SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Discovery of novel dual adenosine A1/A2A receptor antagonists using deep learning, pharmacophore modeling and molecular docking.

PLoS Comput Biol · 2021-03-19

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008821PMID: 33739970

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Adenosine receptors (ARs) have been demonstrated to be potential therapeutic targets against Parkinson's disease (PD). In the present study, we describe a multistage virtual screening approach that identifies dual adenosine A1 and A2A receptor antagonists using deep learning, pharmacophore models, and molecular docking methods. Nineteen hits from the ChemDiv library containing 1,178,506 compounds were selected and further tested by in vitro assays (cAMP functional assay and radioligand binding assay); of these hits, two compounds (C8 and C9) with 1,2,4-triazole scaffolds possessing the most potent binding affinity and antagonistic activity for A1/A2A ARs at the nanomolar level (pKi of 7.16-7.49 and pIC50 of 6.31-6.78) were identified. Further molecular dynamics (MD) simulations suggested similarly strong binding interactions of the complexes between the A1/A2A ARs and two compounds (C8 and C9). Notably, the 1,2,4-triazole derivatives (compounds C8 and C9) were identified as the most potent dual A1/A2A AR antagonists in our study and could serve as a basis for further development. The effective multistage screening approach developed in this study can be utilized to identify potent ligands for other drug targets.

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.