Metadynamics for Perspective Drug Design: Computationally Driven Synthesis of New Protein–Protein Interaction Inhibitors Targeting the EphA2 Receptor

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 787-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Incerti ◽  
Simonetta Russo ◽  
Donatella Callegari ◽  
Daniele Pala ◽  
Carmine Giorgio ◽  
...  
Cell ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 163 (3) ◽  
pp. 594-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher D. Aakre ◽  
Julien Herrou ◽  
Tuyen N. Phung ◽  
Barrett S. Perchuk ◽  
Sean Crosson ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 957-968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonardo G. Ferreira ◽  
Glaucius Oliva ◽  
Adriano D. Andricopulo

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 393
Author(s):  
Sebastjan Kralj ◽  
Marko Jukič ◽  
Urban Bren

Since December 2019, the new SARS-CoV-2-related COVID-19 disease has caused a global pandemic and shut down the public life worldwide. Several proteins have emerged as potential therapeutic targets for drug development, and we sought out to review the commercially available and marketed SARS-CoV-2-targeted libraries ready for high-throughput virtual screening (HTVS). We evaluated the SARS-CoV-2-targeted, protease-inhibitor-focused and protein–protein-interaction-inhibitor-focused libraries to gain a better understanding of how these libraries were designed. The most common were ligand- and structure-based approaches, along with various filtering steps, using molecular descriptors. Often, these methods were combined to obtain the final library. We recognized the abundance of targeted libraries offered and complimented by the inclusion of analytical data; however, serious concerns had to be raised. Namely, vendors lack the information on the library design and the references to the primary literature. Few references to active compounds were also provided when using the ligand-based design and usually only protein classes or a general panel of targets were listed, along with a general reference to the methods, such as molecular docking for the structure-based design. No receptor data, docking protocols or even references to the applied molecular docking software (or other HTVS software), and no pharmacophore or filter design details were given. No detailed functional group or chemical space analyses were reported, and no specific orientation of the libraries toward the design of covalent or noncovalent inhibitors could be observed. All libraries contained pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS), rapid elimination of swill compounds (REOS) and aggregators, as well as focused on the drug-like model, with the majority of compounds possessing their molecular mass around 500 g/mol. These facts do not bode well for the use of the reviewed libraries in drug design and lend themselves to commercial drug companies to focus on and improve.


2020 ◽  
Vol 95 (4) ◽  
pp. 460-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Gentile ◽  
Ahmed H. Elmenoufy ◽  
Gloria Ciniero ◽  
David Jay ◽  
Feridoun Karimi‐Busheri ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 17 (21) ◽  
pp. 6404-6411 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaodong Zhang ◽  
Solange Moréra ◽  
Paul A. Bates ◽  
Philip C. Whitehead ◽  
Arnold I. Coffer ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 4188-4202 ◽  
Author(s):  
George M. Burslem ◽  
Hannah F. Kyle ◽  
Adam Nelson ◽  
Thomas A. Edwards ◽  
Andrew J. Wilson

The state of the art in identifying protein–protein interaction inhibitors of hypoxia inducible factor – a promising target for anticancer drug design – is described.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document