-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Docking Experiments and Comparison of CA Homology Model with Known hCAII Crystal Structure #25
Comments
@Skame161 might not be a bad idea to propose a few that you think should be potent |
@mattodd @Sarahlischen @drc007 @holeung Greetings, all, (again) Here is a (edited) summary of the docking experiments that I ran this week (ELN here) with some thoughts on the results. The following image is a summary of the analogues investigated in these docking experiments and the file linked here is a tabulated summary of the key results from docking into the homology model. The minimised affinity on redocking OSM-S-106 into HM was -7.0 and almost all the analogues docked here were within 10% of this. The actual range observed was -6.2 to -8.1; however, only one analogue was observed to have a binding affinity < -7.6 (OSM-S-137 at -8.1) with all the others lying between -6.2 and -7.6 (-6.9 +/- 10%). The lower value observed with OSM-S-137 could be attributed to the molecule's significantly larger size compared to the other analogues (due to the bulky group added to the structure) and this might suggest that the minimised affinities are probably not significantly different between the different analogues. The RF Score for redocking OSM-S-106 was 6.1 and all the analogues (including OSM-S-137) had an RF Score +/- 0.1 which indicates that the RF Scores are not significantly different between the analogues. The analogues showed the same N-Zn distance of 2.7A as OSM-S-106 with the exceptions of TF-3-1, TF-4-1 and PT-22 where the N-Zn distance was 3.0A +/- 0.1A. The analogues appear to adopt poses that are comparatively similar and in relatively the same space as OSM-S-106 (see this file) except for OSM-S-129. TF-3-1, TF-4-1, PT-22 appear slightly "elevated" in the active site which is consistent with the increased N-Zn distance. TF-3-1, TF-4-1 and PT-22 were originally synthesised and evaluated to investigate if adding methyl groups (see figure above) and deplanarising the molecule would impact the activity. The data appears to indicate that the addition of these methyl groups does indeed impact the ability of the compund to form the typically expected N-Zn interaction (almost a 15% increase in the distance between the N and the Zn and well outside the usually reported range for N-Zn interaction) which is the most likely explanation for the complete loss of activity in these analogues. OSM-S-129 was originally synthesised and evaluated to investigate if relocating the sulfonamide from the meta position to the para position (see figure above) would affect the activity and the compound was inactive when biologically evaluated. The data suggests that the more linear arrangement of this compound changes its orientation in the active site and limits the N-Zn interaction. Although some interaction is still possible (and that interaction appears to remain similar to the original compound), it appears that it is insufficient to retain biological activity. This indicates that the planar orientation of the compound and the meta location of the sulfonamide are both important for binding and altering these will negatively impact any biological activity that can be attributed to interaction with carbonic anhydrase (CA). It also indicates that an analogue of OSM-S-106 that retains these key features should bind to the CA and would be expected to show some activity during biological evaluation IF binding/inhibition of CA is the MoA. The lack of activity in almost all of the compounds investigated here suggests that inhibition of CA may not be the MoA! The following should be noted however.
PS. I updated the title of this issue to reflect that I'm mainly posting the results of docking experiments in here. PPS. Does anyone know a good way to add images to a comment that allows me to resize them so they're not massive or so that I don't to spend ages resizing/redrawing things before I add them to a post/comment? (Answered by @drc007 ) |
Hi @Skame161, the sulfonamide-N-Zn distance in the crystal structure is 1.9Å. Hope that helps :) |
Edit the size parameters to suit. You don't have to provide both width and height, only providing one dimension means you don't have to worry about the image becoming distorted. |
That's great! Thank you both! |
@mattodd @Sarahlischen @holeung @drc007
Greetings, all.
I ran a couple of docking experiments with the CA homology model and the hCAII crystal structure #24 to compare the interaction of OSM-S-106 and a couple of its methylated analogues (image below) that we know showed a complete loss of potency (this page) to see how/if substituting the nitrogen of the sulfonamide affects binding. I ran hCAII twice, one with ALL the waters removed and one with water retained in the active site, just to be on the safe side, but it doesn't seem to have made any noticeable difference to the results overall.
As far as I can see, the data indicates that increasing the substitution on the nitrogen significantly impacts the ability of the nitrogen to interact with the Zinc in the active site. Across all three docking runs, both TF-18-1 (the dimethyl analogue) and TF-16-1 (cyclo analogue) showed effectively a total loss of N-Zn interaction and TF-17-1 (the methyl analogue) had noticeably less poses that retained the N-Zn interaction when compared to OSM-S-106.
IF the N-Zn interaction in pfCA is important for potency then this would seem to suggest a possible explanation for the loss of activity in these three analogues at least.
The ELN can be viewed here
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: