Advertisement

Medicinal Chemistry Research

, Volume 28, Issue 10, pp 1726–1739 | Cite as

Implementation of pharmacophore-based 3D QSAR model and scaffold analysis in order to excavate pristine ALK inhibitors

  • Ramanathan K.Email author
  • Sayoni Maiti
  • Shanthi V.
  • Woong-Hee Shin
  • Daisuke Kihara
Original Research

Abstract

The utilisation of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitors has unveiled a magnificent clinical activity in ALK-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), as well as against the sanctuary site of CNS in selected patients. However, the unsatisfactory survival rates along with unaccomplished overall cure for NSCLC (specifically in metastatic diseases), create an importunity for superior and perpetuating research for the establishment of novel ALK inhibitors in order to ameliorate the consequences of NSCLC. Intriguingly, a few plant-based drugs have paved their way to phase II clinical trial, inspired by which, the present study essayed to unearth novel ALK inhibitors from the NPACT database which comprises 1574 plant-derived compounds that exhibit anti-cancerous activity, using 3D QSAR model (AAADD.1882). Furthermore, multiple docking algorithms (PL-PatchSurfer2 and Glide) were employed to eliminate the false positive prediction. In essence, the strength of the association between the IC50 values and docking score was measured by Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r). Altogether, our anatomisation yielded three hits, namely; obovaten (NPACT00821), pinoresinol (NPCT00008) and (3S)-3′,7-dihydroxy-2′,4′,5′,8-tetramethoxyisoflavan (NPACT00018) with higher docking scores, predicted anti-cancer and pharmaceutically appurtenant properties with greater CNS involvement. Ultimately, molecular dynamic (MD) simulation highlights the real time evidence for stability of these hit compounds. It is noteworthy to mention that all the hits constitute of particular scaffolds which play a major role in the downregulation of some ALK-positive lung cancer pathways. We speculate that the outcomes of this research are of substantial prominence in the rational designing of novel and efficacious ALK inhibitors.

Keypoints

  1. 1.

    A total of 1574 plant-derived compounds was explored for their ALK inhibitory activity.

     
  2. 2.

    Possible mechanistic action of the hits was proposed.

     
  3. 3.

    Pearson’s correlation coefficient was used to examine the statistical significance of the computational analysis.

     

Keywords

NSCLC ALK-EML4 Polyphenols Tetrahydrofuran Benzofuran 3D QSAR MD simulations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors (KR, SM and VS) thank the management of VIT, Vellore for providing the facilities to carry out this work. KR thanks ICMR for their support by the International Fellowship for Young Biomedical Scientists Award.

Funding

The authors (KR & VS) are grateful to Department of Science and Technology-Science and Engineering Research Board (DST-SERB) for funding the research project (File No. EMR/2016/001675). DK acknowledges supports from the National Institute of Health (R01GM123055), the National Science Foundation (DMS1614777, CMMI1825941) and the Purdue Institute of Drug Discovery.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

44_2019_2410_MOESM1_ESM.docx (191 kb)
Supplementary File

References

  1. Abdelhafez OM, Ali HI, Amin KM, Abdalla MM, Ahmed EY (2015) Design, synthesis and anticancer activity of furochromone and benzofuran derivatives targeting VEGFR-2 tyrosine kinase. RSC Adv 5:25312–25324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almerico AM, Tutone M, Lauria A (2012) Receptor-guided 3D-QSAR approach for the discovery of c-kit tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J Mol Model 18:2885–2895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayliss R, Choi J, Fennell DA, Fry AM, Richards MW (2016) Molecular mechanisms that underpin EML4-ALK driven cancers and their response to targeted drugs. Cell Mol Life Sci 73:1209–1224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergethon K, Shaw AT, Ou SHI, Katayama R, Lovly CM, McDonald NT, Mark EJ (2012) ROS1 rearrangements define a unique molecular class of lung cancers. J Clin Oncol 30:863–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE (2000) The protein data bank. Nucleic Acids Res 28:235–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chan BA, Hughes BG (2015) Targeted therapy for non-small cell lung cancer: current standards and the promise of the future. Transl Lung Cancer Res 4:36–54Google Scholar
  7. Chirumbolo S, Bjørklund G, Lysiuk R, Vella A, Lenchyk L, Upyr T (2018) Targeting cancer with phytochemicals via their fine tuning of the cell survival signaling pathways. Int J Mol Sci 19:3568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Christensen JG, Zou HY, Arango ME, Li Q, Lee JH, McDonnell SR, Los G (2007) Cytoreductive antitumor activity of PF-2341066, a novel inhibitor of anaplastic lymphoma kinase & c-met, in experimental models of anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Mol Cancer Ther 6:3314–3322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coskun D, Erkisa M, Ulukaya E, Coskun MF, Ari F (2017) Novel 1-(7-ethoxy-1-benzofuran-2-yl) substituted chalcone derivatives: synthesis, characterization and anticancer activity. Eur J Med Chem 136:212–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dash RC, Bhosale SH, Shelke SM, Suryawanshi MR, Kanhed AM, Mahadik KR (2012) Scaffold hopping for identification of novel D2 antagonist based on 3D pharmacophore modelling of illoperidone analogs. Mol Divers 16:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doak BC, Over B, Giordanetto F, Kihlberg J (2014) Oral druggable space beyond the rule of 5: insights from drugs and clinical candidates. Chem Biol 21:1115–1142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Falco F, Di Giovanni C, Cerchia C, De Stefano D, Capuozzo A, Irace C, Iuvone T, Santamaria R, Carnuccio R, Lavecchia A (2016) Novel non-peptide small molecules preventing IKKß/NEMO association inhibit NF- κB activation in LPS-stimulated J774 macrophages. Biochem Pharmacol 104:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dixon SL, Smondyrev AM, Knoll EH, Rao SN, Shaw DE, Friesner RA (2006) PHASE: a new engine for pharmacophore perception, 3D QSAR model development, and 3D database screening: 1. Methodology and preliminary results. J Comput Aided Mol Des 20:647–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dubey AP, Pathi N, Viswanath S, Rathore A, Pathak A, Sud R (2017) New insights into anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive nonsmall cell lung cancer. Indian J Cancer 54:203–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fantini M, Benvenuto M, Masuelli L, Frajese GV, Tresoldi I, Modesti A, Bei R (2015) In vitro and in vivo antitumoral effects of combinations of polyphenols, or polyphenols and anticancer drugs: perspectives on cancer treatment. Int J Mol Sci 16:9236–9282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fini L, Hotchkiss E, Fogliano V, Graziani G, Romano M, De Vol EB, Ricciardiello L (2007) Chemopreventive properties of pinoresinol-rich olive oil involve a selective activation of the ATM–p53 cascade in colon cancer cell lines. Carcinogenesis 29:139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friesner RA, Banks JL, Murphy RB, Halgren TA, Klicic JJ, Mainz DT, Repasky MP, Knoll EH, Shelley M, Perry JK, Shaw DE, Francis P, Shenkin PS (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J Med Chem 47:1739–1749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gudipati S, Muttineni R, Mankad AU, Pandya HA, Jasrai YT (2018) Molecular docking based screening of Noggin inhibitors. Bioinformation 14:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Halgren TA, Murphy RB, Friesner RA, Beard HS, Frye LL, Pollard WT, Banks JL (2004) Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. J Med Chem 47:1750–1759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hallberg B, Palmer RH (2016) The role of the ALK receptor in cancer biology. Ann Oncol 27:4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardavella G, George R, Sethi T (2016) Lung cancer stem cells—characteristics, phenotype. Transl Lung Cancer Res 5:272–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoagland DT, Liu J, Lee RB, Lee RE (2016) New agents for the treatment of drug-resistant mycobacterium tuberculosis. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 102:55–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Honorio KM, Moda TL, Andricopulo AD (2013) Pharmacokinetic properties and in silico ADME modeling in drug discovery. Med Chem 9:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. James N, Shanthi V, Ramanathan K (2018) Drug design for ALK-positive NSCLC: An integrated pharmacophore-based 3D QSAR and virtual screening strategy. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 185:289–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Juang SH, Chiang CY, Liang FP, Chan HH, Yang JS, Wang SH, Lin YC, Kuo PC, Shen MR, Thang TD, Nguyet BT, Kuo SC, Wu TS (2016) Mechanistic study of tetrahydrofuran- acetogenins In triggering endoplasmic reticulum stress response-apotoposis in human nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Sci Rep 6:39251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirubakaran P, Muthusamy K, Singh KHD, Nagamani S (2012) Ligand-based pharmacophore modeling; atom-based 3D-QSAR analysis and molecular docking studies of phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 inhibitors. Indian J Pharm Sci 74:141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lindahl E, Hess B, Van Der Spoel D (2001) GROMACS 3.0: a package for molecular simulation and trajectory analysis. Mol Model Annu 7:306–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lionta E, Spyrou G, Vassilatis DK, Cournia Z (2014) Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: Principles, applications & recent advances. Curr Top Med Chem 14:1923–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Machado D, Girardini M, Viveiros M, Pieroni M (2018) Challenging the “drug-likeness” dogma for new drug discovery in tuberculosis. Front Microbiol 9:1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mangal M, Sagar P, Singh H, Raghava GP, Agarwal SM (2012) NPACT: naturally occurring plant-based anti-cancer compound-activity-target database. Nucleic Acids Res 41:1124–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meagher KL, Carlson HA (2005) Solvation influences flap collapse in HIV‐1 protease. Proteins 58:119–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Navada S, Lai P, Schwartz AG, Kalemkerian GP (2006) Temporal trends in small cell lung cancer: analysis of the national surveillance, epidemiology, and end-results (SEER) database. J Clin Oncol 24:7082–7082Google Scholar
  33. Paulsen JL, Anderson AC (2009) Scoring ensembles of docked protein–ligand interactions for virtual lead optimization. J Chem Inf Model 49:2813–2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Peters S, Kerr KM (2018) Stahel RPD-1 blockade in advanced NSCLC: a focus on pembrolizumab. Cancer Treat Rev 62:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Płużański A, Piórek A, Krzakowski M (2012) Crizotinib in the treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Contemp Oncol 16:1195–1201Google Scholar
  36. Preethi B, Shanthi V, Ramanathan K (2015) Investigation of nalidixic acid resistance mechanism in salmonella enterica using molecular simulation techniques. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 177:528–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roskoski R (2013) Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK): structure, oncogenic activation, and pharmacological inhibition. Pharmacol Res 68:68–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roskoski R (2016) Classification of small molecule protein kinase inhibitors based upon the structures of their drug-enzyme complexes. Pharmacol Res 103:26–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salomé C, Ribeiro N, Chavagnan T, Thuaud F, Serova M, de Gramont A, Faivre S, Raymond E, Désaubry L (2014) Benzofuran derivatives as anticancer inhibitors of mTOR signaling. Eur J Med Chem 81:181–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sasaki T, Rodig SJ, Chirieac LR, Jänne PA (2010) The biology and treatment of EML4-ALK non-small cell lung cancer. Eur J Cancer 46:1773–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schüttelkopf AW, Van Aalten DM (2004) PRODRG: a tool for high-throughput crystallography of protein–ligand complexes. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 60:1355–1363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shelley JC, Cholleti A, Frye LL, Greenwood JR, Timlin MR, Uchimaya M (2007) Epik: a software program for pKa prediction & protonation state generation for drug-like molecules. J Comput Aided Mol Des 21:681–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shin WH, Christoffer CW, Wang J, Kihara D (2016) PL-PatchSurfer2: improved local surface matching-based virtual screening method that is tolerant to target and ligand structure variation. J Chem Inf Model 56:1676–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shin WH, Kihara D (2018) Virtual ligand screening using PL-PatchSurfer2, a molecular surface-based protein–ligand docking method. Methods Mol Biol 1762:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Soda M, Choi YL, Enomoto M, Takada S, Yamashita Y, Ishikawa S, Bando M (2007) Identification of the transforming EML4-ALK fusion gene in non-small-cell lung cancer. Nature 448:561–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Soda M, Takada S, Takeuchi K, Choi YL, Enomoto M, Ueno T, Sugiyama Y (2008) A mouse model for EML4-ALK-positive lung cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:19893–19897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tan HK, Moad AI, Tan ML (2014) The mTOR signalling pathway in cancer and the potential mTOR inhibitory activities of natural phytochemicals. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 15:6463–6475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsai IL, Hsieh CF, Duh CY (1998) Additional cytotoxic neolignans from Persea obovatifolia. Phytochemistry 48:1371–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vernersson E, Khoo NK, Henriksson ML, Roos G, Palmer RH, Hallberg B (2006) Characterization of the expression of the ALK receptor tyrosine kinase in mice. Gene Expr Patterns 6:448–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zappa C, Mousa SA (2016) Non-small cell lung cancer: current treatment and future advances. Transl Lung Cancer Res 5:288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhou W, Wang Y, Lu A, Zhang G (2016) Systems pharmacology in small molecular drug discovery. Int J Mol Sci 17:246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zou HY, Li Q, Lee JH, Arango ME, McDonnell SR, Yamazaki S, Nambu MD (2007) An orally available small-molecule inhibitor of c-met, PF-2341066, exhibits cytoreductive antitumor efficacy through antiproliferative and antiangiogenic mechanisms. Cancer Res 7:4408–4417CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology, School of Bio Sciences and TechnologyVellore Institute of TechnologyVelloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Department of Chemistry EducationSunchon National UniversitySuncheonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of Computer SciencePurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Purdue University Center for Cancer ResearchWest LafayetteUSA
  6. 6.Department of PediatricsUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations