SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Virtual Screening against Phosphoglycerate Kinase 1 in Quest of Novel Apoptosis Inhibitors.

Molecules · 2017-06-21

DOI: 10.3390/molecules22061029PMID: 28635653

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Inhibition of apoptosis is a potential therapy to treat human diseases such as neurodegenerative disorders (e.g., Parkinson's disease), stroke, and sepsis. Due to the lack of druggable targets, it remains a major challenge to discover apoptosis inhibitors. The recent repositioning of a marketed drug (i.e., terazosin) as an anti-apoptotic agent uncovered a novel target (i.e., human phosphoglycerate kinase 1 (hPgk1)). In this study, we developed a virtual screening (VS) pipeline based on the X-ray structure of Pgk1/terazosin complex and applied it to a screening campaign for potential anti-apoptotic agents. The hierarchical filters in the pipeline (i.e., similarity search, a pharmacophore model, a shape-based model, and molecular docking) rendered 13 potential hits from Specs chemical library. By using PC12 cells (exposed to rotenone) as a cell model for bioassay, we first identified that AK-918/42829299, AN-465/41520984, and AT-051/43421517 were able to protect PC12 cells from rotenone-induced cell death. Molecular docking suggested these hit compounds were likely to bind to hPgk1 in a similar mode to terazosin. In summary, we not only present a versatile VS pipeline for potential apoptosis inhibitors discovery, but also provide three novel-scaffold hit compounds that are worthy of further development and biological study.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.