3‐D QSAR for intrinsic activity of 5‐HT1A receptor ligands by the method of comparative molecular field analysis
Authors: Agarwal Atul , Taylor Ethan Will 
Published: January 2005

AbstractThe affinity of a ligand for a receptor is usually expressed in terms of the dissociation constant (Ki) of the drug‐receptor complex, conveniently measured by the inhibition of radioligand binding. However, a ligand can be an antagonist, a partial agonist, or a full agonist, a property largely independent of its receptor affinity. This property can be quantitated as intrinsic activity (1A), which can range from 0 for a full antagonist to 1 for a full agonist. Although quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) methods have been applied to the prediction of receptor affinity with considerable success, the prediction of IA, even qualitatively, has rarely been attempted. Because most traditional QSAR methods are limited to congeneric series, and there are often major structural differences between agonists and antagonists, this lack of success in predicting IA is understandable. To overcome this limitation, we used the method of comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA), which, unlike traditional Hansch analysis, permits the inclusion of structurally dissimilar compounds in a single QSAR model. A structurally diverse set of 5‐hydroxytryptamine1A (5‐HT1A) receptor ligands, with literature IA data (determined by the inhibition of 5‐HT sensitive forskolin‐stimulated adenylate cyclase), was used to develop a 3‐D QSAR model correlating intrinsic activity with molecular structure properties of 5HT1A receptor ligands. This CoMFA model had a crossvalidated r2 of 0.481, five components and final conventional r2 of 0.943. The receptor model suggests that agonist and antagonist ligands can share parts of a common binding site on the receptor, with a primary agonist binding region that is also occupied by antagonists and a secondary binding site accommodating the excess bulk present in the sidechains of many antagonists and partial agonists. The CoMFA steric field graph clearly shows that agonists tend to be “flatter” (more coplanar) than antagonists, consistent with the difference between the 5‐HT1A agonist and antagonist pharmacophores proposed by Hibert and coworkers. The CoMFA electrostatic field graph suggests that, in the region surrounding the essential protonated aliphatic amino group, the positive molecular electrostatic potential may be weaker in antagonists as compared to agonists. Together, the steric and electrostatic maps suggest that in the secondary binding site region increased hydrophobic binding may enhance antagonist activity. These results demonstrate that CoMFA is capable of generating a statistically crossvalidated 3‐D QSAR model that can successfully distinguish between agonist and antagonist 5‐HT1A ligands. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time this or any other QSAR method has been successfully applied to the correlation of structure with IA rather than potency or affinity. The analysis has suggested various structural features associated with agonist and antagonist behaviors of 5‐HT1A ligands and thus should assist in the future design of drugs that act via 5‐HT1A receptors. © 1993 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.