==== Front Curr NeuropharmacolCurr NeuropharmacolCNCurrent Neuropharmacology1570-159X1875-6190Bentham Science Publishers 29046156CN-16-74010.2174/1570159X15666171016163510ArticleComputer Aided Drug Design and its Application to the Development of Potential Drugs for Neurodegenerative Disorders Baig Mohammad Hassan 1#*Ahmad Khurshid 1#Rabbani Gulam 1Danishuddin Mohd 2Choi Inho 1* 1Department of Medical Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Republic of Korea; 2Interdisciplinary Biotechnology Unit, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India* Address correspondence to these authors at the Department of Medical Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, 280 Daehak-ro, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, 712-749, Republic of Korea; Tel: +82 53 810 4769; E-mail: mohdhassanbaig@gmail.com and; E-mail: inhochoi@ynu.ac.kr# Share equal contribution. 7 2018 7 2018 16 6 740 748 17 1 2017 24 9 2017 10 10 2017 © 2018 Bentham Science Publishers2018This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.Background Neurodegenerative disorders (NDs) are diverse group of disorders characterized by escalating loss of neurons (structural and functional). The development of potential therapeutics for NDs presents an important challenge, as traditional treatments are inefficient and usually are unable to stop or retard the process of neurodegeneration. Computer-Aided Drug Design (CADD) has emerged as an efficient means of developing candidate drugs for the treatment of many disease types. Applications of CADD approach to drug discovery are progressing day by day. The recent tendency in drug design is to rationally design potent therapeutics with multi-targeting effects, higher efficacies, and fewer side effects, especially in terms of toxicity. Methods A wide literature search was performed for writing this review. An updated view on different types of NDs, their effect on human population and a brief introduction to CADD, various approaches involved in this technique, ranging from structural-based to ligand-based drug design has been discussed. The successful application of CADD approaches for the treatment of neurodegenerative disorders is also included in this review. Results In this review, we have briefly described about CADD and its use in the development of the therapeutic drug candidates against NDs. The successful applications, limitations and future prospects of this approach have also been discussed. Conclusion CADD can assist researchers studying interactions between drugs and receptors. We believe this review will be helpful for better understanding of CADD and its applications towards the discovery of new drug candidates against various fatal NDs. Keywords: CADDNDsQSARmolecular dockinghomology modelingSBDDLBDD ==== Body 1. BACKGROUND The development of novel potential therapies for the treatment of NDs represents an important means of extending life span and quality of life in the elderly [1]. The development of potential therapeutics for NDs presents an important challenge, as traditional treatments are inefficient and usually are unable to stop or retard the process of neurodegeneration [2], which is highly complex and includes many neuropathological conditions and cognitive function losses, such as, memory and learning losses. NDs cause neuron loss and brain aging, which eventually lead to death. In fact, it has been estimated that more than 25% of global deaths and disabilities are caused by brain-associated disorders [3], such as, Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), Huntington’s disease (HD) and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) [4, 5]. Available treatments are limited, and no truly effective drug is available for many NDs. Furthermore, the number of drugs approved is limited by the high failure rates of lead compounds in clinical trials [6]. Identifying novel, potential drugs for NDs is difficult using traditional approaches of drug discovery [7]. However, during the last decade, computers have been used to aid and accelerate the process of drug discovery, and this process is now referred to as computer-aided drug design (CADD) or computer-assisted molecular design (CAMD). Computer-Aided Drug Design (CADD) emerged as an efficient means of identifying potential lead compounds and for aiding the developments of possible drugs for a wide range of diseases [8, 9]. Today, a number of computational approaches are being used to identify potential lead molecules from huge compound libraries. Applications of CADD approach to drug discovery are progressing on a daily basis. The recent tendency in drug design is to rationally design potent therapeutics with multi-targeting effects, higher efficacies, and fewer side effects, especially in terms of toxicity. In this review, we provide a brief introduction to CADD and include details of structure-based drug design (SBDD) and ligand-based drug design (LBDD), and their uses to identify potential drug candidates for NDs. In addition, we provide an up-to-date summary of the successes and limitations of CADD against NDs and discuss its future prospects. 2. COMPUTER AIDED DRUG DESIGN (CADD) To introduce a new drug to the market is a costly affair that involves considerable time and money. The average time taken to discover/develop a drug is around 10-15 years and the cost stands at around US$ 800 million [10-12]. Not surprisingly, pharmaceutical companies focus on reducing development times and budgets without adversely affecting quality. In the 1990’s, a large number of developments were undertaken using combinatorial and high-throughput screening technologies, which accelerated drug discovery [13-15]. These technologies were widely adopted because they enabled the rapid synthesis and screening of large libraries, but unfortunately, no significant success was achieved and little progress toward the development of new molecular entities was made [16, 17]. A combination of advanced computational techniques, biological science, and chemical synthesis was introduced to facilitate the discovery process, and this combinational approach enhanced the scale of discovery. Eventually, the term computer-aided drug design (CADD) was adopted for the use of computers in drug discovery [17, 18]. Advanced computational applications have been shown to be effective tools and notable successes have been achieved using these techniques. CADD is a specialized discipline, whereby different computational methods are used to simulate interactions between receptors and drugs in order to determine binding affinities [19]. However, the technique is not limited to studies of chemical interactions and binding affinity predictions, as it has many more applications ranging from the design of compounds with desired physiochemical properties to the management of digital repositories of compounds. An overview of CADD is provided in Fig. (1). CADD may be broadly categorized embracing both structure- and ligand-based drug design. Fig. (2) illustrates various approaches applied in CADD. Virtual screening (VS) is a computational technique used for screening large datasets of molecules, and has been successfully used to complement High Throughput Screening (HTS) for drug discovery [8, 20, 21]. The major aim of VS is to enable the rapid, cost-effective evaluation of huge virtual compound databases to screen for effective leads for synthesis and further study [22]. Virtual database screening can be applied to screen large libraries of compounds using various computational approaches to identify those entities likely to bind to a molecular target of interest [23, 24]. To a large extent, VS mitigates the problem of drug synthesis because it utilizes large libraries of pre-synthesized compounds. 2.1. Structure-based Drug Design (SBDD) Structure-based drug design utilizes protein three-dimensional (3D) structural information to design new biologically active molecules [25]. Thus, the identification of a target molecule and the determination of its structure is the main, initial step of SBDD [23, 26]. The identified target may be an enzyme associated with a disease of interest. Based on binding affinity determinations, potential compounds are determined which attenuates the activity of target by its inhibition. Thus, SBDD utilizes information about a biological target and identifies potentially new medications. As such SBDD constitutes a marked advancement in the computational techniques used in the biophysics, medicinal chemistry, statistics, biochemistry, and other fields [27]. Scientific advancements have resulted in a large number of techniques for predicting protein structures. These state-of-the-art technologies enable the determination of the structures of large numbers of proteins by using cryo-electron microscopy (EM), nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), X-ray crystallography and computational methods like homology modeling and molecular dynamic (MD) simulation [28]. 2.1.1. Homology Modeling Determining the structure of a target molecule follows the identification of a specific drug target [29]. Despite the availability of advanced techniques, the structures of a large number of proteins have not been identified [30]. Homology modelling helps in this situation because it can be used to generate the structures of proteins on information available for similar proteins [31]. Structural information about an identified target is a prerequisite for SBDD, but the structures of several identified neurodegenerative drug targets have yet not been determined [32, 33]. A large number of studies have been conducted using the homology modelling approach to generate structures of identified target molecules. Structural information is also required to gain insights of protein activities. Dhanavade et al. generated the structure of cysteine protease, which degrades amyloid beta peptide, an important causative agent of Alzheimer’s disease [34]. Several in silico experiments have been conducted using the modeled structure of cysteine protease to investigate the nature of its binding site. 2.1.2. Molecular Docking Molecular docking is a computational process widely used for rapidly predicting the binding modes and affinities of small molecules against their target molecules (usually proteins) [35, 36]. This in silico process has achieved a position of great importance in the drug discovery field [21, 36-38]. Molecular docking has emerged over the last two decades and is now considered an indispensable tool for CADD and in the structural biology field, and has been shown to be more efficient than traditional drug discovery methods. Molecular docking has been greatly facilitated by dramatic growth in computer power and the increasing availability of small molecule and protein databases. Fig. (3) illustrates the basic principle of molecular docking. Recent advancements in computer methods and access to 3D structural information of biological targets are set to increase the effectiveness of this technique and facilitate its large-scale application to studies of molecular interactions involved in ligand-protein binding. Generally, small molecules can be docked in three different ways, that is; (a) by rigid docking, where both target and ligands are treated as rigid entities; (b) by flexible docking, where both ligand and target are considered to be flexible; and (c) by flexible ligand docking, where the ligand is considered to be flexible and the target is considered rigid [39]. Many molecular docking programs have been developed during recent years, such as, AutoDock [40], Dock [41], FlexX [42], Glide [43], Gold [44], Surflex [45], ICM, and LigandFit [46], and been used successfully in many computer based drug discovery projects. Table 1 provides a list of major molecular docking tools in practice. Typically, the major goal of molecular docking is to identify ligands that bind most favorably within receptor binding sites and to determine its most energetically favored binding orientations (poses). The term “binding pose” is the orientation/confirmation of a ligand relative to its receptor. A binding pose either refers to a conformation of a ligand molecule within the binding site of its target protein which has been confirmed experimentally, or a computationally modelled hypothetical conformation. The search algorithm and the scoring function are two important components for determining protein-ligand interactions [47]. The search algorithm is responsible for searching different poses and conformations of a ligand within a given target protein and the scoring function estimates the binding affinities of generated poses, ranks them, and identifies the most favorable receptor/ligand binding modes [47, 48]. An ideal search algorithm should be fast and effective, and the scoring function must be capable of determining the physicochemical properties of molecules and the thermodynamics of interactions. A large number of trials are being conducted to identify binding modes of ligands and selection of the most energetically favored poses. In order to achieve this, molecular docking tools are used to generate a set of different ligand binding poses and a scoring function is used to estimate the binding affinities of generated poses to identify the best binding mode. The energy change caused by ligand/receptor complex formation, is given by the Gibbs free energy (ΔG) and the binding constant (Kd) [49, 50]. The binding energy of a complex is predicted by evaluating physicochemical features involved in ligand-receptor binding, which include desolvation, intermolecular interactions, and entropic effects [51]. Sehgal et al. identified a number of compounds active against HSPB8 based on molecular docking results [52]. 2.2. Ligand Based Drug Design (LBDD) LBDD offers a general approach for elucidating relationships between the structural and physicochemical properties of compounds/ligands and their biological activities. This approach is applied when 3D structural information of a target protein is unavailable. In this process the available information of ligands and their biological activity is used for the development of new potential drug candidates. LBDD is widely used in pharmaceutical research, as more than 50% of approved drugs targeting membrane proteins (for which 3D structures are often not available, such as, GPCR). It is based on the assumption that compounds with similar structural features share common biological activities and interact/inhibit common target molecules [36, 37]. The representation of molecules is the basis of LBDD approach. Molecular descriptors are numerical values used to represent the structural and physicochemical properties of molecules [53, 54]. The molecular descriptor field is strikingly interdisciplinary and includes a number of different theories [55]. Active molecules are represented by the 0D-4D class of molecular descriptors [56]. Constitutional and count descriptors are 0D molecular descriptors, chemical fingerprints or lists of structural fragments, such as, SMILES and SLN, are 1D descriptors, graph invariants in which atoms are denoted as nodes and bonds as edges are 2D-descriptors, geometrical, WHIM and others are 3D descriptors, and those derived from CoMFA or DRID methods are classified as 4D descriptors [57]. Similarity searching is a key aspect of the LBDD method. This technique uses a known active compound as a query compound to find similar compounds and then rank compounds identified in a database. Based on this belief, structurally similar molecules exhibit similar biological activities and physicochemical properties. Numerical descriptors are applied and similarity coefficient is defined to quantify the degree of similarity (similarity/ dissimilarity). Fingerprint-based similarity or 2D similarity measures are widely used for similarity searching. A number of coefficients are applied in similarity searching with different fingerprint molecular databases (Cosine, Euclidian distance, Forbes, Tanimoto coefficients etc.). Tanimoto coefficien t (Tc)=overlapaboverlapab−overlapaa−overlapbb The Tanimoto coefficient is most popular and widely accepted similarity index for binary variables, despite its well-documented size bias. It may be defined as: where overlapab, overlapaa, and overlapbb are the volume overlaps of molecule a with molecule b, of molecule a with itself, and of molecule b with itself, respectively. Values of Tc range from 0 (no similarity) to 1 (a perfect match). LBDD is generally categorized as Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) or pharmacophore modeling. 2.2.1. QSAR and its Role in Drug Discovery The QSAR method and pharmacophore modeling are the most popular approaches to ligand-based drug design [58, 59]. QSAR methods are based on the belief that molecular structures are directly associated with biological activities, and thus, that molecular or structural variations alter biological activities. QSAR is defined as a process involving the construction of computational or mathematical models using chemometric techniques to identify significant correlations between a series of structures and functions [60]. For QSAR, the primary hypothesis is that “compounds with similar structural or physiochemical properties show similar activities”. To identify potential leads, a library of lead compounds with the desired biological activities is produced. A model is then developed to predict the quantitative relation between the structural and physico-chemical features of these compounds and their biological activities. A statistical model generated using such relations is then used to mathematically optimize the biological properties of sets of compounds and maximize relevant biological activities. QSAR is used to modify existing compounds and improve their activities, and has been widely used in drug discovery to improve existing drugs for NDs. A study conducted by Dong et al. successfully designed a new series of PDE-4 inhibitors using the QSAR approach [61]. Bhadoriya et al. successfully implemented QSAR to the discovery of more potent anti-Alzheimer’s agents [62]. In latter, QSAR studies were carried out on a series of 34 fused 5,6-bicyclic heterocycles to identify the structural characteristics needed to inhibit Aβ42. 