SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Computational Design and Evaluation of MAO-B Inhibitors for Parkinson’s Disease: Molecular Docking, Qsar Model Pharmacophore Modeling and Admet Prediction

· 2026-03-05

DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8908469/v1

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Abstract Parkinson’s disease (PD) remains a pressing neurodegenerative challenge, with monoamine oxidase B (MAO-B) inhibitors offering therapeutic promise by mitigating oxidative stress and dopaminergic neuron loss. This study integrates molecular docking, Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR), Pharmacophore modeling & ADMET to design and evaluate a hybrid Tacrine-Selegiline MAO-B inhibitors for Parkinson disease. A dataset of structurally diverse Hybrid Tacrine-Selegiline MAO-B inhibitors compounds was curated from literature sources and subjected to high-throughput virtual screening via molecular docking against the MAO-B active site (PDB ID: 2V5Z), yielding binding affinities and Key interactions for Novel Hybrid drug. QSAR analysis employed multiple linear regression and algorithms to correlate molecular descriptors with IC50 data, achieving robust predictive performance (R 2  > 0.94982). Complementary ADMET & Pharmacophore modeling identified critical Pharmacophoric features- such as HBA, HBD and AI validated against known inhibitors. Results highlight top-ranking hybrid derivatives of Tacrine-Selegine 6n & 7d compound with enhanced potency, superior binding scores, outperforming reference standard Selegiline which results as Novel drug for Parkinson Disease.

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.