4.6 Article

Linear Interaction Energy Based Prediction of Cytochrome P450 1A2 Binding Affinities with Reliability Estimation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142232

关键词

-

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (IMI-JU) [115002]
  2. European Union
  3. Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO, VIDI) [723.012.105]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prediction of human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) binding affinities of small ligands, i.e., substrates and inhibitors, represents an important task for predicting drug-drug interactions. A quantitative assessment of the ligand binding affinity towards different CYPs can provide an estimate of inhibitory activity or an indication of isoforms prone to interact with the substrate of inhibitors. However, the accuracy of global quantitative models for CYP substrate binding or inhibition based on traditional molecular descriptors can be limited, because of the lack of information on the structure and flexibility of the catalytic site of CYPs. Here we describe the application of a method that combines protein-ligand docking, Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations and Linear Interaction Energy (LIE) theory, to allow for quantitative CYP affinity prediction. Using this combined approach, a LIE model for human CYP 1A2 was developed and evaluated, based on a structurally diverse dataset for which the estimated experimental uncertainty was 3.3 kJ mol(-1). For the computed CYP 1A2 binding affinities, the model showed a root mean square error (RMSE) of 4.1 kJ mol(-1) and a standard error in prediction (SDEP) in cross-validation of 4.3 kJ mol(-1). A novel approach that includes information on both structural ligand description and protein-ligand interaction was developed for estimating the reliability of predictions, and was able to identify compounds from an external test set with a SDEP for the predicted affinities of 4.6 kJ mol(-1) (corresponding to 0.8 pKi units).

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

4.6
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