2.3. Pharmacophore Modelling A pharmacophore is an assembly (3D arrangement) of 'steric' and 'electronic' features required for optimal supramolecular interaction with a specific biological target structure and to prompt/block its biological response [63]. Ligand-based pharmacophore model generation is based on available information on the biological activities of compounds/ligands. A pharmacophore does not symbolize an actual molecule/ligand or real connection between functional groups, but rather provides an abstract description of molecular features that are vital for molecular interactions between molecules and macromolecular ligands. Pharmacophore modeling is widely used to identify potential lead molecules quickly. During the recent era of drug design, many therapeutically potent and well accepted drug targets with unknown active site geometries have been identified. Pharmacophore modeling provides an efficient means of rapidly screening huge databases of compounds. The elucidation of common pharmacophore features is conducted by aligning conformational models and active compounds three dimensionally. A superimposition algorithm assembles training set compounds (3D structure) in the same position/arrangement of their respective chemical properties/features. Pharmacophoric features are positioned such that all/maximum compounds share a common chemical functionality. To refine a shared pharmacophore feature, information regarding inactive compounds can be included in the model generation process. A number of tools and software have been developed for pharmacophore development, such as, Phase, Catalyst/Discovery Studio, MOE, and LigandScout [64]. 3. SUCCESSFUL CADD APPROACHES TO THE TREATMENT OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDERS The success of CADD has resulted in its being recognized as an important technique in the research and pharmaceutical fields. There are many examples of the successful application of CADD, but here we describe its successes with respect to the design of drugs for the treatment of NDs. Amyloid-β is an important therapeutic target in Alzheimer’s disease [65]. Chen et al. used an in silico approach to study a series of peptides against the fibrillar form of Aβ, and reported two highly active compounds [66]. These peptides were subsequently found to inhibit the neurotoxic effects of Aβ on neuroblastoma cells. BACE-1 is an enzyme that has been reported to be essential for β-amyloid generation [67]. Research suggests inhibition of this enzyme stops the production of β-amyloid, and thus, prevents NDs like Alzheimer's disease [68]. This finding has made BACE-1 an important therapeutic target for NDs. During the last few years, several computational approaches have been used to study the structural behavior of BACE-1 and to design their inhibitors [69-71]. ROCK-I and NOX2 are among the most attractive potential therapeutic targets for several NDs [72-75]. Inhibition of these two enzymes constitutes treatment for neurological diseases like autism spectral disorder, Alzheimer, and fragile X syndrome. Alokam et al. reported the successful use of CADD to design dual inhibitors for these enzymes [76], by employing a combination of pharmacophores and using a molecular docking approach to identify chemical entities. In vitro validation of selected chemical entities demonstrated their inhibitory potentials against ROCK-I and NOX2. HDAC6 is a member of the class IIb Histone deacetylases (HDACs) family and is usually found in cytosol in association with non-histone proteins [77, 78]. HDAC6 has been widely reported to be a crucial therapeutic drug target for several NDs [79-81]. The implementation of CADD has been reported to result in the design of a potential inhibitor of this enzyme. In one study conducted by Goracci et al., a virtual screening approach was used to identify potential inhibitors for HDAC6, and these were then subjected to in vitro testing. The results obtained showed inhibitors had low cytotoxicities, suggesting potential for drug development [82]. Several other reports have described the successful use of CADD in the NDs. 4. Limitations Despite a number of successful applications of CADD to modern drug design, it has its limitations. In particular, like any computer assisted hypothetical system results must be validated in actual systems, and many lead molecules identified using CADD have failed to exhibit desired activities in biological systems [83, 84]. Several parameters must be met before potential compound to be approved as potent lead/drug, as it has to pass several pharmacological criteria. In fact, an average of only 40% of lead/drug candidates passes the different phases of clinical trials and obtains approval for clinical use. Any computational tool based on pre-defined algorithms and scripts has its limitations, and the computational tools/methods used in CADD, such as, molecular docking, virtual screening, QSAR, pharmacophore modeling, and molecular dynamics, have their own limitations [49, 85-88]. Furthermore, ADME and many toxicity prediction tools are not supported by solid experimental data, and many examples of the failure of these computational approaches can be found in the literature [89, 90]. To overcome limitations and improve accuracy in terms of predicting potent leads, regular updates of tools and algorithms are needed. Database reliability and high quality validated experimental molecules is to be developed and updated because many pharmacophores do not pass biological activity process due to non-availability of good quality data sets. Databases should contain detail data on genomics and proteomics, high quality sequence information, physicochemical properties, and structures. Conclusion In the present era of drug discovery, the application of CADD counts up the most important accountability, and provides computational tools and algorithms that save time, costs, and reduce the risk of detecting non-viable developmental leads. The discovery of a new lead/drug using recent CADD paradigms requires a systematic understanding of the molecular and pathological conditions induced by diseases. Early diagnosis of NDs remains a huge challenge for researchers and clinicians. However, CADD can assist researchers studying interactions between drugs and receptors. The pharmacoinformatic approach is being applied to modern drug discovery and is providing much basic knowledge regarding drug-receptor interactions. Novel technologies and computational algorithms are required to move the CADD approach forward, as new developments are likely to lead to tools for disease identification and the screening of potential lead compounds. The emerging field of neurological studies, which includes neuroproteomics and neurogenomics, may aid understanding of the neuronal alterations associated with NDs. Furthermore, the application of technologies associated with neuroproteomics, neurogenomics, and next generation sequencing, and genome wide association studies may result in the identification of novel therapeutic targets and ultimately improve our ability to treat NDs. Acknowledgements This work was supported by the grant K16281 awarded to Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine (KIOM) from Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST), Republic of Korea. List OF Abbreviations CADDComputer-aided drug design QSARQuantitative structure activity relationship SBDDStructure based drug design LBDDLigand based drug design NDsNeurodegenerative diseases Consent for Publication Not applicable. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. Fig. (1) Overview of CADD process. Fig. (2) Various approaches applied in CADD. Fig. (3) Basic principle of molecular docking. Table 1 List of major available molecular docking tools. S.No. Program Availability Search Method Refs. 1. AutoDock Freely available Genetic Algorithm/Monte Carlo [40] 2. Gold Paid Genetic Algorithm [44] 3. Glide Paid Monte Carlo [43] 4. FlexX Paid Incremental construction [42] 5. Dock Freely available Shape fitting (sphere sets) [41] 6. LigandFit Paid Monte Carlo [46] 7. FRED Freely available Shape fitting (Gaussian) [91] 8. ICM Paid Monte Carlo [92] 9. eHiTS Paid Incremental construction [93] 10. Surflex-Dock Paid Incremental construction [45] ==== Refs References 1 Madonna R. Novo G. Balistreri C.R. Cellular and molecular basis of the imbalance between vascular damage and repair in ageing and age-related diseases: As biomarkers and targets for new treatments. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2016 159 22 30 [http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.mad.2016.03.005]. [PMID: 26993150]. 26993150 2 Anand R Gill KD 2014 3 Silberberg D. The high impact of neurologic disorders in developing countries: the struggle for global recognition. Neurology 2011 77 3 307 308 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182285da9]. [PMID: 21768602]. 21768602 4 Ke Z. Zhang X. Cao Z. Ding Y. Li N. Cao L. Wang T. Zhang C. Ding G. Wang Z. Xu X. Xiao W. Drug discovery of neurodegenerative disease through network pharmacology approach in herbs. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2016 78 272 279 [http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2016.01.021]. [PMID: 26898452]. 26898452 5 Lausted C. Lee I. Zhou Y. Qin S. Sung J. Price N.D. Hood L. Wang K. Systems approach to neurodegenerative disease biomarker discovery. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2014 54 457 481 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-011613-135928]. [PMID: 24160693]. 24160693 6 Morris G.P. Clark I.A. Vissel B. Inconsistencies and controversies surrounding the amyloid hypothesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2014 2 135 [PMID: 25231068]. 25231068 7 Zeng H. Wu X. Alzheimer’s disease drug development based on computer-aided drug design. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2016 121 851 863 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2015.08.039]. [PMID: 26415837]. 26415837 8 Baig M.H. Ahmad K. Roy S. Ashraf J.M. Adil M. Siddiqui M.H. Khan S. Kamal M.A. Provazník I. Choi I. Computer Aided Drug Design: Success and Limitations. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016 22 5 572 581 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1381612822666 151125000550]. [PMID: 26601966]. 26601966 9 Scotti L. Scotti M.T. Computer aided drug design studies in the discovery of secondary metabolites targeted against age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2015 15 21 2239 2252 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1568026615666150610143510]. [PMID: 26059353]. 26059353 10 Pan S.Y. Zhou S.F. Gao S.H. Yu Z.L. Zhang S.F. Tang M.K. Sun J.N. Ma D.L. Han Y.F. Fong W.F. Ko K.M. New perspectives on how to discover drugs from herbal medicines: CAM’s outstanding contribution to modern therapeutics. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2013 2013 627375 [http://dx. doi.org/10.1155/2013/627375]. [PMID: 23634172]. 23634172 11 Paul S.M. Mytelka D.S. Dunwiddie C.T. Persinger C.C. Munos B.H. Lindborg S.R. Schacht A.L. How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry’s grand challenge. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010 9 3 203 214 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nrd3078]. [PMID: 20168317]. 20168317 12 Dickson M. Gagnon J.P. Key factors in the rising cost of new drug discovery and development. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2004 3 5 417 429 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd1382]. [PMID: 15136789]. 15136789 13 Clark R.L. Johnston B.F. Mackay S.P. Breslin C.J. Robertson M.N. Harvey A.L. The Drug Discovery Portal: a resource to enhance drug discovery from academia. Drug Discov. Today 2010 15 15-16 679 683 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2010.06.003]. [PMID: 20547242]. 20547242 14 Entzeroth M. Flotow H. Condron P. Overview of high-throughput screening. 2009 15 Szymański P. Markowicz M. Mikiciuk-Olasik E. Adaptation of high-throughput screening in drug discovery-toxicological screening tests. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2012 13 1 427 452 [http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3390/ijms13010427]. [PMID: 22312262]. 22312262 16 Lahana R. How many leads from HTS? Drug Discov. Today 1999 4 10 447 448 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(99) 01393-8]. [PMID: 10481138]. 10481138 17 Song C.M. Lim S.J. Tong J.C. Recent advances in computer-aided drug design. Brief. Bioinform. 2009 10 5 579 591 [http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbp023]. [PMID: 19433475]. 19433475 18 Veselovsky A.V. Zharkova M.S. Poroikov V.V. Nicklaus M.C. Computer-aided design and discovery of protein-protein interaction inhibitors as agents for anti-HIV therapy. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2014 25 6 457 471 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062936X. 2014.898689]. [PMID: 24716798]. 24716798 19 Pârvu L. QSAR - a piece of drug design. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2003 7 3 333 335 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2003.tb00235.x]. [PMID: 14594559]. 14594559 20 Kim K.H. Kim N.D. Seong B.L. Pharmacophore-based virtual screening: a review of recent applications. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2010 5 3 205 222 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17460441003592072]. [PMID: 22823018]. 22823018 21 Sousa S.F. Cerqueira N.M. Fernandes P.A. Ramos M.J. Virtual screening in drug design and development. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2010 13 5 442 453 [http://dx.doi.org/10. 2174/138620710791293001]. [PMID: 20236061]. 20236061 22 Waszkowycz B. Perkins T.D.J. Sykes R.A. Li J. Large-scale virtual screening for discovering leads in the postgenomic era. IBM Syst. J. 2001 40 2 360 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1147/sj.402.0360]. 23 Lionta E. Spyrou G. Vassilatis D.K. Cournia Z. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: principles, applications and recent advances. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2014 14 16 1923 1938 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1568026614666140929124445]. [PMID: 25262799]. 25262799 24 Shoichet B.K. Virtual screening of chemical libraries. Nature 2004 432 7019 862 865 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature03197]. [PMID: 15602552]. 15602552 25 Lounnas V. Ritschel T. Kelder J. McGuire R. Bywater R.P. Foloppe N. Current progress in Structure-Based Rational Drug Design marks a new mindset in drug discovery. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2013 5 e201302011 [http://dx.doi.org/10.5936/csbj. 201302011]. [PMID: 24688704]. 24688704 26 Anderson A.C. Structure-based functional design of drugs: from target to lead compound. Methods Mol. Biol. 2012 823 359 366 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-216-2_23]. [PMID: 22081357]. 22081357 27 Andricopulo A.D. Salum L.B. Abraham D.J. Structure-based drug design strategies in medicinal chemistry. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2009 9 9 771 790 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/156802609789207127]. [PMID: 19754394]. 19754394 28 Goh B.C. Hadden J.A. Bernardi R.C. Singharoy A. McGreevy R. Rudack T. Cassidy C.K. Schulten K. Computational methodologies for real-space structural refinement of large macromolecular complexes. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2016 45 253 278 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biophys-062215-011113]. [PMID: 27145875]. 27145875 29 Fang Y. Combining label-free cell phenotypic profiling with computational approaches for novel drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 2015 10 4 331 343 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/ 17460441.2015.1020788]. [PMID: 25727255]. 25727255 30 Schwede T. Protein modeling: what happened to the “protein structure gap”? Structure 2013 21 9 1531 1540 [http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.str.2013.08.007]. [PMID: 24010712]. 24010712 31 Vyas V.K. Ukawala R.D. Ghate M. Chintha C. Homology modeling a fast tool for drug discovery: current perspectives. Indian J. Pharm. Sci. 2012 74 1 1 17 [http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/ 0250-474X.102537]. [PMID: 23204616]. 23204616 32 Eberini I. Daniele S. Parravicini C. Sensi C. Trincavelli M.L. Martini C. Abbracchio M.P. In silico identification of new ligands for GPR17: a promising therapeutic target for neurodegenerative diseases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2011 25 8 743 752 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-011-9455-8]. [PMID: 21744154]. 21744154 33 Cavasotto C.N. Homology models in docking and high-throughput docking. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2011 11 12 1528 1534 [http:// dx.doi.org/10.2174/156802611795860951]. [PMID: 21510834]. 21510834 34 Dhanavade M.J. Jalkute C.B. Barage S.H. Sonawane K.D. Homology modeling, molecular docking and MD simulation studies to investigate role of cysteine protease from Xanthomonas campestris in degradation of Aβ peptide. Comput. Biol. Med. 2013 43 12 2063 2070 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2013. 09.021]. [PMID: 24290922]. 24290922 35 Meng X.Y. Zhang H.X. Mezei M. Cui M. Molecular docking: a powerful approach for structure-based drug discovery. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2011 7 2 146 157 [http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2174/157340911795677602]. [PMID: 21534921]. 21534921 36 Sousa S.F. Ribeiro A.J. Coimbra J.T. Neves R.P. Martins S.A. Moorthy N.S. Fernandes P.A. Ramos M.J. Protein-ligand docking in the new millennium--a retrospective of 10 years in the field. Curr. Med. Chem. 2013 20 18 2296 2314 [http://dx.doi. org/10.2174/0929867311320180002]. [PMID: 23531220]. 23531220 37 Manly C.J. Chandrasekhar J. Ochterski J.W. Hammer J.D. Warfield B.B. Strategies and tactics for optimizing the Hit-to-Lead process and beyond--a computational chemistry perspective. Drug Discov. Today 2008 13 3-4 99 109 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.drudis.2007.10.019]. [PMID: 18275907]. 18275907 38 Huang S.Y. Zou X. Advances and challenges in protein-ligand docking. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010 11 8 3016 3034 [http://dx.doi. org/10.3390/ijms11083016]. [PMID: 21152288]. 21152288 39 Mohan V. Gibbs A.C. Cummings M.D. Jaeger E.P. DesJarlais R.L. Docking: successes and challenges. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2005 11 3 323 333 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1381612053382106]. [PMID: 15723628]. 15723628 40 Morris G.M. Goodsell D.S. Huey R. Olson A.J. Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 1996 10 4 293 304 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00124499]. [PMID: 8877701]. 8877701 41 Ewing T.J. Makino S. Skillman A.G. Kuntz I.D. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2001 15 5 411 428 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011115820450]. [PMID: 11394736]. 11394736 42 Kramer B. Rarey M. Lengauer T. Evaluation of the FLEXX incremental construction algorithm for protein-ligand docking. Proteins 1999 37 2 228 241 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0134(19991101)37:2<228:AID-PROT8>3.0.CO;2-8]. [PMID: 10584068]. 10584068 43 Friesner R.A. Banks J.L. Murphy R.B. Halgren T.A. Klicic J.J. Mainz D.T. Repasky M.P. Knoll E.H. Shelley M. Perry J.K. Shaw D.E. Francis P. Shenkin P.S. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004 47 7 1739 1749 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jm0306430]. [PMID: 15027865]. 15027865 44 Verdonk M.L. Cole J.C. Hartshorn M.J. Murray C.W. Taylor R.D. Improved protein-ligand docking using GOLD. Proteins 2003 52 4 609 623 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.10465]. [PMID: 12910460]. 12910460 45 Jain A.N. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 2003 46 4 499 511 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jm020406h]. [PMID: 12570372]. 12570372 46 Venkatachalam C.M. Jiang X. Oldfield T. Waldman M. LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2003 21 4 289 307 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1093-3263(02)00164-X]. [PMID: 12479928]. 12479928 47 Du X. Li Y. Xia Y.L. Ai S.M. Liang J. Sang P. Ji X.L. Liu S.Q. Insights into Protein-Ligand Interactions: Mechanisms, Models, and Methods. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016 17 2 E144 [http:// dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms17020144]. [PMID: 26821017]. 26821017 48 Sousa S.F. Fernandes P.A. Ramos M.J. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins 2006 65 1 15 26 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/prot.21082]. [PMID: 16862531]. 16862531 49 Ferreira L.G. Dos Santos R.N. Oliva G. Andricopulo A.D. Molecular docking and structure-based drug design strategies. Molecules 2015 20 7 13384 13421 [http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ molecules200713384]. [PMID: 26205061]. 26205061 50 Foloppe N. Hubbard R. Towards predictive ligand design with free-energy based computational methods? Curr. Med. Chem. 2006 13 29 3583 3608 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/092986706779026165]. [PMID: 17168725]. 17168725 51 Jain A.N. Scoring functions for protein-ligand docking. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 2006 7 5 407 420 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/ 138920306778559395]. [PMID: 17073693]. 17073693 52 Sehgal S.A. Mannan S. Ali S. Pharmacoinformatic and molecular docking studies reveal potential novel antidepressants against neurodegenerative disorders by targeting HSPB8. Drug Des. Devel. Ther. 2016 10 1605 1618 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/DDDT. S101929]. [PMID: 27226709]. 53 Guha R. Willighagen E. A survey of quantitative descriptions of molecular structure. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2012 12 18 1946 1956 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/156802612804910278]. [PMID: 23110530]. 23110530 54 Kombo D.C. Tallapragada K. Jain R. Chewning J. Mazurov A.A. Speake J.D. Hauser T.A. Toler S. 3D molecular descriptors important for clinical success. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013 53 2 327 342 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ci300445e]. [PMID: 23244494]. 23244494 55 Mauri A. Consonni V. Pavan M. Todeschini R. Dragon software: An easy approach to molecular descriptor calculations. Match (Mulh.) 2006 56 2 237 248 56 Andrade C.H. Pasqualoto K.F. Ferreira E.I. Hopfinger A.J. 4D-QSAR: perspectives in drug design. Molecules 2010 15 5 3281 3294 [http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules15053281]. [PMID: 20657478]. 20657478 57 Myint K.Z. Xie X.Q. Recent advances in fragment-based QSAR and multi-dimensional QSAR methods. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010 11 10 3846 3866 [http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms11103846]. [PMID: 21152304]. 21152304 58 Acharya C. Coop A. Polli J.E. Mackerell A.D. Jr Recent advances in ligand-based drug design: relevance and utility of the conformationally sampled pharmacophore approach. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2011 7 1 10 22 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/ 157340911793743547]. [PMID: 20807187]. 20807187 59 Yang S.Y. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug Discov. Today 2010 15 11-12 444 450 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2010. 03.013]. [PMID: 20362693]. 20362693 60 Karelson M. Lobanov V.S. Katritzky A.R. Quantum-Chemical Descriptors in QSAR/QSPR Studies. Chem. Rev. 1996 96 3 1027 1044 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/cr950202r]. [PMID: 11848779]. 11848779 61 Dong X. Zheng W. A new structure-based QSAR method affords both descriptive and predictive models for phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitors. Curr. Chem. Genomics 2008 2 29 39 [http://dx.doi. org/10.2174/1875397300802010029]. [PMID: 20161841]. 20161841 62 Bhadoriya K.S. Sharma M.C. Sharma S. Jain S.V. Avchar M.H. An approach to design potent anti-Alzheimer’s agents by 3D-QSAR studies on fused 5, 6-bicyclic heterocycles as γ-secretase modulators using kNN–MFA methodology. Arab. J. Chem. 2014 7 6 924 935 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.02.002]. 63 Kaserer T. Beck K.R. Akram M. Odermatt A. Schuster D. Pharmacophore models and pharmacophore-based virtual screening: Concepts and applications exemplified on hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases. Molecules 2015 20 12 22799 22832 [http:// dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules201219880]. [PMID: 26703541]. 26703541 64 Liao C. Sitzmann M. Pugliese A. Nicklaus M.C. Software and resources for computational medicinal chemistry. Future Med. Chem. 2011 3 8 1057 1085 [http://dx.doi.org/10.4155/fmc.11.63]. [PMID: 21707404]. 21707404 65 Selkoe D.J. Amyloid beta-protein and the genetics of Alzheimer’s disease. J. Biol. Chem. 1996 271 31 18295 18298 [http://dx.doi. org/10.1074/jbc.271.31.18295]. [PMID: 8756120]. 8756120 66 Chen D. Martin Z.S. Soto C. Schein C.H. Computational selection of inhibitors of Abeta aggregation and neuronal toxicity. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2009 17 14 5189 5197 [http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.bmc.2009.05.047]. [PMID: 19540126]. 19540126 67 Fu H. Li W. Luo J. Lee N.T. Li M. Tsim K.W. Pang Y. Youdim M.B. Han Y. Promising anti-Alzheimer’s dimer bis(7)-tacrine reduces beta-amyloid generation by directly inhibiting BACE-1 activity. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2008 366 3 631 636 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.11.068]. [PMID: 18039469]. 