The Psychonauts’ Benzodiazepines; Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) Analysis and Docking Prediction of Their Biological Activity

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Designer benzodiazepines (DBZDs) represent a serious health concern and are increasingly reported in polydrug consumption-related fatalities. When new DBZDs are identified, very limited information is available on their pharmacodynamics. Here, computational models (i.e., quantitative structure-activity relationship/QSAR and Molecular Docking) were used to analyse DBZDs identified online by an automated web crawler (NPSfinder®) and to predict their possible activity/affinity on the gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptors (GABA-ARs). The computational software MOE was used to calculate 2D QSAR models, perform docking studies on crystallised GABA-A receptors (6HUO, 6HUP) and generate pharmacophore queries from the docking conformational results. 101 DBZDs were identified online by NPSfinder®. The validated QSAR model predicted high biological activity values for 41% of these DBDZs. These predictions were supported by the docking studies (good binding affinity) and the pharmacophore modelling confirmed the importance of the presence and location of hydrophobic and polar functions identified by QSAR. This study confirms once again the importance of web-based analysis in the assessment of drug scenarios (DBZDs), and how computational models could be used to acquire fast and reliable information on biological activity for index novel DBZDs, as preliminary data for further investigations.

Related collections

Most cited references 66

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

Beware of q2!

Alexander Golbraikh, Alexander Tropsha (2002)

0 comments Cited 372 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?

Dávid Bajusz, Anita Rácz, Károly Héberger (2015)

Background Cheminformaticians are equipped with a very rich toolbox when carrying out molecular similarity calculations. A large number of molecular representations exist, and there are several methods (similarity and distance metrics) to quantify the similarity of molecular representations. In this work, eight well-known similarity/distance metrics are compared on a large dataset of molecular fingerprints with sum of ranking differences (SRD) and ANOVA analysis. The effects of molecular size, selection methods and data pretreatment methods on the outcome of the comparison are also assessed. Results A supplier database (https://mcule.com/) was used as the source of compounds for the similarity calculations in this study. A large number of datasets, each consisting of one hundred compounds, were compiled, molecular fingerprints were generated and similarity values between a randomly chosen reference compound and the rest were calculated for each dataset. Similarity metrics were compared based on their ranking of the compounds within one experiment (one dataset) using sum of ranking differences (SRD), while the results of the entire set of experiments were summarized on box and whisker plots. Finally, the effects of various factors (data pretreatment, molecule size, selection method) were evaluated with analysis of variance (ANOVA). Conclusions This study complements previous efforts to examine and rank various metrics for molecular similarity calculations. Here, however, an entirely general approach was taken to neglect any a priori knowledge on the compounds involved, as well as any bias introduced by examining only one or a few specific scenarios. The Tanimoto index, Dice index, Cosine coefficient and Soergel distance were identified to be the best (and in some sense equivalent) metrics for similarity calculations, i.e. these metrics could produce the rankings closest to the composite (average) ranking of the eight metrics. The similarity metrics derived from Euclidean and Manhattan distances are not recommended on their own, although their variability and diversity from other similarity metrics might be advantageous in certain cases (e.g. for data fusion). Conclusions are also drawn regarding the effects of molecule size, selection method and data pretreatment on the ranking behavior of the studied metrics. Graphical Abstract A visual summary of the comparison of similarity metrics with sum of ranking differences (SRD). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-015-0069-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.