'Pharmacophore development for identification of anti-lung cancer drugs Essay\r'

'Lung crab louse is wholeness particular type of pubic louse that is more poisonous and common than any another(prenominal). Lung crabby person is treated with chemotherapy, shaft therapy and surgery depending on the type of lung cancer and the ar ramble on of the disease. Foc development on the doses apply for chemotherapy and their associated side effects, there is a need to design and develop spic-and-span anti-lung cancer drugs with lesser side effects and change efficacy. Pharmacophore poser proves to be a actually reformatory shot serving in the conception and knowledge of new lead merges. In this paper, pharmacophore of 10 new anti-lung cancer enhances has been note and vali considerd for the first clock.\r\nvictimization LigandSc grade to the fore the pharmacophore features were predicted and 3D pharmacophore keep back been extracted via VMD softw be. A train engraft selective information was store from literature and the proposed posture wa s apply to the training model whereby confirmative and verifying their alike(p) activity as that of the most active conflates. and so they could be recommended for further studies.\r\nKey words: Pharmacophore, anti-lung cancer drugs, Computer aided drug designing, LigandScout, VMD INTRODUCTION\r\nLung cancer is known to confirm a high exigency rate among males and females and takes more lives each year as compared to colon, prostate, ovarian and breast cancers (1).Lung cancer is classified into deuce main types concernly Sm wholly cell Lung cancer (SCLC) and Non-Sm each(prenominal) Cell Lung cancer (NSCLC) of which NSCLC accounts for about 80% cases and SCLC accounts for 10-15% among all other types of lung cancers (2).\r\nNon- down(p) carrel lung cancer (NSCLC) is a ecumenic leading cause of death (3). The surgical resections are not applicable when first diagnosed as NSCLC is comm entirely in an groundbreaking stage. The patient may give up a possibility of pro longing survival with chemotherapy (4). Chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC is a good deal considered excessively toxic. However, meta-analyses have demonstrated that as compared with substantiative attention, chemotherapy results in a lilliputian improvement in survival in patients with advanced NSCLC (5).\r\n*Corresponding author. e-mail:drhamid@jinnah.edu.pk\r\nAbbreviations: HBA, hydrogen- tie up acceptor,\r\nHBD, hydrogen-bond donor, NSCLC, Non-small cell lung cancer, SCLC, Small Cell Lung Cancer, EGFR Epidermal reaping Factor Receptor.\r\nDrugs developed for cancer are hit agents although for the maximum advantage they need to be employ in recipe with other drugs or remedial agents. Initial candidate chemicals or â€Å"leads”, are a lot recognized and tested for single agents that change cancer-cell proliferation or prolong survival. This led to the identification of most of the clinically active cancer drugs used today. Specific leads wherefore must be further optimized and assessed to characterize their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and intelligible toxic effects. Clinical evaluation is performed by trails in humans to identify a maximum tolerated dose, check severe toxic effects, and estimate bioactivity. These trails are time consuming and expensive (6).\r\nPharmacophore is the initial step towards understanding the interaction amidst a sense organ and a ligand. Pharmacophore was often postulated as the â€Å"essence” of the structure-activity knowledge they had gained(7).Today’s researcher task is to interpret the screen of anatomically varied molecules at a common receptor site. To generate common feature pharmacophore from the set of compounds active for certain receptor, the characteristics necessary for cover version receptor in a generalized way(8). The understanding of the common properties of binding group is vital for the determination of the type of inhibitor binding the target.\r\nPharma cophore model is very convenient for attaining this goal. Surface of the cell are the regions where the ligand-receptor and receptor-receptor interaction occur. The process undergo in series(p) levels of activity starts initially from the cell surface and wherefore moves towards the intracellular signaling pathways, then gene placement which corresponds to cellular responses. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) was initially identify as an abnormally emotional or mutated form which leads to a number of other abnormalities in the signaling pathway and hence leads to the shaping of tumor (9).\r\nIn our research, a 3D pharmacophore model was developed in order to promote the find of precise and effective EGFR inhibitor for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer. The compounds used in this study have been characterized as describe in reference papers. In order to correlate experimental and computational studies we used their bioactivity information.\r\nMATERIALS AND ME THODS\r\nThe work was initiated using LigandScout software. LigandScout is a tool for deriving the 3D from morphologic data of ligand complexes more speedily and evidently in a completely automated and expedient way. It offers unflawed workflow both from ligand and structure found pharmacophore mildew (10). LigandScout is thought to be an essential software tool for structure based drug designing, it is not only beneficial for carrying out analysis of binding sites simply also for alignment based on pharmacophore and the designing of shared feature pharmacophores. LigandScout runs freely on all common operating systems.\r\nTill date a number of successful application examples have been carried out and standpublished (11).\r\nThe very important and the very first step in pharmacophore model generation is the selection of data set compounds. A number of drugs have been account that are in some way think to, or used in the treatment of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer which include Platinol(generic stimulate: cisplatin)( 12),carboplatin, Taxotere(generic name: docetaxel), Gemzar(generic name: gemcitabine) ,Taxol(generic name: paclitaxel) , Almita(generic name: pemetrexed), Avastin(generic\r\nname:\r\nBevacizumab), Xalkori(generic name:\r\nCrizotinib),\r\nNavelbine(generic name: vinorelbine , Iressa(generic name: Gefitinib) and Terceva(generic name: Erlotinib) (13)( 14)( 15).\r\nThe two dimensional (2D) chemical structures of the compounds were drawn using ChemDraw Ultra (8.0) and the structures were saved as .Pdb files. Subsequently the 2D structures as shown below ( find 1) in the form of Pdb files were imported into LigandScout and converted into synonymic 3D pharmacophore structures.\r\nCisplatin\r\nPemetrexed\r\nDocetaxel\r\nBevacizumab\r\nViblastine\r\nCarboplatin\r\nGemcitabine\r\nCrizotinib\r\nGefitinib\r\nPaclitaxel\r\nVinorelbine\r\nErlotinib\r\nHydrochloride\r\nFigure 1. 2D structures of selected data set of anti non small lung cancer The pharmaco phoric features include H-bond donor, H-bond acceptor, Hydrophobic, smelling(p), positively and negatively ionizable groups (16).The pharmacophore for each compound was generated and the\r\ndistances among the pharmacophoric features were calculated using VMD software. VMD is designed not only for modeling, visualization, and analysis of biological systems such as proteins, nucleic acids, lipid bilayer assemblies but it may also be used to view more general molecules, as VMD can read commonplace Protein selective information Bank (PDB) files and display the contained structure with their features. A number of application examples have been published to date (17). Once the pharmacophore of all the compounds were identified, the ligand was then super obligate so the pharmacophore elements overlap and a common template i-e the pharmacophore model is identified. The training set consisting of tetrad compounds was collected from literature and it was found that the groups show hei ghten and billised activity as that of the most active compounds based on the 3D pharmacophore being generated for non small lung cancer.\r\nRESULTS AND give-and-take\r\nPharmacophore analysis is considered as an fundamental part of drug design. The pharmacophore generated by LigandScout for the selected data set of anti non small cell lung cancer showed lead main features i-e H-bond acceptor(blue vectors), H-bond donor(blue vectors) and reminiscent glorioles(yellow spheres).The representative pharacophores of each compound are shown in Figures 2,3,4 and 5\r\nFigure 2. A pharmacophore of Pemetrexed (Alimta®)\r\nThe pharmacophoric features for each compound on the whole are shown in delay 1.The pharmacophores of all the compounds were then matched and a unique pharmacophore was identified after a detailed analysis.