ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2011
Investigation on quantitative structure activity relationships and pharmacophore modeling of a series of mGluR2 antagonists.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insight into the Structural Determinants of Imidazole Scaffold-Based Derivatives as TNF-α Release Inhibitors by in Silico Explorations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
MGluR2 is G protein-coupled receptor that is targeted for diseases like anxiety, depression, Parkinson's disease and schizophrenia. Herein, we report the three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) studies of a series of 1,3-dihydrobenzo[ b][1,4]diazepin-2-one derivatives as mGluR2 antagonists. Two series of models using two different activities of the antagonists against rat mGluR2, which has been shown to be very similar to the human mGluR2, (activity I: inhibition of [(3)H]-LY354740; activity II: mGluR2 (1S,3R)-ACPD inhibition of forskolin stimulated cAMP.) were derived from datasets composed of 137 and 69 molecules respectively. For activity I study, the best predictive model obtained from CoMFA analysis yielded a Q(2) of 0.513, R(2) (ncv) of 0.868, R(2) (pred) = 0.876, while the CoMSIA model yielded a Q(2) of 0.450, R(2) (ncv) = 0.899, R(2) (pred) = 0.735. For activity II study, CoMFA model yielded statistics of Q(2) = 0.5, R(2) (ncv) = 0.715, R(2) (pred) = 0.723. These results prove the high predictability of the models. Furthermore, a combined analysis between the CoMFA, CoMSIA contour maps shows that: (1) Bulky substituents in R(7), R(3) and position A benefit activity I of the antagonists, but decrease it when projected in R(8) and position B; (2) Hydrophilic groups at position A and B increase both antagonistic activity I and II; (3) Electrostatic field plays an essential rule in the variance of activity II. In search for more potent mGluR2 antagonists, two pharmacophore models were developed separately for the two activities. The first model reveals six pharmacophoric features, namely an aromatic center, two hydrophobic centers, an H-donor atom, an H-acceptor atom and an H-donor site. The second model shares all features of the first one and has an additional acceptor site, a positive N and an aromatic center. These models can be used as guidance for the development of new mGluR2 antagonists of high activity and selectivity. This work is the first report on 3D-QSAR modeling of these mGluR2 antagonists. All the conclusions may lead to a better understanding of the mechanism of antagonism and be helpful in the design of new potent mGluR2 antagonists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.