a comparison to CoMFA modeling. Mol Divers. 2012;16:203–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mansoor UF, Vitharana D, Reddy PA, et al. Design and synthesis of potent Gram-negative specific LpxC inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2011;21:1155–1161.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou P, Barb AW. Mechanism and inhibition of LpxC: an essential zinc-dependent deacetylase of bacterial lipid A synthesis. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2008;9:9–15.
   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;110:5959–5967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google 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;37:4130–4146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowis DR. HQSAR: a new, highly predictive QSAR technique. Tripos Tech Notes. 1997;1:17.
   Google Scholar
• Dunbar JB, Jr., Smith RD, Damm-Ganamet KL, et al. CSAR data set release 2012: ligands, affinities, complexes, and docking decoys. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53:1842–1852.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennard RW, Stone LA. Computer aided design of experiments. Technometrics. 1969;11:137–148.
   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;10:982–1012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiri F, Rakhshani-morad S, Samzadeh-kermani A, et al. Computer-aided molecular design of some indolinone derivatives of PLK4 inhibitors as novel anti-proliferative agents. Med Chem Res. 2016;25:2643–2665.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shiri F, Teymoori M. In silico approaches to explore structure of new GPR 119 agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med Chem Res. 2017;26:947–961.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang Y, Lu Y, Zang X, et al. 3D-QSAR and docking studies of flavonoids as potent Escherichia coli inhibitors. Sci Rep. 2016;6:1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pirhadi S, Ghasemi JB. 3D-QSAR analysis of human immunodeficiency virus entry-1 inhibitors by CoMFA and CoMSIA. Eur J Med Chem. 2010;45:4897–4903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang R, Gao Y, Liu L, et al. All-orientation search and all-placement search in comparative molecular field analysis. J Mol Model. 1998;4:276–283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghasemi JB, Shiri F. Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR studies of falcipain inhibitors using CoMFA, CoMSIA, and Open3DQSAR. Med Chem Res. 2012;21:2788–2806.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunick C, Lauenroth K, Wieking K, et al. Evaluation and comparison of 3D-QSAR CoMSIA models for CDK1, CDK5, and GSK-3 inhibition by paullones. J Med Chem. 2004;47:22–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong W, Lowis DR, Perkins R, et al. Evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationship methods for large-scale prediction of chemicals binding to the estrogen receptor. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 1998;38:669–677.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Doddareddy MR, Lee YJ, Cho YS, et al. Hologram quantitative structure activity relationship studies on 5-HT 6 antagonists. Bioorg Med Chem. 2004;12:3815–3824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ugarkar AG, Ambre PK, Coutinho EC, et al. Extracting structural requirements for activity of GPR119 agonists: a hologram quantitative structure activity relationship (HQSAR) study. Can J Chem. 2014;92:670–676.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst. 2001;58:109–130.
   Web of Science ®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. Mol Inform. 2003;22:69–77.
   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
• 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
• Cramer RD, Bunce JD, Patterson DE, et al. Crossvalidation, bootstrapping, and partial least squares compared with multiple regression in conventional QSAR studies. Mol Inform. 1988;7:18–25.
   Google Scholar
• Ekins S, Andreyev S, Ryabov A, et al. A combined approach to drug metabolism and toxicity assessment. Drug Metab Dispos. 2006;34:495–503.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norinder U, Bergström CA. Prediction of ADMET properties. ChemMedChem. 2006;1:920–937.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, et al. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 1997;23:3–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander T, Freyss J, von Korff M, et al. DataWarrior: an open-source program for chemistry aware data visualization and analysis. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55:460–473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopkins AL, Keserü GM, Leeson PD, et al. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:105–121.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuntz I, Chen K, Sharp K, et al. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1999;96:9997–10002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leeson PD, Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007;6:881–890.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keserü GM, Makara GM. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009;8:203–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar