4.7 Article

Complementarity between in Silico and Biophysical Screening Approaches in Fragment-Based Lead Discovery against the A2A Adenosine Receptor

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING
卷 53, 期 10, 页码 2701-2714

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ci4003156

关键词

-

资金

  1. Knut and Alice Wallenberg foundation
  2. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  3. Swedish e-Science Research Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fragment-based lead discovery (FBLD) is becoming an increasingly important method in drug development. We have explored the potential to complement NMR-based biophysical screening of chemical libraries with molecular docking in FBLD against the A(2A) adenosine receptor (A(2A)AR), a drug target for inflammation and Parkinson's disease. Prior to an NMR-based screen of a fragment library against the A(2A)AR, molecular docking against a crystal structure was used to rank the same set of molecules by their predicted affinities. Molecular docking was able to predict four out of the five orthosteric ligands discovered by NMR among the top 5% of the ranked library, suggesting that structure-based methods could be used to prioritize among primary hits from biophysical screens. In addition, three fragments that were top-ranked by molecular docking, but had not been picked up by the NMR-based method, were demonstrated to be A2AAR ligands. While biophysical approaches for fragment screening are typically limited to a few thousand compounds, the docking screen was extended to include 328,000 commercially available fragments. Twenty-two top-ranked compounds were tested in radioligand binding assays, and 14 of these were A(2A)AR ligands with K-i values ranging from 2 to 240 mu M. Optimization of fragments was guided by molecular dynamics simulations and free energy calculations. The results illuminate strengths and weaknesses of molecular docking and demonstrate that this method can serve as a valuable complementary tool to biophysical screening in FBLD.

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

4.7
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