Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25099802›Full record

ArticleBiophysical journal2014

A method to predict blood-brain barrier permeability of drug-like compounds using molecular dynamics simulations.

Timothy S Carpenter, Daniel A Kirshner, Edmond Y Lau, Sergio E Wong, Jerome P Nilmeier, Felice C Lightstone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biophysical journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 126 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
126citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

126 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

66 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Timothy S CarpenterBiosciences and Biotechnology Division, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Daniel A KirshnerBiosciences and Biotechnology Division, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Edmond Y LauBiosciences and Biotechnology Division, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Sergio E WongBiosciences and Biotechnology Division, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Jerome P NilmeierBiosciences and Biotechnology Division, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California.
Felice C LightstoneBiosciences and Biotechnology Division, Physical and Life Sciences Directorate, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California. Electronic address: lightstone1@llnl.gov.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The blood-brain barrier (BBB) is formed by specialized tight junctions between endothelial cells that line brain capillaries to create a highly selective barrier between the brain and the rest of the body. A major problem to overcome in drug design is the ability of the compound in question to cross the BBB. Neuroactive drugs are required to cross the BBB to function. Conversely, drugs that target other parts of the body ideally should not cross the BBB to avoid possible psychotropic side effects. Thus, the task of predicting the BBB permeability of new compounds is of great importance. Two gold-standard experimental measures of BBB permeability are logBB (the concentration of drug in the brain divided by concentration in the blood) and logPS (permeability surface-area product). Both methods are time-consuming and expensive, and although logPS is considered the more informative measure, it is lower throughput and more resource intensive. With continual increases in computer power and improvements in molecular simulations, in silico methods may provide viable alternatives. Computational predictions of these two parameters for a sample of 12 small molecule compounds were performed. The potential of mean force for each compound through a 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine bilayer is determined by molecular dynamics simulations. This system setup is often used as a simple BBB mimetic. Additionally, one-dimensional position-dependent diffusion coefficients are calculated from the molecular dynamics trajectories. The diffusion coefficient is combined with the free energy landscape to calculate the effective permeability (Peff) for each sample compound. The relative values of these permeabilities are compared to experimentally determined logBB and logPS values. Our computational predictions correlate remarkably well with both logBB (R(2) = 0.94) and logPS (R(2) = 0.90). Thus, we have demonstrated that this approach may have the potential to provide reliable, quantitatively predictive BBB permeability, using a relatively quick, inexpensive method.

Indexed as

Capillary PermeabilityModels, BiologicalMolecular Dynamics SimulationBlood-Brain BarrierPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID25099802
PMCPMC4129472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.