Abstract
Computational approaches have tremendous potential to speed up the process of drug discovery. There are several tools based on the methods and algorithms of computer science which can be used for structure modeling, cavity/binding site prediction, molecular docking and virtual screening, visualization and interaction analysis of docked structure, pharmacophore mapping, de novo ligand designing, lead optimization, molecular dynamics simulation, predicting absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET), and building quantitative structure–activity (QSAR) model. The selection of a potential drug target, its structural features, and precise information of the binding site is a very important step to proceed for drug discovery and designing. Target–ligand complex analysis and pharmacophore mapping can guide the process of de novo drug designing. Molecular docking and simulation analysis can be used to evaluate the stability of a ligand in the binding site of the target and also provides information about the residues involved in the interaction. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics optimization of lead compounds are required to improve the specificity, affinity for binding to the target, and their absorption, distribution to a target site, metabolism of drug, excretion, and toxicity. Prior ADMET prediction using different models can reduce the risk of drug failure in a clinical trial. QSAR model can be developed for the biological activity of known drugs against a target, which can be used for predicting the biological activity of a new molecule. These computer-aided drug designing (CADD) techniques are more efficient, less costly, and less time-consuming as compared to the traditional methods of drug discovery. These CADD approaches/tools have been designed by incorporating the parameter of basics scientific principles related to the problem, and prediction models are derived and validated by vast dataset. Still, there are some limitations related to different CADD tools, which may be overcome by including some other relevant parameters and dataset in a program, and also by increasing the computational capability.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sliwoski G, Kothiwale S, Meiler J, Lowe EW Jr (2013) Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol Rev 66(1):334–395
Yu W, MacKerell AD Jr (2017) Computer-aided drug design methods. Methods Mol Biol 1520:85–106
Sippl MJ (1993) Recognition of errors in three-dimensional structures of proteins. Proteins 17:355–362
Hersey A, Senger S, Overington JP (2012) Open data for drug discovery: learning from the biological community. Future Med Chem 4(15):1865–1867
Singla D, Dhanda SK, Chauhan JS, Bhardwaj A, Brahmachari SK, Open Source Drug Discovery Consortium, Raghava GP (2013) Open source software and web services for designing therapeutic molecules. Curr Top Med Chem 13(10):1172–1191
Roche D, Brackenridge D, McGuffin L (2015) Proteins and their interacting partners: an introduction to protein–ligand binding site prediction methods. Int J Mol Sci 16(12):29829–29842
Jiang M, Li Z, Bian Y, Wei Z (2019) A novel protein descriptor for the prediction of drug binding sites. BMC Bioinformatics 20(1):1–13
Jie L, Clare W, Herbert E (1998) Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: measurement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design. Protein Sci 7(9):1884–1897
Liang S, Zhang C, Liu S, Zhou Y (2006) Protein binding site prediction using an empirical scoring function. Nucleic Acids Res 34(13):3698–3707
Gabb HA, Jackson RM, Sternberg MJ (1997) Modeling protein docking using shape complementarity, electrostatics and biochemical information. J Mol Biol 272(1):106–120
Rizvi SM, Shakil S, Haneef M (2013) A simple click by click protocol to perform docking: AutoDock 4.2 made easy for non-bioinformaticians. EXCLI J 12:831–857
Singh DB (2018) Natural lead compounds and strategies for optimization. In: Ul-Haq Z, Wilson AK (eds) Frontiers in computational chemistry, vol 4. Bentham Science, Sharjah, pp 1–47
Yang SY (2010) Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov Today 15(11–12):444–450
Qing X, Lee XY, De Raeymaecker J, Tame JR, Zhang KY, De Maeyer M, Voet A (2014) Pharmacophore modeling: advances, limitations, and current utility in drug discovery. J Receptor Ligand Channel Res 7:81–92
Akram M, Waratchareeyakul W, Haupenthal J, Hartmann RW, Schuster D (2017) Pharmacophore modeling and in silico/in vitro screening for human cytochrome P450 11B1 and cytochrome P450 11B2 inhibitors. Front Chem 5:104
Gupta MK, Misra K (2014) Atom-based 3D-QSAR, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulation assessment of inhibitors for thyroid hormone receptor α and β. J Mol Model 20(6):2286
Warszycki D, Mordalski S, Kristiansen K, Kafel R, Sylte I, Chilmonczyk Z, Bojarski AJ (2013) A linear combination of pharmacophore hypotheses as a new tool in search of new active compounds—an application for 5-Ht1a receptor ligands. PLoS One 8:E84510
Huang HJ, Yu HW, Chen CY, Hsu CH, Chen HY, Lee KJ, Tsai FJ, Chen CYC (2010) Current developments of computer-aided drug design. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng 41(6):623–635
Singh DB, Dwivedi S (2016) Docking and molecular dynamics simulation study of inhibitor 2-Fluoroaristeromycin with anti-malarial drug target PfSAHH. Netw Model Anal Health Inform Bioinforma 5:16
Pathak RK, Gupta A, Shukla R, Baunthiyal M (2018) Identification of new drug-like compounds from millets as xanthine oxidoreductase inhibitors for treatment of hyperuricemia: a molecular docking and simulation study. Comput Biol Chem 76:32–41
Shukla R, Singh TR (2019) Virtual screening, pharmacokinetics, molecular dynamics and binding free energy analysis for small natural molecules against cyclindependent kinase 5 for Alzheimer’s disease. J Biomol Struct Dyn 38:248. https://doi.org/10.1080/07391102.2019.1571947
Singh DB, Dwivedi S (2019) Computational screening and ADMET-based study for targeting Plasmodium S-adenosyl-l-homocysteine hydrolase: top scoring inhibitors. Netw Model Anal Health Inform Bioinforma 8:4
Singh DB, Dwivedi S (2016) Structural insight into binding mode of inhibitor with SAHH of Plasmodium and human: interaction of curcumin with anti-malarial drug targets. J Chem Biol 9(4):107–120
Buglak AA, Zherdev AV, Lei H-T, Dzantiev BB (2019) QSAR analysis of immune recognition for triazine herbicides based on immunoassay data for polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies. PLoS One 14(4):e0214879
Kausar S, Falcao AO (2018) An automated framework for QSAR model building. J Chem inform 10(1):1
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Singh, D.B., Pathak, R.K. (2020). Computational Approaches in Drug Designing and Their Applications. In: Gupta, N., Gupta, V. (eds) Experimental Protocols in Biotechnology. Springer Protocols Handbooks. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0607-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-0607-0_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-0606-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-0607-0
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols