Abstract
Abstract
Background
Prostate cancer is the most common non-cutaneous cancer in males and accounts for about 4% of all cancer-related deaths in males annually. In silico methods provide faster, economical, and environmentally friendly alternatives to the traditional trial and error method of lead identification and optimization. This study, therefore, was aimed at building a robust QSAR and QSTR model to predict the anti-proliferate activity and toxicity of some phenylpiperazine compounds against the DU145 prostate cancer cell lines and normal prostate epithelial cells as well as carry out molecular docking studies between the compounds and the androgen receptor.
Results
Genetic Function Algorithm–Multilinear Regression approach was employed in building the QSAR and QSTR model. The QSAR model built had statistical parameters R2 = 0.7792, R2adj. = 0.7240, Q2cv = 0.6607, and R2ext = 0.6049 and revealed the anti-proliferate activity to be strongly dependent on the molecular descriptors: VR3_Dzp, VE3_Dzi, Kier3, RHSA, and RDF55v. The QSTR model, on the other hand, had statistical parameters R2 = 0.8652, R2adj. = 0.8315, Q2cv = 0.7788, and R2ext = 0.6344. The toxicity of the compounds was observed to be dependent on the descriptors MATS8c, MATS3s, ETA_EtaP_F, and RDF95m. The molecular descriptors in both models were poorly correlated (R < 0.4) and had variance inflation factors < 3. Molecular docking studies between the androgen receptor and compounds 25 and 32 revealed the compounds primarily formed hydrogen, halogen, and hydrophobic interactions with the receptor.
Conclusion
Findings from this study can be employed in in silico design of novel phenylpiperazine compounds. It can also be employed in predicting the toxicity and anti-proliferate activity of other phenylpiperazine compounds against DU145 prostate cancer cell lines.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Pharmaceutical Science,Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous),Medicine (miscellaneous)
Reference27 articles.
1. Cheesman MJ, Ilanko A, Blonk B, Cock IE (2017) Developing new antimicrobial therapies: are synergistic combinations of plant extracts/compounds with conventional antibiotics the solution? Pharmacognsy Rev 11(22):57–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/phrev.phrev_21_17
2. Sofowora A, Ogunbodede E, Onayade A (2013) The role and place of medicinal plants in the strategies for disease prevention. Afr J Tradit Complement Altern Med 10(5):210–229. https://doi.org/10.4314/ajtcam.v10i5.2
3. Reynolds, T., Wessel, M., Konagurthu, S. and Crew, M. (2016). Computational methods – formulation development: an innovative, simulation – based approach. Drug Development and Delivery, September 2016. https://drug-dev.com/computational-methods-formulation-development-an-innovative-simulation-based-approach/ (Accessed 26 Feb 2020)
4. Batool, M., Ahmad, B. and Choi, S. (2019). A structure-based drug discovery paradigm. Int J Mol Sci, 20(11), 2783. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20112783
5. Sliwoski, G., Kothiwale, S., Meiler, J. and Lowe, Jr. E. W. (2014). Computational methods in drug discovery. Pharmacol Rev, 66(1): 334–395. https://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.112.007336
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献