jrnls.org logo
Submit

BROWSE ALL JOURNALS

SEE ALL 19 JOURNALS
International Journal of Pharmaceutical InvestigationNOW IN
Review

A Critical Review on Computational Techniques through in silico Assisted Drug Design

Pawan Kumar Gupta, Yogendra Pal, Prashant Kumar, Shweta Gupta, Shiv Dev Singh, Shashi Bhooshan Tiwari★★ Corresponding author

  1. 1Department of Pharmacy, MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA.

CORRESPONDENCE

Shashi Bhooshan Tiwari

Department of Pharmacy, MJP Rohilkhand University, Bareilly-243006, Uttar Pradesh, INDIA.

s.tiwari@mjpru.ac.in

Received: 25-11-2023; Revised: 28-12-2023; Accepted: 01-05-2024.

Volume 14, Issue 4 · pp. 1035–1041 · PUBLISHED Oct-Dec 2024 · DOI: 10.5530/ijpi.14.4.113

View on IJPI original site ↗

ABSTRACT

Advancements in computational techniques have revolutionized the field of drug design, offering a powerful arsenal of tools collectively known as in silico methods. This review provides an overview of the diverse computational techniques employed in the in silico assisted drug design process. From molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations to Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models and artificial intelligence-based approaches, these methods play a pivotal role in expediting drug discovery and optimization. The utilization of molecular docking facilitates the prediction of ligand-receptor interactions, aiding in the identification of potential drug candidates. Molecular dynamics simulations contribute by unraveling the dynamic behavior of biomolecular complexes, offering insights into their stability and flexibility. QSAR models, relying on mathematical correlations between molecular descriptors and biological activities, enable the prediction of compound behaviors, guiding the optimization of lead compounds. The integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence further enhances drug design workflows. Deep learning algorithms, such as neural networks, have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in predicting complex biological activities and uncovering hidden patterns within large datasets. High-throughput screening, coupled with in silico methodologies, allows for the rapid exploration of vast chemical spaces, accelerating the identification of promising drug candidates. Despite these advancements, challenges persist, including the accurate representation of biological systems, the validation of computational predictions and the ethical implications of relying solely on in silico methods. This review critically evaluates the current state of computational techniques in silico assisted drug design, highlighting their strengths, limitations and potential future directions. The integration of computational techniques in drug design has significantly reshaped the landscape of pharmaceutical research. As these methods continue to evolve, bridging the gap between computational predictions and experimental validations, the synergy between in silico and in vitro approaches holds immense promise for the rapid and effective development of novel therapeutic agents.

KEYWORDS

0% READ

FULL TEXT

INTRODUCTION

Computer Aided Drug Design (CADD) is a multidisciplinary field that integrates computational and experimental methods to discover, design and optimize new therapeutic compounds. This approach significantly accelerates the drug discovery process by reducing the time and cost associated with traditional methods. CADD techniques employ various computational tools and algorithmstoanalyzebiologicaldata,predictmolecularinteractions and guide the development of new drugs. By interpreting and directing studies, computational techniques speed up the drug creation mechanism.1-3 Computer-Aided Drug Design (CADD) divided into two categories such as Structure-Based Drug Design (SBDD) and Ligand-Based Drug Design (LBDD). The SBDD technique examines the 3D structural data of macromolecular sites, often proteins or RNA, to pinpoint essential interactions and locations crucial to each biological activity. Such knowledge can be used to produce antibiotic treatment that can compete with the site’s necessary interactions, disturbing the pharmacological pathways required for microorganism(s) to survive. The aim of the LBDD approach was to recognize known antibiotic ligand for a target and create a Structure Activity Relationship (SAR) between their physiochemical qualities and antibiotic effect.4-6 The SAR provided data that could be utilized to increase existing molecules. This chapter will offer basic CADD methods for SBDD along with LBDD not limited to synthesizing on technique and targets often investigated in our research for the development of antibacterial drugs.7,8

Computer-aided drug design plays a crucial role in streamlining the drug discovery process, offering insights into molecular interactions, predicting drug properties and accelerating the identification of promising drug candidates. The accompanying figures visually represent key stages and techniques in the CADD workflow.9-12

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Here’s a general outline of materials and methods commonly employed in CADD for drug discovery across various diseases.

Computational Resources

High-performance computing clusters or cloud computing platforms for running resource-intensive simulations and calculations.

Software Tools

Molecular Docking Software: Autodock, Glide, GOLD.13-20 Molecular Dynamics Software: GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD. Quantum Mechanics Software: Gaussian, NWChem. Structure-Based Design Tools: PyMOL, UCSF Chimera.21 Ligand-Based Design Tools: QSAR, CoMFA, CoMSIA. Bioinformatics Tools: BLAST, Clustal Omega. Machine Learning Tools: Scikit-learn, TensorFlow, PyTorch.

Databases

Protein Data Bank (PDB) for retrieving 3D structures of biological macromolecules.

Chemical databases for ligand structures and properties.22-25

Molecular Structures

3D structures of target proteins obtained from experimental methods (X-ray crystallography, NMR) or predicted structures. Structure of known ligands or potential drug candidates.

Biological Data

Biological data related to the target, including binding affinities, activity profiles and known ligands.26

Methods

Homology Modeling

If experimental structures are not available, homology modeling can be employed to predict the 3D structure of the target protein based on the known structure of a homologous protein.

Molecular Docking

Docking algorithms are used to predict the binding mode and affinity of ligands to the target protein. This helps identify potential drug candidates.

Figure 1: Classification of CADD.27
Figure 2: Screening Workflow in Computer Aided Drug Design (CADD).2

Molecular Dynamics Simulations

Simulations are performed to study the dynamic behavior and stability of protein-ligand complexes over time. This provides insights into the binding interactions.

Quantum Mechanics Calculations

Quantum mechanics methods can be applied for accurate calculations of electronic properties and energy levels, especially for detailed studies of reaction mechanisms.

Structure-Based Design

Structural information is used to guide the design of new compounds with improved binding properties. This may involve modifying existing ligands or designing de novo compounds.28

Ligand-Based Design

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models are developed to correlate the chemical structure of ligands with their biological activity. This helps predict the activity of new compounds.

Machine Learning Approaches

Machine learning algorithms are trained on diverse datasets to predict various aspects of drug discovery, including compound activity, toxicity and ADMET properties.

Virtual Screening

High-throughput virtual screening is performed to filter large chemical databases and prioritize compounds with the highest likelihood of binding to the target.

Bioinformatics Analysis

Bioinformatics tools are employed for the analysis of sequence data, identification of potential drug targets and understanding the relationships between genes, proteins and diseases.29

Figure 3: Stages of CADD Process.29

Validation

Predictions made through computational methods need to be validated experimentally. This involves synthesizing and testing selected compounds in vitro and in vivo.

In the rapidly evolving field of CADD, researchers often combine multiple methods to obtain more accurate and reliable results. The iterative process of computational prediction, experimental validation and refinement is crucial for the success of drug discovery efforts across various diseases.30

Limitations

Computer-Aided Drug Design (CADD) has made significant strides in drug discovery, but it also has its limitations. Here are some of the key limitations associated with CADD.

Simplistic Models

CADD often relies on simplified models of biological systems. The actual behavior of molecules in a living organism is incredibly complex and many factors may be oversimplified or not fully considered in computational models.31

Lack of Accurate Force Fields

Force fields used in molecular dynamics simulations may not be accurate enough to capture all interactions accurately. The approximation of intermolecular forces can lead to inaccuracies in predicting binding affinities and other important properties.

Incomplete Biological Understanding

Our understanding of biological systems is still incomplete and many aspects of protein-ligand interactions are not fully understood. This lack of knowledge can limit the accuracy of predictions made by CADD tools.

Flexibility and Dynamics

Proteins and other biomolecules are flexible and dynamic, undergoing conformational changes. CADD methods may struggle to accurately predict these dynamic changes, leading to inaccuracies in predicting binding modes.32

Validation Challenges

Validating the predictions made by CADD methods can be challenging. Experimental validation is essential, but it can be expensive and time-consuming. Additionally, predictions made in silico may not always translate accurately to real-world biological systems.

Computational Intensity

Some CADD methods, especially those involving molecular dynamics simulations and quantum mechanics calculations, can be computationally intensive. This limits the speed at which large-scale virtual screenings can be performed.

Data Quality and Quantity

The accuracy of CADD heavily depends on the quality and quantity of available data.33 Insufficient or biased data can lead to inaccurate predictions, especially in machine learning-based approaches.

Specificity and Selectivity

Achieving high specificity and selectivity for a particular target can be challenging. CADD methods may sometimes identify compounds that bind to the target but lack the desired selectivity or have off-target effects.

Emerging Resistance and Adaptation

Biological systems, especially pathogens, can adapt and develop resistance to drugs over time. CADD methods may not fully account for the dynamic nature of these systems, leading to challenges in predicting long-term efficacy.

Ethical and Legal Concerns

The use of CADD raises ethical concerns, especially when predicting potential drug candidates without extensive experimental validation. Issues related to intellectual property, safety and regulatory approval can also be challenging. Despite these limitations, CADD remains a valuable tool in drug discovery, often used in conjunction with experimental methods to accelerate the identification and optimization of potential drug candidates. Ongoing research aims to address these challenges and improve the reliability of computational methods in drug design.34,35

DISCUSSION

CADD expedites the drug discovery process by facilitating virtual screening, lead optimization and the prediction of ligand-receptor interactions. This acceleration is crucial in addressing urgent medical needs and optimizing resources. Computational techniques enable rational drug design by providing insights into the three-dimensional structures of biological macromolecules and predicting how potential drug candidates interact with their targets. This rational approach enhances the likelihood of success in the drug development pipeline. CADD reduces the time and costs associated with experimental screening by allowing researchers to focus on a narrower set of compounds with a higher probability of success. This efficiency is particularly important in the context of large chemical spaces. The use of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models and machine learning allows for the prediction of compound properties, including biological activity, toxicity and Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion (ADME) properties. This predictive capability guides decision-making in the early stages of drug development. Computational tools assist in the identification and validation of drug targets through bioinformatics analyses, helping researchers prioritize targets based on their relevance to specific diseases. Molecular docking and dynamics simulations enhance our understanding of the dynamic nature of ligand-receptor interactions. This knowledge is critical for designing molecules with optimal binding affinity and specificity. CADD techniques can be tailored to address the unique challenges of specific diseases. Whether dealing with infectious diseases, cancer, neurodegenerative disorders, or other conditions, computational methods provide a versatile platform for designing disease-specific interventions. While computational predictions are valuable, the synergy between in silico and in vitro/in vivo experimental validation is essential. This integrated approach ensures the reliability and applicability of the identified drug candidates. The field of CADD is dynamic, with ongoing innovations in algorithms, software tools and methodologies. Researchers continually refine and expand their computational approaches to overcome challenges and improve the accuracy of predictions. As CADD becomes increasingly integral to drug discovery, ethical considerations regarding the balance between in silico predictions and experimental validation, as well as issues related to data privacy and intellectual property, merit careful attention. In essence, computer-aided drug design has transformed the drug discovery landscape, offering a powerful suite of tools that complement and enhance traditional experimental approaches. The continued advancement of computational techniques holds great promise for the development of innovative and targeted therapies to address the complex challenges posed by various diseases.

CONCLUSION

In this in silico assisted drug design process offering a powerful arsenal of tools collectively known as in silico methods. From molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations to Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models and artificial intelligence-based approaches, these methods play a pivotal role in expediting drug discovery and optimization. The utilization of molecular docking facilitates the prediction of ligand-receptor interactions, aiding in the identification of potential drug candidates. Predictions made through computational methods need to be validated experimentally. This involves synthesizing and testing selected compounds in vitro and in vivo. CADD expedites the drug discovery process by facilitating virtual screening, lead optimization and the prediction of ligand-receptor interactions. This acceleration is crucial in addressing urgent medical needs and optimizing resources. Computational techniques enable rational drug design by providing insights into the three-dimensional structures of biological macromolecules and predicting how potential drug candidates interact with their targets.

In conclusion, Computer-Aided Drug Design (CADD) techniques play a pivotal role in modern drug discovery efforts across various diseases. The integration of computational methods has significantly accelerated the identification and optimization of potential therapeutic agents.

REFERENCES

As published

Showing references and in-text citations exactly as published.

  1. 1.Macalino, SJ; Gosu, VK; Hong, S; Choi, S. Role of computer-aided drug design in modern drug discovery. Arch Pharm Res. 2015;38(9):1686–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12272-015-0640-5DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  2. 2.Sabe, VT; Ntombela, T; Jhamba, LA; Maguire, GE; Govender, T; Naicker, T et al. Current trends in computer aided drug design and a highlight of drugs discovered via computational techniques: a review. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;224:113705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113705DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  3. 3.Surabhi, SB; Singh, B. Computer aided drug design: an overview. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2018;8(5):504–9. https://doi.org/10.22270/jddt.v8i5.1894DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  4. 4.Kapetanovic, IM. Computer-aided drug discovery and development (CADD): in silico-chemico-biological approach. Chem Biol Interact. 2008;171(2):165–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2006.12.006DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  5. 5.Taft, CA; Da Silva, VB; Da Silva, CH. Current topics in computer-aided drug design. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97(3):1089–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.21293DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  6. 6.Talele, TT; Khedkar, SA; Rigby, AC. Successful applications of computer aided drug discovery: moving drugs from concept to the clinic. Curr Top Med Chem. 2010;10(1):127–41. https://doi.org/10.2174/156802610790232251DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  7. 7.Nascimento, IJ; de Aquino, TM; da Silva-Júnior, EF. The new era of drug discovery: the power of computer-aided drug design (CADD). Lett Drug Des Discov. 2022;19(11):951–5. https://doi.org/10.2174/1570180819666220405225817DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  8. 8.Bharatam, PV. Computer-aided drug design. Drug Discov Dev: From Targets and Molecules to Medicines. 2021;137–210.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  9. 9.Veselovsky, AV; Ivanov, AS. Strategy of computer-aided drug design. Curr Drug Targets Infect Disord. 2003;3(1):33–40. https://doi.org/10.2174/1568005033342145DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  10. 10.Padole, SS; Asnani, AJ; Chaple, DR; Katre, SG. A review of approaches in computer-aided drug design in drug discovery. GSC Biol PharmSci. 2022;19(2):75–83. https://doi.org/10.30574/gscbps.2022.19.2.0161DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  11. 11.Imam, SS; Gilani, SJ. Computer aided drug design: A novel loom to drug discovery. Organic & MedicinalChemistry [international journal]. 2017;1(3):113–8.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  12. 12.Usha, T; Shanmugarajan, D; Goyal, AK; Kumar, CS; Middha, SK. Recent updates on computer-aided drug discovery: time for a paradigm shift. Curr Top Med Chem. 2017;17(30):3296–307. https://doi.org/10.2174/1568026618666180101163651DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  13. 13.Kore, PP; Mutha, MM; Antre, RV; Oswal, RJ; Kshirsagar, SS. Computer-aided drug design: an innovative tool for modeling. OJMC. 2012;2(4):139–48. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmc.2012.24017DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  14. 14.Das, PS; Saha, P. AbdulAPJ A review on computer aided drug design in drug discovery. World J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2017;6(7):279–91.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  15. 15.Yu, W; MacKerell, AD. Computer-aided drug design methods. Antibiotics. Methods Protoc. 2017;85–106.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  16. 16.Tang, Y; Zhu, W; Chen, K; Jiang, H. New technologies in computer-aided drug design: toward target identification and new chemical entity discovery. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2006;3(3):307–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddtec.2006.09.004DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  17. 17.Ejalonibu, MA; Ogundare, SA; Elrashedy, AA; Ejalonibu, MA; Lawal, MM; Mhlongo, NN et al. Drug discovery for Mycobacterium tuberculosis using structure-based computer-aided drug design approach. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(24):13259. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222413259DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  18. 18.Xiang, M; Cao, Y; Fan, W; Chen, L; Mo, Y. Computer-aided drug design: lead discovery and optimization. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2012;15(4):328–37. https://doi.org/10.2174/138620712799361825DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  19. 19.Thakor, R; Ailani, R; Surani, S; Patel, B; Patel, D. Computer-aided drug designing. Adv Bioinformatics. 2021;151–82.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  20. 20.Medina-Franco, JL. Grand challenges of computer-aided drug design: the road ahead. Front Drug Discov. 2021;1:728551. https://doi.org/10.3389/fddsv.2021.728551DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  21. 21.Lill, MA; Danielson, ML. Computer-aided drug design platform using PyMOL. J Comput Aid Mol Des. 2011;25(1):13–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-010-9395-8DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  22. 22.Loew, GH; Villar, HO; Alkorta, I. Strategies for indirect computer-aided drug design. Pharm Res. 1993;10(4):475–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018977414572DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  23. 23.Drie, V; John, H. Computer-aided drug design: the next 20 years. J Comput Aid Mol Des. 2007;21(10-11):591–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9142-yDOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  24. 24.Gurung, AB; Ali, MA; Lee, J; Farah, MA; Al-Anazi, KM. An updated review of computer-aided drug design and its application to COVID-19. BioMed Res Int. 2021;2021:8853056. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8853056DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  25. 25.Hirono, S. An introduction to the computer-aided structure-based drug design-applications of bioinformatics to drug discovery. Rinsho Byori Jpn J Clin Pathol. 2002;50(1):45–51.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  26. 26.Talevi, A. Computer-aided drug design: an overview. In: Computational drug discovery and design. 2018;1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7756-7_1DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  27. 27.Oyedele, AK; Ogunlana, AT; Boyenle, ID; Adeyemi, AO; Rita, TO; Adelusi, TI et al. Docking covalent targets for drug discovery: stimulating the computer-aided drug design community of possible pitfalls and erroneous practices. Mol Divers. 2022;1–25.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  28. 28.Durrant, JD; McCammon, JA. Computer-aided drug-discovery techniques that account for receptor flexibility. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2010;10(6):770–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2010.09.001DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  29. 29.Prajapat, P; Agarwal, S; Talesara, GL. Significance of computer aided drug design and 3D QSAR in modern drug discovery. J Org Chem. 2017;1(1):1.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  30. 30.Frye, L; Bhat, S; Akinsanya, K; Abel, R. From computer-aided drug discovery to computer-driven drug discovery. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2021;39:111–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ddtec.2021.08.001DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  31. 31.Manathunga, M; Götz, AW; Merz, KM. Computer-aided drug design, quantum-mechanical methods for biological problems. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2022;75:102417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2022.102417DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  32. 32.Anwar, T; Kumar, P; Khan, AU. Modern tools and techniques in computer-aided drug design. MolDocking computer-. AideddrugDes. 2021;1–30.GOOGLE SCHOLAR
  33. 33.Bajorath, J. Deep machine learning for computer-aided drug Design. Front Drug Discov. 2022;2:829043. https://doi.org/10.3389/fddsv.2022.829043DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  34. 34.Salman, MM; Al-Obaidi, Z; Kitchen, P; Loreto, A; Bill, RM; Wade-Martins, RW. Advances in applying computer-aided drug design for neurodegenerative diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9):4688. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094688DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR
  35. 35.Huang, HJ; Yu, HW; Chen, CY; Hsu, CH; Chen, HY; Lee, KJ et al. Current developments of computer-aided drug design. J Taiwan Inst Chem Eng. 2010;41(6):623–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtice.2010.03.017DOIGOOGLE SCHOLAR

Cite this article

SELECT FORMAT

Gupta, P. K., Pal, Y., Kumar, P., Gupta, S., Singh, S. D., & Tiwari, S. B. (2024). A Critical Review on Computational Techniques through in silico Assisted Drug Design. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation, 14(4), 1035–1041. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijpi.14.4.113