← Back
Development of ruthenium antitumor drugs that overcome multidrug resistance mechanisms.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Exploration of Novel Inhibitors for Class I
Histone Deacetylase Isoforms by QSAR
Modeling and Molecular Dynamics
Simulation Assays
Zainab Noor, Noreen Afzal, Sajid Rashid*
National Center for Bioinformatics, Quaid I Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
* sajidrwp@yahoo.co.uk
Abstract
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Noor Z, Afzal N, Rashid S (2015)
Exploration of Novel Inhibitors for Class I Histone
Deacetylase Isoforms by QSAR Modeling and
Molecular Dynamics Simulation Assays. PLoS ONE
10(10): e0139588. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588
Editor: Eugene A. Permyakov, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Institute for Biological Instrumentation,
RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Received: July 17, 2015
Accepted: September 15, 2015
Published: October 2, 2015
Copyright: © 2015 Noor et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original author and source are
credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors have no support or funding to
report. The funders had no role in study design, data
collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Histone deacetylases (HDAC) are metal-dependent enzymes and considered as important targets for cell functioning. Particularly, higher expression of class I HDACs is common in the
onset of multiple malignancies which results in deregulation of many target genes involved in
cell growth, differentiation and survival. Although substantial attempts have been made to control the irregular functioning of HDACs by employing various inhibitors with high sensitivity
towards transformed cells, limited success has been achieved in epigenetic cancer therapy.
Here in this study, we used ligand-based pharmacophore and 2-dimensional quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) modeling approaches for targeting class I HDAC isoforms.
Pharmacophore models were generated by taking into account the known IC50 values and
experimental energy scores with extensive validations. The QSAR model having an external
R2 value of 0.93 was employed for virtual screening of compound libraries. 10 potential lead
compounds (C1-C10) were short-listed having strong binding affinities for HDACs, out of which
2 compounds (C8 and C9) were able to interact with all members of class I HDACs. The potential binding modes of HDAC2 and HDAC8 to C8 were explored through molecular dynamics
simulations. Overall, bioactivity and ligand efficiency (binding energy/non-hydrogen atoms)
profiles suggested that proposed hits may be more effective inhibitors for cancer therapy.
Introduction
Histone Acetyltransferases (HATs) and HDACs regulate the acetylation and deacetylation
events of small alkaline histones associated with DNA double helical structure [1,2]. Interactions
of positively charged amino-terminal tails of histones with negatively charged phosphodiester
backbones of DNA results in chromatin compaction [3,4]. The associated conformational
changes which occur due to acetylation of lysine residues result in chromatin remodeling. Thus,
HATs mediated acetylation promotes chromatin relaxation by loosening the packed histones
and DNA, thereby facilitating the accession of transcription factors to bind to respective DNA
templates [5–7]. In contrast to acetylation, compactness of nucleosome units and controlled gene
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
1 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
expression as a result of deacetylation is mediated by HDACs [1]. Histones play crucial roles in
stabilizing the heritable epigenetic changes in gene activity and expression [2]. Any disturbances
in these functions may lead to the abnormal expression of genetic material that may cause fatal
diseases like diabetes and cancer [8,9].
The critical roles of HATs and HDACs in tumor progression, cardiac and brain disorders have
been analyzed in many studies [10–13]. In human, at least 18 HDACs have been identified that are
grouped into four classes and comprise of two major categories: Zn+2 and NAD+ dependent [14].
This classification is based on the structural, functional and phylogenetic analysis of HDACs [15].
A detailed overview of cellular compartments and HDAC involvements in diverse biological processes is given in Table 1. Class I comprises of HDAC1-3 and 8 [16–18] which controls many functional and regulatory mechanisms [19]. Importantly, implication of class I HDACs has been
monitored in hematological malignancies, resulting in differentiation and proliferation abnormalities of myeloid cells [20]. In tumor progression, most prevailing alteration is linked to abnormal
expressions of HDACs [21]. Aberrant expression pattern of HDAC1 has been observed in prostate,
gastric, breast and colon [22–25] cancers. Similarly, onset of gastric, cervical and colorectal carcinoma [26–28] is associated with increased expression of HDAC2. Abnormal expression patterns of
class I HDAC members are also evidenced in cell proliferation and migration during ovarian and
breast carcinomas [29]. In these tumor cells, down-regulation of e-cadherin is associated with
HDAC3 overexpression. Unbalanced expressions of HDAC members also result in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia (APL) such as lymphoblastic APL and non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas [28,30].
Table 1. Classification and biological roles of HDACs.
Classes
Class I
Class II
Cofactors
+2
Zn
Zn+2
HDACs
dependent
1, 2, 3, 8
regulation,
Cell
differentiation, DNA damage
response, Epidermis
development, Regulating cardiac
myocyte proliferation on the
course of cardiac development
4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10
dependent
transcription
and cell
Class III
NAD+
Cellular Locations
dependent
differentiation, Regulation of
cardiac muscle contraction,
Inflammatory response, Nervous
system development, Heart
development, Protein
polyubiquitination, Response to
toxic and organic substances,
Macroautophagy,
Vasculogenesis
Sirtuins SIRT1-SIRT7
Biological Processes
References
Nucleus, Cytoplasm, Transcriptional repressor complex,
Spindle microtubule, Replication fork
Cell cycle
[16–18]
Cytoplasm, Nucleus, Neuromuscular junction, Golgi
apparatus, Cytosol caveola
[1, 17]
Nucleus, Cytoplasm
deacetylation, Regulation of
phosphorylation, Regulation of
double-strand break repair via
homologous recombination, DNA
repair mechanism
Class IV
Zn+2
dependent
Transcription,
DNAdependent
chromatin
modification,
Histone
11
Regulation
of
Histone
[16]
Nucleus
Deacetylation
[16]
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.t001
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
2 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Another mechanism of HDAC-mediated tumor onset is due to transcriptional repression of
tumor suppressor genes and their aberrant recruitments to promoter regions. In recent years,
many studies potentiate the ways of targeted HDAC inhibition in the context of tumor control
[31,32]. Transcriptional activation of tumor suppressor genes by the inhibition of HDAC activity
is considered as an ideal and innovative strategy. To date, several HDAC inhibitors (HDACi) like
hydroxamic acids, benzamides, short chain carbolic acids, and cyclic tetrapeptides have been
characterized in vitro and ex vivo for various cancers [33–36]. Hydroxamic acids (hydroximates)
include vorinostat (SAHA), belinostat (PXD101), panobinostat (LBH589), dacinostat (LAQ824),
givinostat (ITF-2357) and trichostatin A (TSA). Benzamides are the derivatives of benzoic acid
which include entinostat (MS-275), p-N-acetyldinaline (CI-994), mocetinostat (MGCD0103)
and SK-7041. Short chain carboxylic acids (aliphatic acids) are relatively weak inhibitors which
comprise of valproic acid or VPA, butyrate and sodium phenyl butyrate. Cyclic tetrapeptides or
cyclic peptides are structurally complex molecules which consist of romidepsin (depsipeptide),
apicidin (OSI-2040), trapoxin A and trapoxin B (cyclic hydroxamic acid) [37,38]. Currently,
these inhibitors are under investigations in clinical trials [39–44]. In cancer patients, functional
activity of HDACi is mediated extrinsically as well as intrinsically due to cell cycle arrest at G1/
G2 phases and up-regulation of apoptosis [31,45]. Sensitivity of actinotheraphy and chemotherapy for cancers is also enhanced by HDAC inhibition [46].
In silico drug designing strategies are extensively applied for the identification of novel
inhibitors through modeled HDAC structures and their pharmacophore-based studies [47–
53]. However, these inhibitors are unique in terms of HDAC targeting actions. Here, through
comparative ligand-based approaches, several novel candidate hits were proposed and added
in the list of HDACi which are able to target entire class I of HDACs.
Methodology
Dataset
High resolution co-crystallized structures of class I HDACs were retrieved through PDB database [54] with following PDB IDs: 4BKX (HDAC1), 4LXZ (HDAC2), 4A69 (HDAC3) and
1T64 (HDAC8) (Table A in S1 File). These structures were further refined by adding charges
and missing residues through dock prep module of UCSF Chimera 1.10 [55]. Binding and catalytic site details of class I HDACs were extracted through PDBSum [56]. Structural superimposition was performed by UCSF Chimera 1.10 [55]. Additionally, comparative binding mode of
class I HDACs has been reviewed through literature [47,48,53].
Pharmacophore/QSAR Model Generation
In order to generate the ligand-based quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) and
pharmacophore models, 16 known inhibitors (Table B in S1 File) were selected. These known
HDAC inhibitors were collected through literature survey [57–73] and classified on the basis
of their inhibition potential values for class I HDACs. Chemical structures and bioactivities of
these inhibitors were extracted through EMBL-EBI ChEMBL database [74], while their 2D/3D
molecular descriptors values were retrieved through ChemAxon’s Chemicalize [75] and Molinspiration [76]. Molecular dockings of these inhibitors were performed against class I HDACs
by AutoDock VINA with default parameters i.e. exhaustiveness = 8 and energy range = 3 [77].
The selection of training set compounds was based on bioactivity and binding affinity attributes of docked protein-inhibitor complexes. The best docked conformations of inhibitors having least IC50 values and high binding abilities were filtered out for pharmacophore generation.
In order to design 2D QSAR model, IC50 values of training set compounds against HDAC1, 2,
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
3 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
3 and 8 were converted into pIC50 values and average pIC50 values were calculated for each of
the training set compound.
Test data set was created to evaluate the quality of pharmacophore hypotheses. Known
selective and non-selective synthetic molecules were gathered through ChEMBL [74] which
were utilized in human assays [68,69,71,73,78–109] to generate a dataset of 71 compounds
(Table C in S1 File) and their experimental IC50 values were assessed. Compounds having
weak inhibition potential (IC50 > 2500 nM) for class I HDACs were grouped in decoy set,
whereas high inhibitory compounds (IC50 < 2500 nM) were placed in the active dataset. By
implying the above criteria, 41 compounds were found to be active and 30 were declared as
decoys. 3D generation and optimization of data set compounds was performed by ACD
ChemSketch [110].
To generate pharmacophore models, training set hits were employed in the ligand-based
module of the LigandScout 3.0 [111]. Pharmacophoric sites such as hydrogen bond donor
(HBD), hydrogen bond acceptor (HBA), hydrophobic sites, aromatic ring and positive and
negative ionizable groups were carefully characterized. To incorporate the associated features
of selected compounds, merge feature model generation and atom overlap scoring function of
LigandScout 3.0 was applied. Subsequently, descriptor selection analysis was performed
through forward selection (FS), backward elimination (BE) and stepwise selection (SS), the
classical methods of variable selection [112]. All unique descriptors signifying the model were
selected, while excluding the non-significant descriptors. QSAR model was created by employing multiple linear regression (MLR) technique [113]. Regression module of the IBM statistical
package for social sciences (SPSS) version 22 [114] was used to create the regression model by
employing Eq 1.
yi ¼ b0 þ b1 xi þ εi ;
i ¼ 1; . . . :; n
ð1Þ
Where, y (pIC50) is the dependent variable, x is the independent variable, β is the coefficient
and ε is the error value. QSAR and pharmacophore models were statistically evaluated to
check their reliabilities prior to implementation.
Top five models exhibiting significant statistical values were scrutinized as 3D query for virtual screening. Validated 3D pharmacophore models were screened against a total of 48,386
compounds (2,601 of Aurora [115] and 45,785 of Princeton [116] libraries) to prey novel drug
targets. The novel hits were selected for docking analysis on the basis of high query fit values
relative to pharmacophore models.
Molecular docking and dynamic simulation assays
Molecular docking analyses of highly ranked compounds were performed for class I HDACs
through above mentioned parameters of AutoDock VINA [77]. Subsequently, energy scores
and HDAC bound poses of these compounds were carefully evaluated. To study the structural
dynamics of receptor-ligand complex, molecular dynamics (MD) simulations of HDAC2 and
HDAC8 were performed. Gromacs 4.5.5 [117] and GROMOS96 43a1 force field with SPC
water model was used for MD simulations. Subsequently, energy minimization was performed
by steepest descent method and appropriate counter ions were added to neutralize the system
[118,119]. Finally, a 12 ns MD simulation run was performed at constant temperature (300 K)
and pressure (1 atm). GROMACS analysis tools were used for the analysis of MD simulation
trajectories (118). The stability of secondary structure elements, conformational changes and
interactions were assessed by computing root mean square deviation (RMSD), root mean
square fluctuation (RMSF) and hydrogen bonds obtained throughout MD trajectories. For
RMSD, RMSF, gyration and hydrogen bonds g_rms, g_rmsf, g_gyrate and g_hbond modules
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
4 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
of Gromacs were applied, respectively. RMS cluster distribution of HDAC2 and HDAC8 backbone was computed using g_cluster module with nearest neighbor method. Energy values
along the MD trajectories were calculated by Eq 2.
E ¼ Ebond stretch þ Eangle bend þ Erotation þ Evander waals þ Eelectrostatic
ð2Þ
All simulations were carried out through an open SUSE 11.2 system with Intel(R) core
(TM) i5-2300 CPU containing Linux 2.6.31.5–0.1 operating system. The binding patterns were
carefully monitored through Accelrys Discovery Studio 4 [120].
ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicity) properties were
predicted through AdmetSAR [121] server to hypothetically depict the positive and negative
biological effects of compounds. Bioavailability, Rule of Five (ROF), lead-likeness and other filters were assessed using Chemicalize [75]. Toxicity parameters such as mutagenic and tumorigenic effects of selected compounds were evaluated through OSIRIS [122].
Expected IC50 values of compounds were predicted through QSAR model. Physiochemical
descriptors of compounds were extracted by Chemicalize [75] and Molinspiration [76] servers.
To avoid any redundancy issue, predicted compounds were compared against small molecule
library available in ChEMBL [74] database, based on 90% similarity threshold. Synthetic
accessibility analysis of predicted hits was performed through SYLVIA [123] tool.
Results
Binding site analysis
Binding sites of class I HDAC family members were evaluated by structural comparisons
(Fig 1). Co-crystallized structures of HDAC1, 2, 3 and 8 showed structural similarities with an
RMSD value of 0.5Å (Fig 1A). Zn+2 ions were coordinated by one HIS and two ASP residues of
individual HDACs (Fig 1B). These catalytic residues resided within the 4Å region of surface
forming the tunnel shaped pocket.
Fig 1. Zn+2 dependent class I HDACs. (a) Structural superimposition of HDACs. (b) Binding sites of class 1 HDACs. HDAC1, 2, 3 and 8 are shown in
orange, pink, green and blue, respectively. Zn+2 is shown in brown color.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g001
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
5 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Pharmacophore-based 2D QSAR modeling
In order to select training set compounds, binding affinities, IC50 and molecular descriptors
values of known class I HDAC inhibitors were monitored (Tables B, D and E in S1 File). These
known hits included MS-275, LBH-589, LAQ-824, Trichostatin A, Saha, Belinostat, Oxamflatin, Pyroxamide, Mocetinostat, and Scriptaid with IC50 values ranging from 5–300 nM. 5–7
pharmacophore models were generated based on the information of docking poses of training
set compounds and their pharmacophore fit values were evaluated. The ideal pharmacophore
models with high query fit values were shown in Figure A in S1 File. These models exhibited
good pharmacophoric features such as hydrogen bond donors, hydrogen bond acceptors,
hydrophobic sites and negative ionizable groups (Zn+2 binding locations). QSAR regression
model was generated using 5 descriptors of training set compounds, as shown in Eq 3. Their
pIC50 values were shown in Table F in S1 File.
pIC50 ¼ 14:48ð3:8Þ 0:13ð0:06Þ Mol:polarizability þ 0:06ð0:04Þ logP
þ 0:17ð0:04Þ Topological Polar Surface Area ðTPSAÞ 2:54ð0:5Þ
Hy:Bond Acceptor 2:57ð1:21Þ Balaban Indexð3Þ
To determine the reliability and predictability of models, several statistical parameters
(Table G in S1 File) were applied which showed positive results. Higher sensitivity and specificity values, percent of active yield (%Y), enrichment factor and Guner-Henry score depict the
performance quality of pharmacophore model [124] (Fig 2A). Our generated models showed
high sensitivity and specificity values; models 1 and 2 resulted in 80% and 75% retrieval of
active compounds, respectively. Scores of other statistical parameters were comprised of 80%
score of number of active percent of yields (%Y) and G.H scores of 0.7 and 0.65 for models 1
and 2, respectively. Statistical evaluation of QSAR model included goodness of fit i.e. R2 (correlation coefficient) and adjusted R2 (goodness of fit) values (coefficient of determination). The
R2 value (0.93) and adjusted R2 (0.84) were close to 1 and standard error value was close to 0
(Table 2). External validation was performed by predicting pIC50 values of training set compounds through generated model and cross-validated against the given activity values (Fig 2B).
Observed IC50 values of training set compounds were comparable with the predicted values
Fig 2. Statistical validation of designed pharmacophore and QSAR models. (a) Top five pharmacophore models labeled as Model (1–5). (b) Correlation
analysis of QSAR regression model. Green dots depict the observed vs predicted IC50 values and correlation best fit dotted line is shown in blue.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g002
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
6 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Table 2. Statistical parameters for regression model.
N
R
R2
Adjusted R2
Std. Error
Significance
10
0.96
0.93
0.84
0.24
0.02
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.t002
and residual error values were 0.5. ANalysis of VAriance (ANoVA) test [125] also verified
the model with a p-value of 0.02.
Virtual screening
Pharmacophore model was incorporated to the virtual screening of compound libraries and
about 2000 hits were screened out with high to low query fit values. 81 top scoring hits were
selected for docking and drug-like analysis. 16 novel hits (1–16 in Table H in S1 File) exhibited
interactions with specified binding sites of class I HDACs. These novel compounds were further exploited for the analysis of steric and physiochemical properties (Table I in S1 File) and
10 compounds (C1-C10) were identified as potential inhibitors for class I HDACs. The 2D
structures and binding profile of these compounds are listed in Fig 3 and Table J in S1 File indicates their IUPAC names and SMILE codes. These compounds (C1-C10) exhibited interactions with Zn+2 and binding pocket residues of class I HDACs. C8 and C9 showed class
specific binding (Fig 4), while other hits were specific for individual HDACs (Figures B-E in S1
File). Binding pattern of new drug-like compounds coincides with the experimental known
binding of existing inhibitors. Bound complexes of SAHA with HDAC2 and Trichostatin A
with HDAC8 were shown in Figure F in S1 File which depicted that these inhibitors have similar interaction mode as described for the newly identified inhibitors (Figures B-E in S1 File).
Interacting residues and distances of proposed compounds (C1-C10) were also in good agreement to the experimental results.
