2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.molstruc.2018.01.059
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

First report on 3D-QSAR and molecular dynamics based docking studies of GCPII inhibitors for targeted drug delivery applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“… 60 , 66 , 67 In this study, we aim to computationally analyze the interactions between PSMA and potential boron-containing PSMA-targeted inhibitors, which are proposed according to previous urea-based molecules and a structure–activity relationship (SAR) study. 56 In order to be clinically effective agents for BNCT, the PSMA inhibitors must possess high tumor-to-normal tissue ratios, high binding affinities, and high boron densities. A deeper understanding of interactions between the PSMA and inhibitors at the atomistic level will facilitate this goal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“… 60 , 66 , 67 In this study, we aim to computationally analyze the interactions between PSMA and potential boron-containing PSMA-targeted inhibitors, which are proposed according to previous urea-based molecules and a structure–activity relationship (SAR) study. 56 In order to be clinically effective agents for BNCT, the PSMA inhibitors must possess high tumor-to-normal tissue ratios, high binding affinities, and high boron densities. A deeper understanding of interactions between the PSMA and inhibitors at the atomistic level will facilitate this goal.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The whole cavity around the active site can be separated into two substrate binding sites: S1′ site and S1 site, which accommodate the P1′ and P1 portions of inhibitors, respectively. It has been established that the S1′ site is more specific to glutamate residue or glutamate analogues, whereas the S1 site is more flexible and can accommodate different molecules. ,, PSMA ligands can be classified into two categories (Figure ): the first class is the phosphorus-based ligands mimicking the transition state of hydrolytic reaction and the second class is urea-based inhibitors with the hydrolysis-resistant peptide bond surrogate. The urea-based inhibitors can bind to both S1′ and S1 sites like the NAAG, which is the natural substrate of PSMA . They provide several advantages such as an ease of large-scale synthesis, penetration of the blood–brain barrier, and radiolabeling. , The unique chemical properties of these urea derivatives result in their better tumor uptake and higher binding affinity to a lipophilic pocket located near the active site of PSMA .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The screening step aims to reflect more structural information with the less molecular structure descriptors as possible. Many methods have been developed to screen molecular descriptors and can be mainly divided into two categories [7][8][9], traditional variable selection methods (such as the PLS method and its variants) and modern search algorithms based on the optimization strategy (genetic algorithm GA, simulated annealing algorithm SA, ant colony algorithm AC, particle swarm optimization PSO, and other swarm intelligence algorithms) [10][11][12]. Traditional variable selection methods are the most simple and efficient and can quickly screen descriptors, but their overall performances are low especially in the complex nonlinear data collection.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The step of molecular descriptor screening aims to reflect more structural information so that there is no noise in the descriptors. Many methods have been developed to screen molecular descriptors and can be mainly divided into two categories [16][17][18]. The first category includes the common methods, such as Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and forward/backward/bi-directional stepwise multiple linear regression (MLR).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%