Journal of Molecular Pharmaceutics & Organic Process Research
Open Access

Medication design; Therapeutic leads; Proteomic; Genomic; Drug lead discovery

Introduction

Many structural biologists had unfulfilled dreams of exploiting protein structures to rationally develop medications at the beginning of the 1980s. By the early 1990s, the first success stories had been published after the initial projects had been started in the middle of the 1980s [1]. Structure-based drug design is now an essential component of most industrial drug discovery programmes and the main focus of many academic laboratories' research, despite the fact that there is still a lot of fine-tuning to be done to perfect the process.

Structure-based drug design has an increased chance of contributing to the success story in the identification of novel drug leads as a result of the completion of the human genome project, the beginning of the proteomics and structural genomics revolutions, and advancements in information technology. The use of bioinformatics advancements has boosted the rate at which excellent drug targets are discovered [2]. These targets' genes can be rapidly cloned, and the protein can be produced, purified, and homogenised. The time it takes to determine structures has been sped up because to improvements in high-throughput crystallography, including automation at every stage, more powerful synchrotron radiation, and novel techniques for phase determination. Improvements in magnet and probe design, automated assignment, and novel experimental techniques for determining larger structures are just a few of the advancements in structure determination using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) that has occurred in recent years [3]. speed at which drug leads can be identified and assessed in silico has increased because to faster computers and the availability of reasonably priced clusters of computers.

The most effective use of structure-based drug design is when it is integrated into the entire process of finding new therapeutic leads. According to a review, structure-based design combined with combinatorial chemistry can result in the parallel synthesis of targeted chemical libraries [4]. The discovery of a drug lead, which is not a drug product but rather a chemical having at least micro molar affinity for a target, is guided by structure-based drug design. It's possible that the time spent on the structure-based drug design process, as described in this paper, makes only a small portion of the overall time required to create a marketable drug product. It may take several years of research to turn a drug lead into a medication that the body will accept and that is also effective. It will take several more years of study and development to get the drug through clinical trials and onto the market.

An overview of the structure-based drug design process, from target selection to the creation and assessment of lead compounds, is what this review aims to do [5]. We won't go into great detail about or evaluate the computational techniques used in drug discovery here because reviews on that topic have already been done.

Description of the Procedure

Before a lead is optimised and entered into phase I clinical trials, the structure-based drug design process iteratively involves numerous cycles. Cloning, purification, and structure determination of the target protein or nucleic acid are all part of the first cycle. These steps are done using one of three main techniques: X-ray crystallography, NMR, or homology modelling [6]. Compounds or fragments of compounds are placed into a chosen section of the structure by computer algorithms using data from a database. Based on their steric and electrostatic interactions with the target site, these chemicals are graded and sorted, and the top chemicals are then examined using biochemical assays. Structure analysis of the target in association with a potential lead from the first cycle—one that demonstrated at least micro molar inhibition in vitro—in the second cycle identifies spots on the chemical that can be improved for greater potency [7]. The lead compound must go through additional cycles of synthesis, structure determination for the new target lead complex, and lead compound improvement. The drug design process involves numerous cycles, and the improved molecules typically exhibit a noticeable improvement in binding and frequently in specificity for the target.

Techniques of Drug Design

A good lead can be developed in a number of ways depending on the target's structure once the structure and target site have been determined. These routes can be roughly divided into computer-aided and experimental categories. The main emphasis of this review will be computer-aided techniques [8]. Contrarily, one illustration of an experimental method is high-throughput screening with combinatorial chemistry, in which the biochemical effects of thousands of compounds are examined.

Inspection, virtual screening, and de novo generation are at least three additional categories into which the computer-aided methods can be divided. In the first category, inspection, well-known molecules that bind the site, such as enzyme substrates or cofactors or peptides in the case of protein: protein or protein: nucleic acid interactions, are modified to become inhibitors based on maximising complementary interactions in the target site [9]. Virtual screening involves docking databases of accessible small molecules into the region of interest in silico and scoring them according to the predicted interactions with the site. Last but not least, small molecular fragments like benzene rings, carbonyl groups, amino groups, etc. are placed in the site, scored, and linked in silico for de novo production. The linked fragments must then be synthesised in the lab to form the final molecules, which were created in silico [10]. The virtual screening and de novo generation classifications overlap to some extent. Some algorithms, like LUDI, which is typically used to dock compound fragments, may also dock and score whole compounds. The programmes are categorised based on their main purpose.

There are numerous top-notch software programmes for drug design that are capable of virtual screening or from scratch creation. This review will concentrate on a select few of the key considerations for choosing a lead generation strategy. For more reading, there are indepth reviews of the software that are readily available.

The following are crucial considerations when selecting a lead generating strategy: Are there any chemicals that can be altered to act as inhibitors? Is it possible to create new molecules? And, last, to what extent does accuracy matter in relation to computation time at different stages of the design process? The time required for the computation is increased but the predictive value is also increased by elements like the inclusion of protein or ligand flexibility and the impact of solvent [11]. The answers to each of these queries will be presented in relation to current drug design algorithms.

Drug Lead Analysis

Before moving on to the next step, a tiny molecule that has the potential to bind to the target molecule must be assessed. The target: ligand interaction model is necessarily an approximation, it is crucial to keep in mind that the ranking given by the scoring function is not always indicative of a true binding constant. Typically, descriptions of the solvent impact and the effects of target and ligand flexibility are vague [12]. Since even the top-scoring molecule could falter in in vitro tests, many compounds that performed well during the docking run are typically investigated in additional experiments. Leads are first assessed visually using computer graphics, and this stage is frequently where they are optimised for greater affinity [13]. The "Rule of 5" states that good leads typically have less than five hydrogen bond donors and less than ten hydrogen bond acceptors, a molecular weight less than 500, and a calculated log of the partition coefficient less than 5. This rule is used to assess the likelihood that leads will be orally bioavailable. By bringing the conformational entropy of the unbound state closer to the bound state's presumed very low conformational entropy, lead rigidification can also result in a decreased binding constant [14]. To increase the possibility of oral absorption, the number of rotatable bonds should be less than 10. The decision to move forward with a particular candidate lead can also be influenced by additional criteria, such as chemical and metabolic stability, as well as synthesis simplicity. Leads are finally taken into the wet lab for biochemical analysis [15-20].

The exact binding mode is determined by restarting the structure determination procedure on promising leads, and any apparent additional optimization is evaluated. The anticipated and actual binding modes of a few designed leads have differed significantly, but in many cases, the docked and experimental conformations are within 2 rmsd.

Conclusion

When utilised as a weapon in a toolbox, structure-based drug design is a potent technique for finding new therapeutic leads against significant targets. New leads can be developed using chemical principles or selected from a selection of small compounds that performed well when docked in silico against the target after a target and its structure have been selected. The candidate leads continue in an iterative process of re-entering structural determination and re-evaluation for optimization after a preliminary assessment of bioavailability. On the basis of the structure-based lead, focused libraries of synthesised compounds can produce a very promising lead that can proceed to phase I clinical trials.

More achievements in structure-based medication design are anticipated to follow as structural genomics, bioinformatics, and computational power continue to burst with new discoveries. We are getting better at capturing a quantitative picture of the interactions between macromolecules and ligands as new targets are discovered, their structures are being defined at an astounding rate, and this process is accelerating every year.

Acknowledgement

None

1. Roberts N,Martin J,Kinchington D,Broadhurst A,Craig J,et al. (1990) Rational design of peptide-based HIV proteinase inhibitors. Science248: 358-361.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Erickson J,Neidhart D,VanDrie J,Kempf D,Wang X,et al. (1990) Design, activity and 2.8 Å crystal structure of a C2 symmetric inhibitor complexed to HIV-1 protease. Science249: 527-533

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Dorsey BD,Levin RB, McDaniel SL, Vacca JP, Guare JP,et al. (1994) L-735,524:the design of a potent and orally available hiv protease inhibitor. J Med Chem37:3443-3451.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Mountain V (2003) Astex, Structural Genomix, and Syrrx Chem. Biol10: 95-98.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Zheng D,Huang Y,Moseley H,Xiao R,Aramini J,et al. (2003) Automated protein fold determination using a minimal NMR constraint strategy. Protein Sci12: 1232-1246.

Google Scholar, Crossref , Indexed at

6. Oezguen N, Adamian L,Xu Y,Rajarathnam K,Braun K (2002) Automated assignment and 3D structure calculations using combinations of 2D homonuclear and 3D heteronuclear NOESY spectra. J Biomol NMR22: 249-263.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

7. Bailey-Kellogg C,Widge A,Kelley J,Berardi M,Bushweller J,et al. (2000) The NOESY jigsaw: automated protein secondary structure and main-chain assignment from sparse, unassigned NMR data. J Comput Biol7: 537-558.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

8. Pervushin K,Riek R,Wider G,Wutrich K (1997) Attenuated T2 relaxation by mutual cancellation of dipole-dipole coupling and chemical shift anistropy indicates an avenue to NMR structures of very large biological macromolecules in solution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA94: 12366-12371.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

9. Antel J (1999) Integration of combinatorial chemistry and structure-based drug design. Curr Opin Drug Discov Dev2: 224-233.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

10. Verlinde C, Hol W (1994) Structure-based drug design:progress, results and challenges. Structure2: 577-587.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

11. Taylor R,Jewsbury P,Essex J (2002) A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J Comput Aided Mol Des16: 151-166.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

12. Joseph-McCarthy D (1999) Computational approaches to structure-based ligand design. Pharmacol Ther84: 179-191.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

13. Carlson H,McCammon J (1999) Method for including the dynamic fluctuations of a protein in computer-aided drug design. J Phys Chem A103: 10213-10219.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

14. Bohacek R,McMartin C (1997) Modern computational chemistry and drug discovery:structure generating programs. Curr Opin Chem Biol1: 157-161.

Google Scholar, Crossref

15. Carlson H,McCammon J (2000) Accommodating protein flexibility in computational drug design. Mol Pharmacol57: 213-218.

Google Scholar, Indexed at

16. Shoichet B,McGovern S,Wei B,Irwin J (2002) Lead discovery using molecular docking. Curr Opin Chem Biol6: 439-446.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

17. Klebe G,Bohm H (1997) Energetic and entropic factors determining binding affinity in protein-ligand complexes. J Recept Signal Transduct Res17:459-473.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

18. Gallego J,Varani G (2001) Targeting RNA with small-molecule drugs:therapeutic promise and chemical challenges. Acc Chem Res34: 836-843.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

19. Afshar M,Prescott C,Varani G (1999) Structure-based and combinatorial search for new RNA-binding drugs. Curr Opin Biotechnol10: 59-63.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

20. Hopkins CG (2002) The druggable genome. Nat Rev Drug Discov1: 727-730.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at