↓ Skip to main content

Drug Design for CNS Diseases: Polypharmacological Profiling of Compounds Using Cheminformatic, 3D-QSAR and Virtual Screening Methodologies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
158 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Drug Design for CNS Diseases: Polypharmacological Profiling of Compounds Using Cheminformatic, 3D-QSAR and Virtual Screening Methodologies
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2016
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2016.00265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katarina Nikolic, Lazaros Mavridis, Teodora Djikic, Jelica Vucicevic, Danica Agbaba, Kemal Yelekci, John B. O. Mitchell

Abstract

HIGHLIGHTS Many CNS targets are being explored for multi-target drug designNew databases and cheminformatic methods enable prediction of primary pharmaceutical target and off-targets of compoundsQSAR, virtual screening and docking methods increase the potential of rational drug design The diverse cerebral mechanisms implicated in Central Nervous System (CNS) diseases together with the heterogeneous and overlapping nature of phenotypes indicated that multitarget strategies may be appropriate for the improved treatment of complex brain diseases. Understanding how the neurotransmitter systems interact is also important in optimizing therapeutic strategies. Pharmacological intervention on one target will often influence another one, such as the well-established serotonin-dopamine interaction or the dopamine-glutamate interaction. It is now accepted that drug action can involve plural targets and that polypharmacological interaction with multiple targets, to address disease in more subtle and effective ways, is a key concept for development of novel drug candidates against complex CNS diseases. A multi-target therapeutic strategy for Alzheimer's disease resulted in the development of very effective Multi-Target Designed Ligands (MTDL) that act on both the cholinergic and monoaminergic systems, and also retard the progression of neurodegeneration by inhibiting amyloid aggregation. Many compounds already in databases have been investigated as ligands for multiple targets in drug-discovery programs. A probabilistic method, the Parzen-Rosenblatt Window approach, was used to build a "predictor" model using data collected from the ChEMBL database. The model can be used to predict both the primary pharmaceutical target and off-targets of a compound based on its structure. Several multi-target ligands were selected for further study, as compounds with possible additional beneficial pharmacological activities. Based on all these findings, it is concluded that multipotent ligands targeting AChE/MAO-A/MAO-B and also D1-R/D2-R/5-HT2A -R/H3-R are promising novel drug candidates with improved efficacy and beneficial neuroleptic and procognitive activities in treatment of Alzheimer's and related neurodegenerative diseases. Structural information for drug targets permits docking and virtual screening and exploration of the molecular determinants of binding, hence facilitating the design of multi-targeted drugs. The crystal structures and models of enzymes of the monoaminergic and cholinergic systems have been used to investigate the structural origins of target selectivity and to identify molecular determinants, in order to design MTDLs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 155 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 19%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Master 14 9%
Researcher 12 8%
Professor 8 5%
Other 24 15%
Unknown 50 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 29 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 4%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 56 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 08 July 2016.
All research outputs
#3,026,252
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#2,018
of 11,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,591
of 360,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#40
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,542 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 360,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.