\r\nFigure 3 . A pharmacophore of Bevacizumab\r\nFigure 4 . A pharmacophore of Gemcitabine (Gemzar®)\r\nOn the whole, the representative pharmacophoric feature s for each compound are shown in defer 2.Resembling features were identified after analyzing the pharmacophore of all compounds generated by LigandScout. Then the similar features of all the compounds were superimposed and structured into single pharmacophore. The uniquely identified pharmacophoric features are shown in Table 3.\r\nFigure 5. A pharmacophore of Gefitinib\r\nOur common feature pharmacophore predicted for three compound of anti non small lung cancer is based on three HBAs, six HBDs and four aromatic centers. The distance triangle measured between the common pharmacophore features of each compound using VMD is shown in Table 4.The distance ranges from minimum to maximum and have measured between the HBA and HBD,HBA and aromatic ring and HBD and aromatic ring.\r\nTable 1. Pharmacophoric features of each compound\r\nCompounds\r\nH-Bond giver\r\nH-Bond Acceptor\r\n reminiscent focalise\r\nPaclitaxel\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nPemetrexed\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nBevacizumab\r\n+\r\n+ \r\n+\r\nCarboplatin\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nCrizotinib\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nErlotinib Hydrocholride\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nGefitinib\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nGemcitabine\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nMethotrexate\r\n+\r\n+\r\n+\r\nThe distances among the common pharmacophoric features between the predicted pharmacophore are shown in Figure 6. The distances between aromatic ring and HBD range from 4.15-4.80, between aromatic rings to HBA range from 7.03-8.66 and between HBA to HBD range from 5.85-6.97. Table 2. Pharmacophoric features of each compound\r\nCompound\r\nH-Bond sponsor\r\nH-Bond\r\nAcceptor\r\n smelling(p) Centre\r\nPaclitaxel\r\n4\r\n6\r\n2\r\nPemetrexed\r\n3\r\n6\r\n3\r\nBevacizumab\r\n2\r\n3\r\n1\r\nCarboplatin\r\n0\r\n3\r\n0\r\nCrizotinib\r\n2\r\n4\r\n3\r\nErlotinib Hydrocholride\r\n2\r\n6\r\n3\r\nGefitinib\r\n2\r\n6\r\n4\r\nGemcitabine\r\n3\r\n7\r\n2\r\nMethotrexate\r\n3\r\n9\r\n3\r\nTable 3. Uniquely identified pharmacophoric features of compounds\r\nCompound\r\nBevacizumab\r\nPemetrexed\r\nGefi tinib\r\nH-Bond\r\nDonor\r\n2\r\n3\r\nH-Bond\r\nAcceptor\r\n3\r\n6\r\n2\r\n6\r\nAromatic\r\nCentre\r\n1\r\n3\r\n4\r\nA training set of three compounds was collected from literature i-e MethyNonanoate, MMDA, Flavopirido(18).The generated 3D pharmacophore model was apply to the training set whereby validating and verifying their enhanced and similar activity as that of the well-worn compounds shown in Table 5. This further affirm our observation and proposals for a pharmacophore model as it corresponds to the predicted pharmacophore.\r\nTable 4.Pharmacophoric triangle distances of each uniquely identified compounds Compounds\r\nAcceptor ïÆ' Aromatic rally\r\nAromatic Ring ïÆ' Donor\r\nDonor ïÆ' Acceptor\r\nGefitinib\r\n7.10\r\n4.76\r\n6.97\r\nPemetrexed\r\n7.03\r\n4.15\r\n5.85\r\nBevacizumab\r\n8.14\r\n4.29\r\n6.36\r\nFigure 6. Distance ranges among pharmacophoric features in predicted pharmacophore To support the suggested pharmacophore model , distance was estimated. The predicted distance of the training set and the standard drugs respectively are shown in Table 6.\r\nThis parry shows the close resemblance of Flavopiridol with that of standard drugs whereby validating that the compound shows high correlation with the predicted pharmacophoric triangle hence having similar activity.\r\nTable 5. The distance triangle for compounds of the training set Model\r\nAcceptor ïÆ' Aromatic Ring\r\nAromatic Ring ïÆ' Donor\r\nDonor ïÆ' Acceptor\r\nMMDA\r\n5.99\r\n5.52\r\n5.95\r\nFlavopiridol\r\n7.01\r\n4.04, 4\r\n6.18\r\nMethyNonanoate\r\n4.01\r\n7.60\r\n2.24\r\nTable 6. The 3D pharmacophoric distance triangle of the training set and the standard drugs respectively Model\r\nStandard Drugs\r\nTraining dress circle\r\nAcceptor ïÆ' Aromatic Ring\r\n7.37-8.84\r\n7.01-8.96\r\nAromatic Ring ïÆ' Donor\r\n4.39-4.89\r\n4.04-4.62\r\nDonor ïÆ' Acceptor\r\n6.18-6.97\r\n6.18-6.64\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nThe pharmacophore model is a very handy tool for new lead compou nds denudation and development. In this study pharmacophore models were built for novel drugs of non small lung cancer, pharmacophoric features were predicted and 3D pharmacophore has been generated for non small lung cancer. A triangle of three different classes has been selected for pharmacophore and Hydrogen bond Acceptor, Hydrogen bond Donor and Hydrophobic character of standard drugs have been filtered out as key pharmacophoric feature.\r\nThe generated model was applied to the training set and it has been validated and proposed that Flavopiridol shows similar enhanced activity as that of standard drugs, hence could be used for further studies. Moreover Pharmachopore based docking will be used for virtual cover and designing of some novel drugs for non small lung cancer in continuation of this work.\r\nACKNOWLEDGEMENTS\r\nWe owe special thank to Dr. Hamid Rashid, Ms. Saima Kalsoom , Faculty Mohammad Ali Jinnah University, Islamabad for support and supervision in the research work. REFERENCES\r\n1.\r\nThomas L, Doyle LA, Edelman MJ. Lung cancer in women: rising differences in epidemiology, biology, and therapy. Chest. 2005;128:370-381.\r\n2.\r\n3.\r\n4.\r\n5.\r\n6.\r\n7.\r\n8.\r\n9.\r\n10.\r\n11.\r\n12.\r\n13.\r\n14.\r\n15.\r\n16.\r\n17.\r\n18.\r\nMolina JR, Yang P, Cassivi SD, Schild SE, Adjei AA. Non-small cell lung cancer: epidemiology, risk factors, treatment, and survivorship. mayo Clin Proc. 2008; 83(5):584-594. Ginsberg RJ, Vokes EE, Raben A. Non-small cell lung cancer. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA, eds. Cancer: principles and practice of oncology. quaternary ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven, 1997:858†910\r\nNon-small Cell Lung Cancer collaborative Group. Chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a metaanalysis using updated data on individual patients from 52 randomised clinical trials. BMJ 1995; 311:899†909\r\nRapp E, Pater JL, Willan A, et al. Chemotherapy can prolong survival in patients with advanced nonsmall-c ell lung cancer †report of a Canadian multicenter randomised trial. J Clin Oncol 1988;6:633-41. Sridhar Ramaswamy, M.D. Rational Design of Cancer-Drug Combinations, 2007. irradiation Gund Evolution of the Pharmacophore Concept in Pharmaceutical Research. pharmacopeia Inc., Princeton, New Jersey.\r\nOmoshile O. Clement and Adrea Trope Mehl. HipHop: Pharmacophores based on multiple commonfeature alignments. Molecular Simulation Inc. San Diego, California,2000 Mendelsohn J, Baselga J. The EGF receptor family as targets for cancer therapy. Oncogene 2000; 19: 6550â€65.\r\nDrc :A critical review of LigandScout, 2008\r\nWolber, G.; Langer, T.; LigandScout: 3-D Pharmacophores Derived from Protein-Bound Ligands and Their Use as Virtual check Filters. J. Chem. Inf. Model; 2005; 45(1); 160-169. Quality of life and survival in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer receiving supportive care plus chemotherapy with carboplatin and etoposide or supportive care only. A multic entre randomised phase III trial. Joint Lung Cancer Study Group. Helsing M, Bergman B, Thaning L, Hero U Eur J Cancer. 1998 Jun; 34(7):1036-44.\r\nNSCLC Meta-Analyses Collaborative Group (October 2008). â€Å"Chemotherapy in Addition to Supportive burster Improves Survival in Advanced Nonâ€Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis of Individual Patient Data From 16 Randomized Controlled Trials”. J. Clin. Oncol. 26 (28): 4617†25. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.17.7162. PMC 2653127. PMID 18678835. Curran WJ Jr, Paulus R, Langer CJ, et al. sequential vs. concurrent chemoradiation for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: randomized phase III trial RTOG 9410. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(19):1452-60. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor profound responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. may 20 2004;350(21):2129-39. Kapetanoic,I.M., 2008. Computer aided Drug husking and deve lopment: insilico-chemico-biological approach. chem. Biol. Interact. 171, 165-176\r\nHuang, Xiaoqin, Zheng, Guangrong, Zhani, Chang-Guo Microscopic Binding of M5 Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptor with Antagonists by Homology Modeling, Molecular Docking, and Molecular Dynamics Simulation daybook of physical chemistry b, 116:532-541, JAN 12 2012 2012 Bose P, Perkins EB, Honeycut C, Wellons MD, Stefan T, Jacobberger JW, Kontopodis E, Beumer JH, Egorin MJ, Imamura CK, Douglas Figg W Sr, Karp JE, Koc ON, cooper BW, Luger SM, Colevas AD, Roberts JD, Grant S. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012 ;69(6):1657-67. doi: 10.1007/s00280-012-18395. Epub 2012 Feb 15.PMID\r\n'