↓ Skip to main content

Predicting the relative binding affinity of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists by density functional methods

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Predicting the relative binding affinity of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists by density functional methods
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, November 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10822-015-9880-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katarina Roos, Anders Hogner, Derek Ogg, Martin J. Packer, Eva Hansson, Kenneth L. Granberg, Emma Evertsson, Anneli Nordqvist

Abstract

In drug discovery, prediction of binding affinity ahead of synthesis to aid compound prioritization is still hampered by the low throughput of the more accurate methods and the lack of general pertinence of one method that fits all systems. Here we show the applicability of a method based on density functional theory using core fragments and a protein model with only the first shell residues surrounding the core, to predict relative binding affinity of a matched series of mineralocorticoid receptor (MR) antagonists. Antagonists of MR are used for treatment of chronic heart failure and hypertension. Marketed MR antagonists, spironolactone and eplerenone, are also believed to be highly efficacious in treatment of chronic kidney disease in diabetes patients, but is contra-indicated due to the increased risk for hyperkalemia. These findings and a significant unmet medical need among patients with chronic kidney disease continues to stimulate efforts in the discovery of new MR antagonist with maintained efficacy but low or no risk for hyperkalemia. Applied on a matched series of MR antagonists the quantum mechanical based method gave an R(2) = 0.76 for the experimental lipophilic ligand efficiency versus relative predicted binding affinity calculated with the M06-2X functional in gas phase and an R(2) = 0.64 for experimental binding affinity versus relative predicted binding affinity calculated with the M06-2X functional including an implicit solvation model. The quantum mechanical approach using core fragments was compared to free energy perturbation calculations using the full sized compound structures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 22%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 11 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 7 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#699
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,943
of 274,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.