A key question confronting computational chemists concerns the preferable ligand geometry that fits complementarily into the receptor pocket. Typically, the postulated ‘bioactive’ 3D ligand conformation is constructed as a ‘sophisticated guess’ (unnecessarily geometry-optimized) mirroring the pharmacophore hypothesis—sometimes based on an erroneous prerequisite. Hence, 4D-QSAR scheme and its ‘dialects’ have been practically implemented as higher level of model abstraction that allows the examination of the multiple molecular conformation, orientation and protonation representation, respectively. Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since the eminent work of Hopfinger appeared on the stage; therefore the natural question occurs whether 4D-QSAR approach is still appealing to the scientific community? With no intention to be comprehensive, a review of the current state of art in the field of receptor-independent (RI) and receptor-dependent (RD) 4D-QSAR methodology is provided with a brief examination of the ‘mainstream’ algorithms. In fact, a myriad of 4D-QSAR methods have been implemented and applied practically for a diverse range of molecules. It seems that, 4D-QSAR approach has been experiencing a promising renaissance of interests that might be fuelled by the rising power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) clusters applied to full-atom MD-based simulations of the protein-ligand complexes.
Numerical modeling of 2D seismic wave propagation in fluid saturated porous media using graphics processing unit (GPU): Study case of realistic simple structural hydrocarbon trap
