QSAR Analyses of 3-(4-Benzylpiperidin-1-yl)-N-phenylpropylamine Derivatives as Potent CCR5 Antagonists

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
CCR5 receptor binding affinity of a series of 3-(4-benzylpiperidin-1-yl)propylamine congeners was subjected to QSAR study using the linear free energy related (LFER) model of Hansch. Appropriate indicator variables encoding different group contributions and different physicochemical variables such as hydrophobicity (π), electronic (Hammett σ), and steric (molar refractivity, STERIMOL values) parameters of phenyl ring substituents of the compounds were used as predictor variables. The Hansch analysis explores the importance of the lipophilicity and electron-donating substituents for the binding affinity. However, this method could not give more insight into the structure−activity relationships because of the diverse molecular features in the data set. 3D-QSAR analyses of the same data set using Molecular Shape Analysis (MSA), Receptor Surface Analysis (RSA), and Molecular Field Analysis (MFA) techniques were also performed. The best model with acceptable statistical quality was derived from the MSA, which showed the importance of the relative negative charge (RNCG): substituents with a high RNCG value have more binding affinity than the unsubstituted piperidine and phenyl (R1 position) congeners. The relative negative charge surface area (RNCS) is detrimental (e.g. R2 = 3,4-Cl2) for the activity. An increase in the length of the molecule in the Z dimension (Lz) is conducive (e.g. R3 = sulfonylmorpholino), while an increase in the area of the molecular shadow in the XZ plane (Sxz) is detrimental (e.g. R1 = N-c-hexylmethyl-5-oxopyrrolidin-3-yl) for the binding affinity. The presence of a chiral center makes the molecule less active (e.g. R1 = N-methyl-5-oxopyrrolidin-3-yl). An increase in the van der Waals area, the molecular volume, and the difference between the volume of the individual molecule and the shape reference compound are conducive (e.g. R3 = (CH3)2NSO2−) for the binding affinity. Substituents with higher JursFPSA_2 values (fractional charged partial surface area) like the N-methylsulfonylpiperidin-4-yl (R1 position) group have better binding affinity than the substituents such as 4-chlorophenylamino (R1 position). Unsubstituted piperidines (R1 position) with less JursFNSA_1 values have lower binding affinity than the 4-chlorophenyl substituted compounds. The MFA derived equation shows interaction energies at different grid points, while the RSA model shows the importance of hydrophobicity and charge at different regions of the molecules. The models were validated through the leave-one-out, leave-15%-out, and leave-25%-out cross-validation techniques. The developed models were also subjected to a randomization test (99% confidence level). Although the MSA derived models had excellent statistical qualities both for the training as well as test sets, RSA and MFA results for the test sets are not comparable statistically with the MSA derived models.