Title |
What Can We Learn from the Evolution of Protein-Ligand Interactions to Aid the Design of New Therapeutics?
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, December 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0051742 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Alicia P. Higueruelo, Adrian Schreyer, G. Richard J Bickerton, Tom L. Blundell, Will R. Pitt |
Abstract |
Efforts to increase affinity in the design of new therapeutic molecules have tended to lead to greater lipophilicity, a factor that is generally agreed to be contributing to the low success rate of new drug candidates. Our aim is to provide a structural perspective to the study of lipophilic efficiency and to compare molecular interactions created over evolutionary time with those designed by humans. We show that natural complexes typically engage in more polar contacts than synthetic molecules bound to proteins. The synthetic molecules also have a higher proportion of unmatched heteroatoms at the interface than the natural sets. These observations suggest that there are lessons to be learnt from Nature, which could help us to improve the characteristics of man-made molecules. In particular, it is possible to increase the density of polar contacts without increasing lipophilicity and this is best achieved early in discovery while molecules remain relatively small. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Japan | 1 | 50% |
Denmark | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
Germany | 1 | 2% |
India | 1 | 2% |
Brazil | 1 | 2% |
Japan | 1 | 2% |
United States | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 51 | 88% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 18 | 31% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 24% |
Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
Other | 3 | 5% |
Other | 9 | 16% |
Unknown | 4 | 7% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 34% |
Chemistry | 18 | 31% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 16% |
Computer Science | 2 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 5% |
Unknown | 5 | 9% |