Review on QSAR using Anticancer Drug
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22270/ajdhs.v2i4.27Keywords:
New drug discovery, Computer-aided drug discovery, the Qualitative structure activity relationship, AnticancerAbstract
New drug discovery has been acknowledged as a complicated, expensive, time-consuming, and challenging project. It has been estimated that around 12 years and 2.7 billion USD, on average, are demanded for a new drug discovery via traditional drug development pipeline. How to reduce the research cost and speed up the development process of new drug discovery has become a challenging, urgent question for the pharmaceutical industry. Computer-aided drug discovery (CADD) has emerged as a powerful and promising technology for faster, cheaper and more effective drug design. Recently, the rapid growth of computational tools for drug discovery, including anticancer therapies, has exhibited a significant and outstanding impact on anticancer drug design, and has also provided fruitful insights into the area of cancer therapy. In this work, we discussed the Qualitative structure activity relationship, a computer-aided drug discovery process with a focus on anticancer drugs.
Keywords: New drug discovery, Computer-aided drug discovery, the Qualitative structure activity relationship, Anticancer
References
Yan B, Yang W, Han X, Han L. Crystal structures and antitumor activity evaluation against gastric carcinoma of two novel coordination polymers. Main Group Chemistry. 2019; 18(3):239-246. https://doi.org/10.3233/MGC-180748
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2018; 68(6):394-424. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
Kapetanovic I. Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADDD): in silico-chemico-biological approach. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 2008; 171(2):165-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2006.12.006
Kaldor SW, Kalish VJ, Davies JF, Shetty BV, Fritz JE, Appelt K, Tatlock JH. Viracept (nelfinavir mesylate, AG1343): a potent, orally bioavailable inhibitor of HIV-1 protease. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1997; 40(24):3979-3985. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm9704098
Chan HS, Shan H, Dahoun T, Vogel H, Yuan S. Advancing drug discovery via artificial intelligence. Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 2019; 40(8):592-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2019.06.004
Yan B, Yang W, Han X, Han L. Crystal structures and antitumor activity evaluation against gastric carcinoma of two novel coordination polymers. Main Group Chemistry. 2019; 18(3):239-246. https://doi.org/10.3233/MGC-180748
Zhavoronkov A, Ivanenkov YA, Aliper A, Veselov MS, Aladinskiy VA, Aladinskaya AV, Aspuru-Guzik A. Deep learning enables rapid identification of potent DDR1 kinase inhibitors. Nature Biotechnology. 2019; 37(9):1038-1040. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0224-x
Drews J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science. 2000; 287(5460):1960-1964. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5460.1960
Chen X, Yan CC, Zhang X, Zhang X, Dai F, Yin J, Zhang Y. Drug-target interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models. Briefings in Bioinformatics. 2016; 17(4):696-712. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbv066
Lazo JS, Sharlow ER. Drugging undruggable molecular cancer targets. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 2016; 56:23-40. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010715-103440
Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology: the next paradigm in drug discovery. Nature Chemical Biology. 2008; 4(11):682-690. https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.118
Yamanishi Y, Araki M, Gutteridge A, Honda W, Kanehisa M. Prediction of drug-target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces. Bioinformatics. 2008; 24(13):i232-i240. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162
Rajak H, Patel V, Jain DK, Dewangan PK, Sharma PC, Veerasamy R, Gupta AK, Dangi JS. Structure-activity relationships among novel 1, 3, 4-oxadiazole analogues for their anti-inflammatory activity. Current Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2012; 03:142-148.
Ghofrani HA, Osterloh IH, Grimminger F. Sildenafil: from angina to erectile dysfunction to pulmonary hypertension and beyond. Nature reviews Drug discovery. 2006; 5(8):689-702. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2030
Takarabe M, Kotera M, Nishimura Y, Goto S, Yamanishi Y. Drug target prediction using adverse event report systems: a pharmacogenomic approach. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(18):i611-i618. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts413
Campillos M, Kuhn M, Gavin AC, Jensen LJ, Bork P. Drug target identification using side-effect similarity. Science. 2008; 321(5886):263-266. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158140
Klipp E, Wade RC, Kummer U. Biochemical network-based drug-target prediction. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 2010; 21(4):511-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2010.05.004
Srivastava N, Hinton G, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov R. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2014; 15(1):1929-1958.
Li X, Chen H. Recommendation as link prediction in bipartite graphs: A graph kernel-based machine learning approach. Decision Support Systems. 2013; 54(2):880-890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.09.019
Yıldırım MA, Goh KI, Cusick ME, Barabási AL, Vidal M. Drug-target network. Nature biotechnology. 2007; 25(10):1119-1126. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1338
Mayr A, Klambauer G, Unterthiner T, Steijaert M, Wegner JK, Ceulemans H, Hochreiter S. Large-scale comparison of machine learning methods for drug target prediction on ChEMBL. Chemical Science. 2018; 9(24):5441-5451. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8SC00148K
Mendenhall J, Meiler J. Improving quantitative structure-activity relationship models using Artificial Neural Networks trained with dropout. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design. 2016; 30(2):177-189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-016-9895-2
Hansch C, Fujita T. Additions and Corrections-ρ-σ-π Analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1964; 86(24):5710-5710. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01078a623
Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. Journal of the American Chemical Society. 1998; 110(18):5959-5967. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja00226a005
Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T. Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1994; 37(24):4130-4146. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm00050a010
Alomari FY, Sharfalddin AA, Abdellattif MH, Domyati D, Basaleh AS, Hussien MA. QSAR Modeling, molecular docking and cytotoxic evaluation for novel oxidovanadium (iv) complexes as colon anticancer agents. Molecules. 2022; 27(3):649. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27030649
Adhikari N, Amin SA, Trivedi P, Jha T, Ghosh B. HDAC3 is a potential validated target for cancer: An overview on the benzamide-based selective HDAC3 inhibitors through comparative SAR/QSAR/QAAR approaches. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2018; 157:1127-1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2018.08.081
Singh A, Patel VK, Jain DK, Sharma PC, Gupta AK, Sharma AK, Rajak H. Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors: Current Status in Treatment of Leukemia. Current Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2013; 03 (04):102-107
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citations
Copyright (c) 2022 Hemant Ahirwar, Gabbar Kurmi, Rubeena Khan, Basant Khare, Anushree Jain, Prateek Kumar Jain, Bhupendra Singh Thakur
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
.