ADMET analysis, binding contributions and physiochemical properties suggested that predicted hits (C1-C10) (Table 3) may act as more potent inhibitors against class I HDACs. Synthetic accessibility scores (<5) of these hits (Fig 5) further validated these hits. The expected
pIC50 values of these hits were predicted by QSAR model (Eq 1) and compared with the known
pIC50 values of training set compounds. As evident, hit C7 (pIC50 = 12.5) is the most bioactive
compound (Fig 5).
Fig 3. 2D structures and binding energies of compounds C1-C10. (a) 2D structures (b) Binding energy overview.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g003
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
7 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Recently, the properties like ligand efficiency (LE) or binding energy of ligand per atom
[126–128] and lipophilic efficiency (LipE or LLE) [129, 130] have been considered essential for
lead optimization [131,132], which rely on both potency and lipophilicity profiles. LE is the
ratio of free energy of binding to the number of heavy atoms and was calculated by assuming
the standard conditions of aqueous solution i.e. 300K, neutral pH and remaining concentrations of 1M (Eq 4) [133]. To access the lipophilicity of predicted hits, logP (activity/size) values
were calculated (Table 4) using Bio-Loom version 1.5 [134] and compared with pIC50 values.
LE (Eq 4) [135,133] and LipE (Eq 5) [129] profiles of inhibitors were used to identify the hits
with higher activities (Table 4).
LE ¼ ð1:37=HAÞ pIC50
ð4Þ
LLE ¼ pIC50 clogP
ð5Þ
Size-independent ligand efficiency values (LEScale) of these hits were calculated through fitting the top LE values with heavy atom count through a simple exponential function (Eq 6), as
described [127,128]. “Fit Quality” or “FQ” scoring function (Eq 7) is the ratio of LE and
Fig 4. Binding pattern of compound C8 with class 1 HDACs. C8 (7-methoxy-N-((4-sulfamoylphenyl)methyl)-1-benzofuran-2-carboxamide) was shown in
blue, whereas hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic residues were shown in pink and yellow, respectively. (a) Hit C8 forms hydrogen bonds with HIS140,
HIS148, HIS178, ASP264 and TYR303 of HDAC1; (b) HIS145, HIS146, HIS183 and TYR308 of HDAC2; (c) HIS134, HIS135, HIS172, ASP259 and (d)
TYR298 of HDAC3 and HIS142, HIS143, HIS180 and TYR306 of HDAC8. C8 bonding with Zn+2 is shown in green color with an average distance of 2Å.
Hydrophobic residues involved in interaction are (a) ASP99, GLY149, PHE150 and GLY301 in HDAC1; (b) PHE155, PHE210, ASP269 and GLY306 in
HDAC2; (c) ASP93, PHE144, ASP170, PHE209 and GLY296 in HDAC3 and (d) PHE152, PHE208, MET274 and GLY304 in HDAC8.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g004
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
8 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Table 3. ADME and Toxicity Analysis.
Compounds
Human Intestinal
Absorption
CYP450
Inhibition
Blood Brain
Barrier
Bioavailability
No
Mutagenic
No
Tumorigenic
No
Irritant
C1
1
0.72
0.964
+
+
+
+
C2
0.8
0.6
0.7
+
+
+
+
C3
0.9
0.8
0.7
+
+
+
+
C4
0.9
0.6
0.7
+
+
+
+
C5
0.7
0.6
0.7
+
+
+
+
C6
0.9
0.8
0.9
+
+
+
+
C7
1
0.8
0.7
+
+
+
+
C8
1
0.8
0.8
+
+
+
+
C9
0.9
0.8
0.6
+
+
+
+
C10
1
0.7
0.6
+
+
+
+
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.t003
LEScale which was computed to detect the optimal ligand binding properties of predicted hits.
LEScale ¼ 0:104 þ 0:65e0:037HA
ð6Þ
FQ ¼ LE=LEScale
ð7Þ
Conventionally, clogP <3, LipE > 5 and FQ close to 1 are considered as optimal properties
for highly bioactive compounds [127–129]. Clearly, clogP values of C1, C2, C3, C4, C7, C8 and
C10 hits ranged in 0.2 to 2.5 (Fig 6A), while about 50% compounds exhibited LipE > 5
(Table 4). Similarly, FQ scores of these compounds were also in acceptable range (Fig 6B), indicating that proposed hits may have better in vivo performance based on their ligand binding,
potency and lipophilicity profiles.
Molecular dynamics simulation analysis
To elucidate the dynamic behavior of class I HDACs upon binding to inhibitor and to gauge
the pattern of system stability, HDAC2 and HDAC8 were subjected to molecular dynamics
(MD) simulations. The stability of secondary structure elements and conformational changes
were assessed by computing root mean square deviation (RMSD) and root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) plots of values obtained throughout MD trajectories. RMSD is a measure of
Fig 5. Synthetic accessibility score and expected pIC50 values.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g005
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
9 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Table 4. Ligand efficiency (LE), Lipophilic Efficiency (LipE) and Fit Quality (FQ) values of C1-C10 hits.
Compounds
pIC50
HA
clogP
LE
LEScale
LipE
FQ
C1
6.2
25
2.94
0.34
0.36
3.26
0.95
C2
8.1
25
0.81
0.44
0.36
7.29
1.22
C3
8
19
0.27
0.58
0.43
7.73
1.35
C4
5.2
27
1.49
0.26
0.34
3.71
0.76
C5
6
22
4.11
0.37
0.29
1.89
1.28
C6
8
19
3.38
0.58
0.43
4.62
1.35
C7
12.5
26
2.23
0.66
0.35
10.27
1.89
C8
8
25
1.7
0.44
0.36
6.3
1.22
C9
6.4
25
-0.2
0.35
0.36
6.6
0.97
C10
7.2
23
2.5
0.43
0.38
4.7
1.13
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.t004
stable interaction pattern of docked complex. In case of HDAC2, RMSD trend remained stable
for both bound and unbound complexes within the range of 1.5-2Å (Fig 7A). However, In case
of apo HDAC8, an increasing trend of RMSD profile (1.5Å to 2.8Å) was observed between 2–4
ns, while in its bound form with C8, system attained lower RMSD values in a range of 1.5Å2.2Å (Fig 7B). Our analysis indicated that backbone RMSD profiles of HDAC2 and HDAC8
systems remained stable during 12 ns MD runs.
RMSF plots provided insight into the residual fluctuations upon binding to inhibitor (Fig
8). In HDAC2 bound to C8, higher RMSF values were observed for ILE40-THR43 (2–2.7Å),
PHE210 (0.8-2Å) and LEU333 (1.5-2Å) residues (Fig 8A), while residues involved in inhibitor
binding namely, HIS145, HIS146, ASP181, HIS183, ASP269 and TYR308 were quite stable. In
HDAC8-C8 system, fluctuations were more common in ASP87, ASP88, SER193-SER199 and
GLY320 residues. However, RMSF profiles of binding site and Zn+2 coordinated residues
(HIS142, HIS143, ASP178, HIS180, ASP267 and TYR306) exhibited a lower trend (Fig 8B).
The observed conformational changes occurring in the proximal residues of HDAC2 and
HDAC8 binding sites induced more flexibility to accommodate the inhibitor.
Fig 6. Ligand efficiency analysis of 10 selected compounds (C1-C10). (a) ClogP and (b) Fit Quality graph.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g006
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
10 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Fig 7. RMSD plot for 12 ns MD simulation. (a) RMSD plot for HDAC2-C8 complex (yellow) and HDAC2 without ligand (red). (b) RMSD plot for HDAC8-C8
complex (green) and HDAC8 without ligand (blue).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g007
The potential energy of system is a measure of its stability. By plotting potential energy as a
function of time, we observed that systems were well equilibrated and remained stable throughout MD simulations. The HDAC2-C8 (-74100 kcal/mol) system has shown lower potential
energy values compared to HDAC8-C8 (-727500 kcal/mol) complex (Fig 9). The binding characteristics of HDAC2 and HDAC8 with C8 were analyzed through plotting time-dependent
intermolecular hydrogen bonds. Compared to HDAC8-C8 system, the intermolecular hydrogen bonds were increased in HDAC2-C8 complex after 2 ns of simulation time, indicating
higher interactions (Fig 10). Overall, hydrogen bond interactions remained stable throughout
the simulation time. These results substantiated that C8 exhibited more stable binding to
HDAC2 compared to HDAC8, which is in good agreement to the distribution of RMSD distances of trajectory conformation pairs. The lower mean RMS values in case of HDAC2-C8
complex displayed the stable nature of system compared to apo HDAC2, while in C8 bound
and unbound HDAC8, the pattern of RMS distribution was quite similar (Fig 11). Analysis of
radius of gyration (Rg) together with RMSD profile revealed a convergence of Rg values
between 1.88 nm to 1.91 nm for HDAC2-C8 complex (Fig 12A). In case of apo HDAC8, Rg
Fig 8. RMSF plot for 12 ns MD simulation. (a) RMSF plot for HDAC2-C8 complex (yellow) and HDAC2 without ligand (red). (b) RMSF plot for HDAC8-C8
complex (green) and HDAC8 without ligand (blue).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g008
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
11 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Fig 9. Energy plot for 12 ns MD simulation. (a) Energy plot for HDAC2-C8 complex (yellow). (b) Energy plot for HDAC8-C8 complex (green).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g009
trend was quite different compared to its bound form (Fig 12B). These data indicated that
structural transitions in HDAC2 resulted in less tight packing, while in HDAC8, binding of C8
induced more compaction in the structure.
Discussion
Ligand-based pharmacophore modeling, based on the energetic binding values of inhibitors (epharmacophore) is considered as effective tool in rational drug design [53]. Here we retrieved a
diverse set of inhibitors for class I HDACs by generating pharmacophore/QSAR models based
on QSAR properties of MS-275, LBH-589, LAQ-824, Trichostatin A, Saha, Belinostat, Oxamflatin, Pyroxamide, Mocetinostat, and Scriptaid. The quality of our selected model (R2 value of
0.93) was quite high, compared to previously proposed pharmacophore/QSAR models for
screening HDAC inhibitors [49–51]. Subsequently, 10 novel hit compounds (C1-C10) were
determined through their query fit values and pharmacophoric features they possess. Our current protocol of pharmacophore/QSAR-based virtual screening was quite efficient in predicting the reliable inhibitors as it was based on a subset of selective descriptors which were based
on known scaffolds.
Through docking analysis, the candidate hits with binding affinities for all members of class
I HDACs were selected for detailed analysis. The structural features of predicted hits were
much similar by having a capping region, a linker and a Zn+2 ion binding region. The predicted
hits were derivatives of benzamides, acetamides, carboxamides and hydrazides. Out of these
hits, C8 (7-methoxy-N-[(4-sulfamoylphenyl)methyl]-1-benzofuran-2-carboxamide) and C9 2-
Fig 10. Hydrogen bonds plot for 12 ns MD simulation. (a) Hydrogen bonds for HDAC2-C8 complex (yellow). (b) Hydrogen bonds for HDAC8-C8 complex
(green).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g010
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
12 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Fig 11. RMS distribution for 12 ns MD simulation. (a) RMS distribution pattern for HDAC2-C8 complex (yellow) and HDAC2 without ligand (red). (b) RMS
distribution for HDAC8-C8 complex (green) and HDAC8 without ligand (blue).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g011
(5-bromo-2,4-dioxo-1,2,3,4-tetrahydropyrimidin-1-yl)-N-[1-(4-sulfamoylphenyl)ethyl]acetamide showed ideal binding energetics for HDAC1, 2, 3 and 8 (Fig 3). In C8, carboxamide moiety was involved in hydrogen bonding with Zn+2 metal ion as well as other active site residues.
Due to possessing Zn+2-binding amide moieties and stereo selectivity, carboxamides are considered as more potent inhibitors for HDACs [136,137]. Recent experimental evidences support benzofuran-2-carboxamide derivatives for their antitumor and anti-proliferative
properties [138]. Similarly, various benzofuran-2-carboxylic acids bearing (chlorometyl) indoline or benzoyl nitrogen as DNA-binding group serve as structural subunits of synthetic analogues of natural antitumor agents such as dystamycin, CC-1065, duocarmycin, and netropsin
[139–141]. They also act as adenosine A2A receptor antagonists [142]. Based on the essential
value of carboxamides, hit C8 was analyzed in detail for its binding to class I HDAC isoforms.
In the catalytic pockets of HDACs, sulfamoylphenyl ring of C8 actively participated in the
hydrogen bonding with HIS140, HIS148, HIS178, ASP264 and TYR303 residues of HDAC1;
HIS145, HIS146, HIS183 and TYR308 of HDAC2; HIS134, HIS135, HIS172, ASP259 and
TYR298 of HDAC3 and HIS142, HIS143, HIS180 and TYR306 of HDAC8 (Fig 4). These interactions were mainly mediated by the conformational readjustments of linker region, while benzofuran ring was uniquely involved in hydrophobic interactions. Consequently, the O-atoms of
SO2 coordinated with metal ion in HDAC hydrophobic pockets. Indeed, study of hydrogen
Fig 12. Radius of gyration (Rg) analysis for 12 ns MD simulation. (a) Rg/RMSD plot for HDAC2-C8 complex (yellow) and HDAC2 without ligand (red). (b)
Rg/RMSD for HDAC8-C8 complex (green) and HDAC8 without ligand (blue).
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g012
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
13 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
bond network between catalytic metal ion and sulfonamide group may be useful to synthesize
more potent inhibitors for HDACs.
The proposed aromatic/heterocyclic compounds possessed isoform-specific interactions.
For example, crystal structure of HDAC1 exhibited binding with C3, C5 and C6 hits, HDAC2
showed binding with C1-C10, HDAC3 with C5, C6 and C7, while HDAC8 was complexed to
C1, C2, C3, C7 and C10. Interestingly, C1, C4, C6 and C9 compounds exhibited halogens as
capping groups which indicated that these inhibitors may prefer class I HDACs for binding.
The importance of halogenated capping in the selectivity of inhibitors has been well documented. In a series of aroyl pyrrolyl hydroxamide (APHA) compounds screened against maize
HD1-B and HD1-A (homologues of mammalian class I and class II HDACs), non-halogenated
derivatives showed no selectivity for class I or II [143]. Modification of the capping group
region led to 176-fold selectivity for class I HDAC over II. These data underscore that halogens
impart class selectivity. However, further analysis is warranted to understand the significance
of capping region in parallel to variations in the choice of linker region and metal binding
groups in HDACi selectivity.
Moreover, compounds with conserved scaffolds exhibited the comparable binding pattern
and energetics. Here, C1, C2 and C7 analogues (group I) possessed similar linker and Zn+2 ion
binding regions with distinguished capping region substituents i.e. difluoromethoxy, carbamoylmethoxy and dimethoxyphenyl, respectively (Fig 3A). Likewise, compounds C5 and C6
(group II) were distinct only in the capping site where the benzodioxin in C5 was replaced by
chlorophenyl in C6. (Fig 3A). Energy profiles of group I analogues (C1, C2 and C7) against
HDAC isoforms depicted more selectivity for HDAC2 and HDAC8 (Fig 3B). These acetamides
derivatives showed similar binding patterns at Zn+2 containing pockets of HDAC2 and 8 (Figures G and H in S1 File), while at the outward surface of binding tunnel, only C1 and C2
showed binding to the PHE (PHE210 of HDAC2 and PHE208 of HDAC8) and TYR (TYR308
of HDAC2 and TYR306 of HDAC8) residues (Figures G and H in S1 File). Similarly, group II
(C5 and C6) hydrazides showed binding selectivity against HDAC1, 2 and 3 (Fig 3B). Metal
binding regions of C5 and C6 hits formed hydrogen bonds with active site residues of HDAC
enzymes, whereas unlike C6, C5 exhibited binding of benzodioxin with HIS178, HIS183,
HIS172 of HDAC1, 2 and 3, respectively (Figures I—K in S1 File). Furthermore, predicted bioactivity analysis of these compounds also showed variability where C7 (group I) having
dimethoxyphenyl group and C6 (group II) with chlorophenyl substituent exhibited the highest
values (12.5 and 8), respectively. (Fig 5).
MD simulations of C8 with HDAC2 and HDAC8 impressively illustrated the conformational readjustments in the corresponding catalytic sites. Generally, certain conformational
changes take place in the vicinity of HDAC catalytic sites to accommodate the inhibitor
[144,145]. Binding of C8 was mediated by coordination with metal ion and hydrogen bond
acceptors such as HIS145, HIS146, HIS183 and TYR308 in HDAC2 and HIS142, HIS143,
HIS180 and TYR306 in HDAC8. These residues showed no structural dynamics during the
inhibitor binding. Notably, hydrophobic residues namely ILE40-THR43, PHE210 and LEU333
exhibited more fluctuations in HDAC2 bound to C8 hit. Particularly, PHE210 exhibited the
highest peak (0.8-2Å) in RMSF plot. This residue is conserved across the class I HDACs. Previously, an active contribution of PHE210 was detected in the binding of NSC746457 [146] and
YF479 inhibitor [147] to HDAC2. Moreover, its involvement is also visible in TSA (Trichostatin A)-HDAC2 crystal structure [148]. The consistent trend in residual conformations suggested an active contribution of PHE210 in the induction of inhibitor binding to HDAC2. In
HDAC8, more pronounced fluctuations were observed in ASP87, ASP88, SER193-SER199 and
GLY320 residues. However, the residues holding the Zn+2 ion in the catalytic sites of HDAC2
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
14 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Fig 13. Disease association and inhibition mechanism of class I HDACs. Over expression of HDACs
has been perceived in numerous cancers. Binding of drug-like molecules to the catalytic cavity of HDACs
eradicates these enzymes from transcription initiation site and stimulates the inclusion of HATs. Acetylation
of histones by means of HATs reactivates the transcription of tumor suppressor genes. Expression of these
genes controls the abnormal cell growth by cell cycle arrest and mitotic cell death or escalation of apoptosis
and autophagy. Tumor suppressor genes enhance the sensitivity of chemotherapy and restrict the process of
angiogenesis by decreasing VEGF.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588.g013
(ASP181, HIS183 and ASP269) and HDAC8 (HIS142, HIS143, ASP178, HIS180, ASP267 and
TYR306) were quite stable.
With these structural insights, our nominated drug-like compounds may prove to be operational in combinatorial cancer therapy (Fig 13). Further studies are needed to delineate the
inhibitory effects of proposed inhibitors through in-vitro and in-vivo assays.
Conclusions
We employed QSAR approach to generate models of 10 chemical compounds (C1-C10) which
were derivatives of benzamides, acetamides, carboxamides and hydrazides. Pharmacophore
models demonstrated the improved values which stated the higher predictability and reliability
of screened hits. The predicted hits were tested for their inhibitory effects through docking
and MD simulation assays. C8 and C9 targeted all four members of class I HDACs, whereas
other compounds showed member specific interactions. The associated conformational
changes in the close proximity of binding regions assisted in the interaction of C8 to HDAC2
and HDAC8. RMSD trends for HDAC2 were much similar in both bound and unbound
forms, while HDAC8 bound to C8 attained more stability than apo HDAC8. On the basis of
in-silico binding analysis, these hits may prove as more potent drugs against class I HDACs
than previously known analogs to reverse the disequilibrium of acetylation and deacetylation
events.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
15 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
Supporting Information
S1 File. Supporting information.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge members of Functional Informatics Lab, National Center for Bioinformatics
for their indispensable support and encouragement.
Author Contributions
Conceived and designed the experiments: SR. Performed the experiments: ZN. Analyzed the
data: ZN NA. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: SR. Wrote the paper: SR ZN.
References
1.
Legube G, Trouche D. Regulating histone acetyltransferases and deacetylases. EMBO Rep. 2003; 4
(10): 944–947. PMID: 14528264
2.
Hayes JJ, Tullius TD, Wolffe AP. The structure of DNA in a nucleosome. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1990; 87
(19): 7405–7409. PMID: 2170977
3.
Arents G, Moudrianakis EN. Topography of the histone octamer surface: repeating structural motifs
utilized in the docking of nucleosomal DNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1993; 90(22): 10489–10493. PMID:
8248135
4.
Gregory PD, Wagner K, Hörz W. Histone acetylation and chromatin remodeling. Exp Cell Res. 2001;
265(2): 195–202. PMID: 11302684
5.
Lee DY, Hayes JJ, Pruss D, Wolffe AP. A positive role for histone acetylation in transcription factor
access to nucleosomal DNA. Cell. 1993; 72(1): 73–84. PMID: 8422685
6.
Norton VG, Imai BS, Yau P, Bradbury EM. Histone acetylation reduces nucleosome core particle linking number change. Cell. 1989; 57(3): 449–457. PMID: 2541913
7.
Vettese-Dadey M, Grant P, Hebbes T, Crane-Robinson C, Allis C, Workman J. Acetylation of histone
H4 plays a primary role in enhancing transcription factor binding to nucleosomal DNA in vitro. The
EMBO J. 1996; 15(10): 2508. PMID: 8665858
8.
Sidoli S, Cheng L, Jensen ON. Proteomics in chromatin biology and epigenetics: Elucidation of posttranslational modifications of histone proteins by mass spectrometry. J Proteomics. 2012; 75(12):
3419–3433. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2011.12.029 PMID: 22234360
9.
Berger SL. The complex language of chromatin regulation during transcription. Nature. 2007; 447
(7143): 407–412. PMID: 17522673
10.
Baradari V, Huether A, Höpfner M, Schuppan D, Scherübl H. Antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects
of histone deacetylase inhibitors on gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor cells. Endocr-Relat Cancer. 2006; 13(4): 1237–1250. PMID: 17158768
11.
Hahn CK, Ross KN, Warrington IM, Mazitschek R, Kanegai CM, Wright RD, et al. Expression-based
screening identifies the combination of histone deacetylase inhibitors and retinoids for neuroblastoma
differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2008; 105(28): 9751–9756. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710413105 PMID:
18607002
12.
McKinsey TA. Therapeutic potential for HDAC inhibitors in the heart. Annu Rev Pharmacol. 2012; 52:
303–319.
13.
Thomas EA. Focal nature of neurological disorders necessitates isotype-selective histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. Mol Neurobiol. 2009; 40(1): 33–45. doi: 10.1007/s12035-009-8067-y PMID:
19396637
14.
De Ruijter A, Van Gennip A, Caron H, Kemp S, van Kuilenburg A. Histone deacetylases (HDACs):
characterization of the classical HDAC family. Biochem J. 2003; 370: 737–749. PMID: 12429021
15.
Gregoretti I, Lee Y-M, Goodson HV. Molecular evolution of the histone deacetylase family: functional
implications of phylogenetic analysis. J Mol Biol. 2004; 338(1): 17–31. PMID: 15050820
16.
Minucci S, Pelicci PG. Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006; 6(1): 38–51. PMID: 16397526
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
16 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
17.
Hubbard T, Barker D, Birney E, Cameron G, Chen Y, Clark L, et al. The Ensembl genome database
project. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002; 30(1): 38–41. PMID: 11752248
18.
Miller KM, Tjeertes JV, Coates J, Legube G, Polo SE, Britton S, et al. Human HDAC1 and HDAC2
function in the DNA-damage response to promote DNA nonhomologous end-joining. Nat Struct Mol
Biol. 2010; 17(99): 1144–1151.
19.
Millard CJ, Watson PJ, Celardo I, Gordiyenko Y, Cowley SM, Robinson CV, et al. Class I HDACs
share a common mechanism of regulation by inositol phosphates. Mol Cell. 2013; 51(1): 57–67. doi:
10.1016/j.molcel.2013.05.020 PMID: 23791785
20.
Mercurio C, Minucci S, Pelicci PG. Histone deacetylases and epigenetic therapies of hematological
malignancies. Pharmacol Res. 2010; 62(1): 18–34. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2010.02.010 PMID: 20219679
21.
Ropero S, Esteller M. The role of histone deacetylases (HDACs) in human cancer. Mol Oncol. 2007; 1
(1): 19–25. doi: 10.1016/j.molonc.2007.01.001 PMID: 19383284
22.
Halkidou K, Gaughan L, Cook S, Leung HY, Neal DE, Robson CN. Upregulation and nuclear recruitment of HDAC1 in hormone refractory prostate cancer. The Prostate. 2004; 59(2): 177–189. PMID:
15042618
23.
Choi JH, Kwon HJ, Yoon BI, Kim JH, Han SU, Joo HJ, et al. Expression profile of histone deacetylase
1 in gastric cancer tissues. Cancer Sci. 2001; 92(12): 1300–1304.
24.
Zhang Z, Yamashita H, Toyama T, Sugiura H, Ando Y, Mita K, et al. Quantitation of HDAC1 mRNA
expression in invasive carcinoma of the breast*. Breast Cancer Res Tr. 2005; 94(1): 11–16.
25.
Wilson AJ, Byun D-S, Popova N, Murray LB, L'Italien K, Sowa Y, et al. Histone deacetylase 3
(HDAC3) and other class I HDACs regulate colon cell maturation and p21 expression and are deregulated in human colon cancer. J Biol Chem. 2006; 281(19): 13548–13558. PMID: 16533812
26.
Song J, Noh JH, Lee JH, Eun JW, Ahn YM, Kim SY, et al. Increased expression of histone deacetylase 2 is found in human gastric cancer. Apmis. 2005; 113(4): 264–268. PMID: 15865607
27.
Huang B, Laban M, Leung CH, Lee L, Lee C, Salto-Tellez M, et al. Inhibition of histone deacetylase 2
increases apoptosis and p21Cip1/WAF1 expression, independent of histone deacetylase 1. Cell
Death Differ. 2005; 12(4): 395–404. PMID: 15665816
28.
Zhu P, Martin E, Mengwasser J, Schlag P, Janssen K-P, Göttlicher M. Induction of HDAC2 expression
upon loss of APC in colorectal tumorigenesis. Cancer cell. 2004; 5(5): 455–463. PMID: 15144953
29.
Hayashi A, Horiuchi A, Kikuchi N, Hayashi T, Fuseya C, Suzuki A, et al. Type‐specific roles of histone
deacetylase (HDAC) overexpression in ovarian carcinoma: HDAC1 enhances cell proliferation and
HDAC3 stimulates cell migration with downregulation of E‐cadherin. Int J Cancer. 2010; 127(6):
1332–1346. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25151 PMID: 20049841
30.
Fenrick R, Hiebert SW. Role of histone deacetylases in acute leukemia. J Cell Biochem. 1998; 72
(S30-31): 194–202.
31.
Mai A, Massa S, Rotili D, Cerbara I, Valente S, Pezzi R, et al. Histone deacetylation in epigenetics: an
attractive target for anticancer therapy. Med Res Rev. 2005; 25(3): 261–309. PMID: 15717297
32.
Di Gennaro E, Bruzzese F, Caraglia M, Abruzzese A, Budillon A. Acetylation of proteins as novel target for antitumor therapy: review article. Amino acids. 2004; 26(4): 435–441. PMID: 15290351
33.
Marks PA, Richon VM, Miller T, Kelly WK. Histone deacetylase inhibitors. Adv Cancer Res. 2004; 91:
137–168. PMID: 15327890
34.
Dokmanovic M, Marks PA. Prospects: histone deacetylase inhibitors. J Cell Biochem. 2005; 96(2):
293–304. PMID: 16088937
35.
Bolden JE, Peart MJ, Johnstone RW. Anticancer activities of histone deacetylase inhibitors. Nat Rev
Drug Discov. 2006; 5(9): 769–784. PMID: 16955068
36.
Lane AA, Chabner BA. Histone deacetylase inhibitors in cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(32):
5459–5468. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.1291 PMID: 19826124
37.
Monneret C. Histone deacetylase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2005; 40(1): 1–13. PMID: 15642405
38.
Pan L, Lu J, Huang B. HDAC inhibitors: a potential new category of anti-tumor agents. Cell Mol Immunol. 2007; 4(5): 337–343. PMID: 17976313
39.
Schaefer EW, Loaiza-Bonilla A, Juckett M, DiPersio JF, Roy V, Slack J, et al. A phase 2 study of vorinostat in acute myeloid leukemia. haematologica. 2009; 94(10): 1375–1382. doi: 10.3324/haematol.
2009.009217 PMID: 19794082
40.
Molife L, Attard G, Fong P, Karavasilis V, Reid A, Patterson S, et al. Phase II, two-stage, single-arm
trial of the histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) romidepsin in metastatic castration-resistant prostate
cancer (CRPC). ANN ONCOL. 2010; 21(1): 109–113. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp270 PMID: 19608618
41.
Mackay HJ, Hirte H, Colgan T, Covens A, MacAlpine K, Grenci P, et al. Phase II trial of the histone
deacetylase inhibitor belinostat in women with platinum resistant epithelial ovarian cancer and
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
17 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
micropapillary (LMP) ovarian tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2010; 46(9): 1573–1579. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.
2010.02.047 PMID: 20304628
42.
Wagner JM, Hackanson B, Lübbert M, Jung M. Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors in recent clinical trials for cancer therapy. Clin Epigenetics. 2010; 1(3–4): 117–136. PMID: 21258646
43.
Kim H-J, Bae S-C. Histone deacetylase inhibitors: molecular mechanisms of action and clinical trials
as anti-cancer drugs. Am J Transl Res. 2011; 3(2): 166. PMID: 21416059
44.
Younes A, Sureda A, Ben-Yehuda D, Zinzani PL, Ong T-C, Prince HM, et al. Panobinostat in patients
with relapsed/refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma after autologous stem-cell transplantation: results of a
phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30(18): 2197–2203. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.1350 PMID:
22547596
45.
KIM YB, KI SW, YOSNIDA M, HORINOUCHI S. Mechanism of cell cycle arrest caused by histone
deacetylase inhibitors in human carcinoma cells. J Antibiot. 2000; 53(10): 1191–1200. PMID:
11132966
46.
Geng L, Cuneo KC, Fu A, Tu T, Atadja PW, Hallahan DE. Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) Inhibitor
LBH589 Increases Duration of γ-H2AX Foci and Confines HDAC4 to the Cytoplasm in Irradiated
Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Res. 2006; 66(23): 11298–11304. PMID: 17145876
47.
Wang D-F, Helquist P, Wiech NL, Wiest O. Toward selective histone deacetylase inhibitor design:
homology modeling, docking studies, and molecular dynamics simulations of human class I histone
deacetylases. J Med Chem. 2005; 48(22): 6936–6947. PMID: 16250652
48.
Vadivelan S, Sinha B, Rambabu G, Boppana K, Jagarlapudi SA. Pharmacophore modeling and virtual
screening studies to design some potential histone deacetylase inhibitors as new leads. J Mol Graphics Modell. 2008; 26(6): 935–946.
49.
Tang H, Wang XS, Huang X-P, Roth BL, Butler KV, Kozikowski AP, et al. Novel inhibitors of human
histone deacetylase (HDAC) identified by QSAR modeling of known inhibitors, virtual screening, and
experimental validation. J Chem Inf Model. 2009; 49(2): 461–476. doi: 10.1021/ci800366f PMID:
19182860
50.
Melagraki G, Afantitis A, Sarimveis H, Koutentis PA, Kollias G, Igglessi-Markopoulou O. Predictive
QSAR workflow for the in silico identification and screening of novel HDAC inhibitors. Mol Divers.
2009; 13(3): 301–311. doi: 10.1007/s11030-009-9115-2 PMID: 19205914
51.
Nair SB, Teli MK, Pradeep H, Rajanikant G. Computational identification of novel histone deacetylase
inhibitors by docking based QSAR. Comput Biol Med. 2012; 42(6): 697–705. doi: 10.1016/j.
compbiomed.2012.04.001 PMID: 22521374
52.
Park H, Kim S, Kim YE, Lim SJ. A Structure‐Based Virtual Screening Approach toward the Discovery
of Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors: Identification of Promising Zinc‐Chelating Groups. ChemMedChem. 2010; 5(4): 591–597. doi: 10.1002/cmdc.200900500 PMID: 20157916
53.
Kalyaanamoorthy S, Chen Y-PP. Energy based pharmacophore mapping of HDAC inhibitors against
class I HDAC enzymes. BBA-Proteins Proteom. 2013; 1834(1): 317–328.
54.
Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat T, Weissig H, et al. The protein data bank. Nucleic
Acids Res. 2000; 28(1): 235–242. PMID: 10592235
55.
Pettersen EF, Goddard TD, Huang CC, Couch GS, Greenblatt DM, Meng EC, et al. UCSF Chimera—
a visualization system for exploratory research and analysis. J Comput Chem. 2004; 25(13): 1605–
1612. PMID: 15264254
56.
Laskowski RA. PDBsum: summaries and analyses of PDB structures. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001; 29
(1): 221–222. PMID: 11125097
57.
Remiszewski SW, Sambucetti LC, Atadja P, Bair KW, Cornell WD, Green MA, et al. Inhibitors of
human histone deacetylase: synthesis and enzyme and cellular activity of straight chain hydroxamates. J Med Chem. 2002; 45(4): 753–757. PMID: 11831887
58.
Kim D-K, Lee JY, Kim J-S, Ryu J-H, Choi J-Y, Lee JW, et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation of 3(4-substituted-phenyl)-N-hydroxy-2-propenamides, a new class of histone deacetylase inhibitors. J
Med Chem. 2003; 46(26): 5745–5751. PMID: 14667227
59.
Bouchain G, Leit S, Frechette S, Khalil EA, Lavoie R, Moradei O, et al. Development of potential antitumor agents. Synthesis and biological evaluation of a new set of sulfonamide derivatives as histone
deacetylase inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(5): 820–830. PMID: 12593661
60.
Gurvich N, Tsygankova OM, Meinkoth JL, Klein PS. Histone deacetylase is a target of valproic acidmediated cellular differentiation. Cancer Res. 2004; 64(3): 1079–1086. PMID: 14871841
61.
Moradei OM, Mallais TC, Frechette S, Paquin I, Tessier PE, Leit SM, et al. Novel aminophenyl benzamide-type histone deacetylase inhibitors with enhanced potency and selectivity. J Med Chem. 2007;
50(23): 5543–5546. PMID: 17941625
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
18 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
62.
Witter DJ, Harrington P, Wilson KJ, Chenard M, Fleming JC, Haines B, et al. Optimization of biaryl
selective HDAC1&2 inhibitors (SHI-1: 2). Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2008; 18(2): 726–731. PMID:
18060775
63.
Zhou N, Moradei O, Raeppel S, Leit S, Frechette S, Gaudette F, et al. Discovery of N-(2-aminophenyl)-4-[(4-pyridin-3-ylpyrimidin-2-ylamino) methyl] benzamide (MGCD0103), an orally active histone
deacetylase inhibitor. J Med Chem. 2008; 51(14): 4072–4075. doi: 10.1021/jm800251w PMID:
18570366
64.
Jones P, Altamura S, De Francesco R, Gallinari P, Lahm A, Neddermann P, et al. Probing the elusive
catalytic activity of vertebrate class IIa histone deacetylases. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2008; 18(6):
1814–1819. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2008.02.025 PMID: 18308563
65.
Kinzel O, Llauger-Bufi L, Pescatore G, Rowley M, Schultz-Fademrecht C, Monteagudo E, et al. Discovery of a potent class I selective ketone histone deacetylase inhibitor with antitumor activity in vivo
and optimized pharmacokinetic properties. J Med Chem. 2009; 52(11): 3453–3456. doi: 10.1021/
jm9004303 PMID: 19441846
66.
Olsen CA, Ghadiri MR. Discovery of potent and selective histone deacetylase inhibitors via focused
combinatorial libraries of cyclic α3β-tetrapeptides. J Med Chem. 2009; 52(23): 7836–7846. doi: 10.
1021/jm900850t PMID: 19705846
67.
Hutt DM, Herman D, Rodrigues AP, Noel S, Pilewski JM, Matteson J, et al. Reduced histone deacetylase 7 activity restores function to misfolded CFTR in cystic fibrosis. Nat Chem Biol. 2010; 6(1): 25–
33. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.275 PMID: 19966789
68.
Auzzas L, Larsson A, Matera R, Baraldi A, Deschenes-Simard Bt, Giannini G, et al. Non-natural macrocyclic inhibitors of histone deacetylases: design, synthesis, and activity. J Med Chem. 2010; 53(23):
8387–8399. doi: 10.1021/jm101092u PMID: 21073160
69.
Vaidya AS, Karumudi B, Mendonca E, Madriaga A, Abdelkarim H, van Breemen RB, et al. Design,
synthesis, modeling, biological evaluation and photoaffinity labeling studies of novel series of photoreactive benzamide probes for histone deacetylase 2. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2012; 22(15): 5025–
5030. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2012.06.017 PMID: 22771007
70.
Hirata Y, Hirata M, Kawaratani Y, Shibano M, Taniguchi M, Yasuda M, et al. Anti-tumor activity of new
orally bioavailable 2-amino-5-(thiophen-2-yl) benzamide-series histone deacetylase inhibitors, possessing an aqueous soluble functional group as a surface recognition domain. Bioorg Med Chem Lett.
2012; 22(5): 1926–1930. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2012.01.053 PMID: 22321215
71.
Olson DE, Wagner FF, Kaya T, Gale JP, Aidoud N, Davoine EL, et al. Discovery of the first histone
deacetylase 6/8 dual inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2013; 56(11): 4816–4820. doi: 10.1021/jm400390r
PMID: 23672185
72.
Feng T, Wang H, Su H, Lu H, Yu L, Zhang X, et al. Novel N-hydroxyfurylacrylamide-based histone
deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors with branched CAP group (Part 2). Bioorgan Med Chem. 2013; 21(17):
5339–5354.
73.
Kalin JH, Bergman JA. Development and therapeutic implications of selective histone deacetylase 6
inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2013; 56(16): 6297–6313. doi: 10.1021/jm4001659 PMID: 23627282
74.
Gaulton A, Bellis LJ, Bento AP, Chambers J, Davies M, Hersey A, et al. ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012; 40(D1): D1100–D1107.
75.
Swain M. Chemicalize. org. J Chem Inf Model. 2012; 52(2): 613–615.
76.
Cheminformatics M. Molinspiration. 2013.
77.
Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring
function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010; 31(2): 455–461. doi: 10.
1002/jcc.21334 PMID: 19499576
78.
Summers JB, Kim KH, Mazdiyasni H, Holms JH, Ratajczyk JD, Stewart AO, et al. Hydroxamic acid
inhibitors of 5-lipoxygenase: quantitative structure-activity relationships. J Med Chem. 1990; 33(3):
992–998. PMID: 2308149
79.
Wu TY, Hassig C, Wu Y, Ding S, Schultz PG. Design, synthesis, and activity of HDAC inhibitors with a
N-formyl hydroxylamine head group. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2004; 14(2): 449–453. PMID: 14698179
80.
Jones P, Altamura S, Chakravarty PK, Cecchetti O, De Francesco R, Gallinari P, et al. A series of
novel, potent, and selective histone deacetylase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2006; 16(23):
5948–5952. PMID: 16987657
81.
Mahboobi S, Sellmer A, Höcher H, Garhammer C, Pongratz H, Maier T, et al. 2-Aroylindoles and 2aroylbenzofurans with N-hydroxyacrylamide substructures as a novel series of rationally designed
histone deacetylase inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2007; 50(18): 4405–4418. PMID: 17691763
82.
Kozikowski AP, Chen Y, Gaysin A, Chen B, D'Annibale MA, Suto CM, et al. Functional differences in
epigenetic modulators superiority of mercaptoacetamide-based histone deacetylase inhibitors relative
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
19 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
to hydroxamates in cortical neuron neuroprotection studies. J Med Chem. 2007; 50(13): 3054–3061.
PMID: 17539623
83.
Methot JL, Chakravarty PK, Chenard M, Close J, Cruz JC, Dahlberg WK, et al. Exploration of the internal cavity of histone deacetylase (HDAC) with selective HDAC1/HDAC2 inhibitors (SHI-1: 2). Bioorg
Med Chem Lett. 2008; 18(3): 973–978. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2007.12.031 PMID: 18182289
84.
Kozikowski AP, Tapadar S, Luchini DN, Kim KH, Billadeau DD. Use of the nitrile oxide cycloaddition
(NOC) reaction for molecular probe generation: a new class of enzyme selective histone deacetylase
inhibitors (HDACIs) showing picomolar activity at HDAC6. J Med Chem. 2008; 51(15): 4370–4373.
doi: 10.1021/jm8002894 PMID: 18642892
85.
Chen Y, Lopez-Sanchez M, Savoy DN, Billadeau DD, Dow GS, Kozikowski AP. A series of potent and
selective, triazolylphenyl-based histone deacetylases inhibitors with activity against pancreatic cancer
cells and Plasmodium falciparum. J Med Chem. 2008; 51(12): 3437–3448. doi: 10.1021/jm701606b
PMID: 18494463
86.
Tapadar S, He R, Luchini DN, Billadeau DD, Kozikowski AP. Isoxazole moiety in the linker region of
HDAC inhibitors adjacent to the Zn-chelating group: effects on HDAC biology and antiproliferative
activity. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2009; 19(11): 3023–3026. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.04.058 PMID:
19419863
87.
Dallavalle S, Cincinelli R, Nannei R, Merlini L, Morini G, Penco S, et al. Design, synthesis, and evaluation of biphenyl-4-yl-acrylohydroxamic acid derivatives as histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors. Eur
J Med Chem. 2009; 44(5): 1900–1912. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2008.11.005 PMID: 19084294
88.
Gupta PK, Reid RC, Liu L, Lucke AJ, Broomfield SA, Andrews MR, et al. Inhibitors selective for
HDAC6 in enzymes and cells. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2010; 20(23): 7067–7070. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.
2010.09.100 PMID: 20947351
89.
He R, Chen Y, Chen Y, Ougolkov AV, Zhang J-S, Savoy DN, et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation
of triazol-4-ylphenyl-bearing histone deacetylase inhibitors as anticancer agents. J Med Chem. 2010;
53(3): 1347–1356. doi: 10.1021/jm901667k PMID: 20055418
90.
Cho YS, Whitehead L, Li J, Chen CH-T, Jiang L, Vögtle M, et al. Conformational refinement of hydroxamate-based histone deacetylase inhibitors and exploration of 3-piperidin-3-ylindole analogues of
dacinostat (LAQ824). J Med Chem. 2010; 53(7): 2952–2963. doi: 10.1021/jm100007m PMID:
20205394
91.
Oger F, Lecorgne A, Sala E, Nardese V, Demay F, Chevance S, et al. Biological and biophysical properties of the histone deacetylase inhibitor suberoylanilide hydroxamic acid are affected by the presence of short alkyl groups on the phenyl ring. J Med Chem. 2010; 53(5): 1937–1950. doi: 10.1021/
jm901561u PMID: 20143840
92.
Bressi JC, Jennings AJ, Skene R, Wu Y, Melkus R, De Jong R, et al. Exploration of the HDAC2 foot
pocket: Synthesis and SAR of substituted N-(2-aminophenyl) benzamides. Bioorg Med Chem Lett.
2010; 20(10): 3142–3145. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2010.03.091 PMID: 20392638
93.
Terracciano S, Di Micco S, Bifulco G, Gallinari P, Riccio R, Bruno I. Synthesis and biological activity of
cyclotetrapeptide analogues of the natural HDAC inhibitor FR235222. Bioorgan Med Chem. 2010; 18
(9): 3252–3260.
94.
Mahboobi S, Sellmer A, Winkler M, Eichhorn E, Pongratz H, Ciossek T, et al. Novel chimeric histone
deacetylase inhibitors: a series of lapatinib hybrides as potent inhibitors of epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and histone deacetylase activity.
J Med Chem. 2010; 53(24): 8546–8555. doi: 10.1021/jm100665z PMID: 21080629
95.
Kemp MM, Wang Q, Fuller JH, West N, Martinez NM, Morse EM, et al. A novel HDAC inhibitor with a
hydroxy-pyrimidine scaffold. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2011; 21(14): 4164–4169. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.
2011.05.098 PMID: 21696956
96.
Botta CB, Cabri W, Cini E, De Cesare L, Fattorusso C, Giannini G, et al. Oxime amides as a novel
zinc binding group in histone deacetylase inhibitors: synthesis, biological activity, and computational
evaluation. J Med Chem. 2011; 54(7): 2165–2182. doi: 10.1021/jm101373a PMID: 21417297
97.
Neelarapu R, Holzle DL, Velaparthi S, Bai H, Brunsteiner M, Blond SY, et al. Design, synthesis, docking, and biological evaluation of novel diazide-containing isoxazole-and pyrazole-based histone deacetylase probes. J Med Chem. 2011; 54(13): 4350–4364. doi: 10.1021/jm2001025 PMID: 21548582
98.
Huang D, Li X, Wei Y, Xiu Z. A novel series of l-2-benzyloxycarbonylamino-8-(2-pyridyl)-disulfidyloctanoic acid derivatives as histone deacetylase inhibitors: design, synthesis and molecular modeling
study. Eur J Med Chem. 2012; 52: 111–122. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2012.03.009 PMID: 22465091
99.
Lai M-J, Huang H-L, Pan S-L, Liu Y-M, Peng C-Y, Lee H-Y, et al. Synthesis and biological evaluation
of 1-arylsulfonyl-5-(N-hydroxyacrylamide) indoles as potent histone deacetylase inhibitors with antitumor activity in vivo. J Med Chem. 2012; 55(8): 3777–3791. doi: 10.1021/jm300197a PMID: 22439863
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
20 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
100.
Wagner FF, Olson DE, Gale JP, Kaya T, Weïwer M, Aidoud N, et al. Potent and selective inhibition of
histone deacetylase 6 (HDAC6) does not require a surface-binding motif. J Med Chem. 2013; 56(4):
1772–1776. doi: 10.1021/jm301355j PMID: 23368884
101.
Miller TA, Witter DJ, Belvedere S. Histone deacetylase inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(24): 5097–
5116. PMID: 14613312
102.
Chen J-B, Chern T-R, Wei T-T, Chen C-C, Lin J-H, Fang J-M. Design and synthesis of dual-action
inhibitors targeting histone deacetylases and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase for
cancer treatment. J Med Chem. 2013; 56(9): 3645–3655. doi: 10.1021/jm400179b PMID: 23570542
103.
Marson CM, Matthews CJ, Yiannaki E, Atkinson SJ, Soden PE, Shukla L, et al. Discovery of potent,
isoform-selective inhibitors of histone deacetylase containing chiral heterocyclic capping groups and
a N-(2-aminophenyl) benzamide binding unit. J Med Chem. 2013; 56(15): 6156–6174. doi: 10.1021/
jm400634n PMID: 23829483
104.
Wang T, Sepulveda M, Gonzales P, Gately S. Identification of novel HDAC inhibitors through cell
based screening and their evaluation as potential anticancer agents. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2013; 23
(17): 4790–4793. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2013.07.001 PMID: 23906422
105.
Yu C-W, Chang P-T, Hsin L-W, Chern J-W. Quinazolin-4-one derivatives as selective histone deacetylase-6 inhibitors for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. J Med Chem. 2013; 56(17): 6775–6791.
doi: 10.1021/jm400564j PMID: 23905680
106.
Blackburn C, Barrett C, Chin J, Garcia K, Gigstad K, Gould A, et al. Potent histone deacetylase inhibitors derived from 4-(aminomethyl)-N-hydroxybenzamide with high selectivity for the HDAC6 isoform.
J Med Chem. 2013; 56(18): 7201–7211. doi: 10.1021/jm400385r PMID: 23964961
107.
Guerra-Bubb JM, Bowers AA, Smith WB, Paranal R, Estiu G, Wiest O, et al. Synthesis and HDAC
inhibitory activity of isosteric thiazoline-oxazole largazole analogs. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2013; 23
(21): 6025–6028. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2013.06.012 PMID: 24035339
108.
Zhang X, Bao B, Yu X, Tong L, Luo Y, Huang Q, et al. The discovery and optimization of novel dual
inhibitors of topoisomerase II and histone deacetylase. Bioorgan Med Chem. 2013; 21(22): 6981–
6995.
109.
Taddei M, Cini E, Giannotti L, Giannini G, Battistuzzi G, Vignola D, et al. Lactam based 7-amino suberoylamide hydroxamic acids as potent HDAC inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014; 24(1): 61–64.
doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2013.11.072 PMID: 24345446
110.
ACD/ChemSketch Freeware, Advanced Chemistry Development, Inc., Toronto, ON, Canada, www.
acdlabs.com, 2014.
111.
Wolber G, Langer T. LigandScout: 3-D pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their
use as virtual screening filters. J Chem Inf Model. 2005; 45(1): 160–169. PMID: 15667141
112.
Shahlaei M. Descriptor selection methods in quantitative structure–activity relationship studies: a
review study. Chem Rev. 2013; 113(10): 8093–8103. doi: 10.1021/cr3004339 PMID: 23822589
113.
Verma J, Khedkar VM, Coutinho EC. 3D-QSAR in drug design-a review. Curr Top Med Chem. 2010;
10(1): 95–115. PMID: 19929826
114.
IBM SPSS statistics for windows (2012). Corporation, I. B. M, 22 edn.,
115.
Aurora Fine Chemicals Ltd–Europe. http://www.aurorafinechemicals.com.
116.
Princeton Biomolecular Research, Inc. http://www.princetonbio.com.
117.
Loeffler HH, Winn M. Large biomolecular simulation on hpc platforms III. AMBER, CHARMM, GROMACS, LAMMPS and NAMD. Technical report, STFC Daresbury Laboratory, Warrington WA4 4AD,
UK, 2012.
118.
Bibi N, Parveen Z, Rashid S. Identification of potential Plk1 targets in a cell-cycle specific proteome
through structural dynamics of kinase and Polo box-mediated interactions. PloS one. 2013; 8(8):
e70843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070843 PMID: 23967120
119.
Kausar S, Asif M, Bibi N, Rashid S. Correction: Comparative Molecular Docking Analysis of Cytoplasmic Dynein Light Chain DYNLL1 with Pilin to Explore the Molecular Mechanism of Pathogenesis
Caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO. PloS one. 2013; 8(11).
120.
Discovery Studio Modeling Environment (2013). Accelrys Software Inc, 4.0 edn., San Diego
121.
Cheng F, Li W, Zhou Y, Shen J, Wu Z, Liu G, et al. admetSAR: a comprehensive source and free tool
for assessment of chemical ADMET properties. J Chem Inf Model. 2012; 52(11): 3099–3105. doi: 10.
1021/ci300367a PMID: 23092397
122.
Sander T. OSIRIS property explorer. Allschwil: Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2001
123.
Boda K, Seidel T, Gasteiger J. Structure and reaction based evaluation of synthetic accessibility. J
Comput Aid Mol Des. 2007; 21(6): 311–325.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
21 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
124.
Seidel T, Ibis G, Bendix F, Wolber G. Strategies for 3D pharmacophore-based virtual screening. Drug
Discov Today: Technol. 2011; 7(4): e221–e228.
125.
Tropsha A. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inform.
2010; 29(6‐7): 476–488.
126.
Andrews P, Craik D, Martin J. Functional group contributions to drug-receptor interactions. J Med
Chem. 1984; 27(12): 1648–1657. PMID: 6094812
127.
Reynolds CH, Bembenek SD, Tounge BA. The role of molecular size in ligand efficiency. Bioorg Med
Chem Lett. 2007; 17(15): 4258–4261. PMID: 17532632
128.
Reynolds CH, Tounge BA, Bembenek SD. Ligand binding efficiency: trends, physical basis, and implications. J Med Chem. 2008; 51(8): 2432–2438. doi: 10.1021/jm701255b PMID: 18380424
129.
Leeson PD, Springthorpe B. The influence of drug-like concepts on decision-making in medicinal
chemistry. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2007; 6(11): 881–890. PMID: 17971784
130.
Ryckmans T, Edwards MP, Horne VA, Correia AM, Owen DR, Thompson LR, et al. Rapid assessment of a novel series of selective CB 2 agonists using parallel synthesis protocols: a lipophilic efficiency (LipE) analysis. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2009; 19(15): 4406–4409. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.
05.062 PMID: 19500981
131.
Keserü GM, Makara GM. The influence of lead discovery strategies on the properties of drug candidates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2009; 8(3): 203–212. doi: 10.1038/nrd2796 PMID: 19247303
132.
Mortenson PN, Murray CW. Assessing the lipophilicity of fragments and early hits. J Comput Aid Mol
Des. 2011; 25(7): 663–667.
133.
Hopkins AL, Keserü GM, Leeson PD, Rees DC, Reynolds CH. The role of ligand efficiency metrics in
drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014; 13(2): 105–121. doi: 10.1038/nrd4163 PMID: 24481311
134.
Bio-Loom for Windows version 1.5. BioByte Corporation, CA, USA
135.
Kuntz I, Chen K, Sharp K, Kollman P. The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1999; 96
(18): 9997–10002. PMID: 10468550
136.
Giannini G, Vesci L, Battistuzzi G, Vignola D, Milazzo FM, Guglielmi MB, et al. ST7612AA1, a Thioacetate-ω (γ-lactam carboxamide) Derivative Selected from a Novel Generation of Oral HDAC Inhibitors. J Med Chem. 2014; 57(20): 8358–8377. doi: 10.1021/jm5008209 PMID: 25233084
137.
Attenni B, Ontoria JM, Cruz JC, Rowley M, Schultz-Fademrecht C, Steinkühler C, et al. Histone deacetylase inhibitors with a primary amide zinc binding group display antitumor activity in xenograft
model. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2009; 19(11): 3081–3084. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.04.011 PMID:
19410459
138.
Hranjec M, Sović I, Ratkaj I, Pavlović G, Ilić N, Valjalo L, et al. Antiproliferative potency of novel benzofuran-2-carboxamides on tumour cell lines: cell death mechanisms and determination of crystal structure. Eur J Med Chem. 2013; 59: 111–119. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2012.11.009 PMID: 23220640
139.
Baraldi PG, Romagnoli R, Beria I, Cozzi P, Geroni C, Mongelli N, et al. Synthesis and antitumor activity of new benzoheterocyclic derivatives of distamycin A. J Med Chem. 2000; 43(14): 2675–2684.
PMID: 10893305
140.
Baraldi PG, Romagnoli R, Bianchi N, Gambari R. Benzoyl nitrogen mustard derivatives of benzoheterocyclic analogues of netropsin: synthesis and biological activity. Bioorgan Med Chem. 2003; 11(11):
2381–2388.
141.
Wang Y, Li L, Ye W, Tian Z, Jiang W, Wang H, et al. CC-1065 analogues bearing different DNA-binding subunits: synthesis, antitumor activity, and preliminary toxicity study. J Med Chem. 2003; 46(4):
634–637. PMID: 12570384
142.
Saku O, Saki M, Kurokawa M, Ikeda K, Takizawa T, Uesaka N. Synthetic studies on selective adenosine A 2A receptor antagonists: Synthesis and structure–activity relationships of novel benzofuran
derivatives. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2010; 20(3): 1090–1093. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.12.028 PMID:
20034788
143.
Mai A, Massa S, Pezzi R, Simeoni S, Rotili D, Nebbioso A, et al. Class II (IIa)-selective histone deacetylase inhibitors. 1. Synthesis and biological evaluation of novel (aryloxopropenyl) pyrrolyl hydroxyamides. J Med Chem. 2005; 48(9): 3344–3353. PMID: 15857140
144.
Park H, Lee S. Homology modeling, force field design, and free energy simulation studies to optimize
the activities of histone deacetylase inhibitors. J Comput Aid Mol Des. 2004; 18(6): 375–388.
145.
Yan C, Xiu Z, Li X, Li S, Hao C, Teng H. Comparative molecular dynamics simulations of histone deacetylase‐like protein: Binding modes and free energy analysis to hydroxamic acid inhibitors. Proteins:
Struct, Funct, Bioinf. 2008; 73(1): 134–149.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
22 / 23
Class 1 HDAC Inhibition
146.
Hou J, Feng C, Li Z, Fang Q, Wang H, Gu G, et al. Structure-based optimization of click-based histone
deacetylase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem. 2011; 46(8): 3190–3200. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2011.04.027
PMID: 21621883
147.
Zhang T, Chen Y, Li J, Yang F, Wu H, Dai F, et al. Antitumor action of a novel histone deacetylase
inhibitor, YF479, in breast cancer. Neoplasia. 2014; 16(8): 665–677. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2014.07.009
PMID: 25220594
148.
Cronin CN, Hilgers MT, Knuth MW, Navre ME, Sang BC, Skene RJ, et al. Crystallization of histone
deacetylase 2. Google Patents; 2009.
PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0139588 October 2, 2015
23 / 23