18039469 68 Jiang Y. Mullaney K.A. Peterhoff C.M. Che S. Schmidt S.D. Boyer-Boiteau A. Ginsberg S.D. Cataldo A.M. Mathews P.M. Nixon R.A. Alzheimer’s-related endosome dysfunction in Down syndrome is Abeta-independent but requires APP and is reversed by BACE-1 inhibition. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010 107 4 1630 1635 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0908953107]. [PMID: 20080541]. 20080541 69 Kacker P. Bottegoni G. Cavalli A. Computational methods in the discovery and design of BACE-1 inhibitors. Curr. Med. Chem. 2012 19 36 6095 6111 [http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/0929867311 209066095]. [PMID: 23072352]. 23072352 70 Rueeger H. Lueoend R. Rogel O. Rondeau J.M. Möbitz H. Machauer R. Jacobson L. Staufenbiel M. Desrayaud S. Neumann U. Discovery of cyclic sulfone hydroxyethylamines as potent and selective β-site APP-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE1) inhibitors: structure-based design and in vivo reduction of amyloid β-peptides. J. Med. Chem. 2012 55 7 3364 3386 [http://dx.doi. org/10.1021/jm300069y]. [PMID: 22380629]. 22380629 71 Ju Y. Li Z. Deng Y. Tong A. Zhou L. Luo Y. Identification of Novel BACE1 Inhibitors by Combination of Pharmacophore Modeling, Structure-Based Design and In Vitro Assay. Curr Comput Aided Drug Des 2016 12 1 73 82 [http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2174/1573409912666160222113103]. [PMID: 26899408]. 26899408 72 Labandeira-Garcia J.L. Rodríguez-Perez A.I. Villar-Cheda B. Borrajo A. Dominguez-Meijide A. Guerra M.J. Rho Kinase and Dopaminergic Degeneration: A Promising Therapeutic Target for Parkinson’s Disease. Neuroscientist 2015 21 6 616 629 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073858414554954]. [PMID: 25323761]. 25323761 73 Mueller B.K. Mack H. Teusch N. Rho kinase, a promising drug target for neurological disorders. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2005 4 5 387 398 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrd1719]. [PMID: 15864268]. 15864268 74 Nayernia Z. Jaquet V. Krause K.H. New insights on NOX enzymes in the central nervous system. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2014 20 17 2815 2837 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ars.2013.5703]. [PMID: 24206089]. 24206089 75 Sorce S. Krause K.H. NOX enzymes in the central nervous system: from signaling to disease. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2009 11 10 2481 2504 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ars.2009.2578]. [PMID: 19309263]. 19309263 76 Alokam R. Singhal S. Srivathsav G.S. Garigipati S. Puppala S. Sriram D. Perumal Y. Design of dual inhibitors of ROCK-I and NOX2 as potential leads for the treatment of neuroinflammation associated with various neurological diseases including autism spectrum disorder. Mol. Biosyst. 2015 11 2 607 617 [http://dx. doi.org/10.1039/C4MB00570H]. [PMID: 25465055]. 25465055 77 Boyault C. Zhang Y. Fritah S. Caron C. Gilquin B. Kwon S.H. Garrido C. Yao T.P. Vourc’h C. Matthias P. Khochbin S. HDAC6 controls major cell response pathways to cytotoxic accumulation of protein aggregates. Genes Dev. 2007 21 17 2172 2181 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gad.436407]. [PMID: 17785525]. 17785525 78 Xu W.S. Parmigiani R.B. Marks P.A. Histone deacetylase inhibitors: molecular mechanisms of action. Oncogene 2007 26 37 5541 5552 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1210620]. [PMID: 17694093]. 17694093 79 Gray S.G. Targeting histone deacetylases for the treatment of Huntington’s disease. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2010 16 6 348 361 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2010.00184.x]. [PMID: 20642797]. 20642797 80 Saha R.N. Pahan K. HATs and HDACs in neurodegeneration: a tale of disconcerted acetylation homeostasis. Cell Death Differ. 2006 13 4 539 550 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4401769]. [PMID: 16167067]. 16167067 81 Tang H. Wang X.S. Huang X.P. Roth B.L. Butler K.V. Kozikowski A.P. Jung M. Tropsha A. 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 [http://dx.doi.org/10. 1021/ci800366f]. [PMID: 19182860]. 19182860 82 Goracci L. Deschamps N. Randazzo G.M. Petit C. Dos Santos Passos C. Carrupt P.A. Simões-Pires C. Nurisso A. A Rational Approach for the Identification of Non-Hydroxamate HDAC6-Selective Inhibitors. Sci. Rep. 2016 6 29086 [http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/srep29086]. [PMID: 27404291]. 27404291 83 Schneider G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2010 9 4 273 276 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ nrd3139]. [PMID: 20357802]. 20357802 84 Verkhivker G.M. Bouzida D. Gehlhaar D.K. Rejto P.A. Arthurs S. Colson A.B. Freer S.T. Larson V. Luty B.A. Marrone T. Rose P.W. Deciphering common failures in molecular docking of ligand-protein complexes. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2000 14 8 731 751 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008158231558]. [PMID: 11131967]. 11131967 85 Cheatham T.E. III Young M.A. Molecular dynamics simulation of nucleic acids: successes, limitations, and promise. Biopolymers 2000-2001 56 4 232 256 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0282 (2000)56:4<232:AID-BIP10037>3.0.CO;2-H]. [PMID: 11754338]. 86 Klebe G. Virtual ligand screening: strategies, perspectives and limitations. Drug Discov. Today 2006 11 13-14 580 594 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2006.05.012]. [PMID: 16793526]. 16793526 87 Korb O. Olsson T.S. Bowden S.J. Hall R.J. Verdonk M.L. Liebeschuetz J.W. Cole J.C. Potential and limitations of ensemble docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012 52 5 1262 1274 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ci2005934]. [PMID: 22482774]. 22482774 88 MacDonald D. Breton R. Sutcliffe R. Walker J. Uses and limitations of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) to categorize substances on the Canadian domestic substance list as persistent and/or bioaccumulative, and inherently toxic to non-human organisms. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2002 13 1 43 55 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10629360290002082]. [PMID: 12074391]. 12074391 89 Blomme E.A. Will Y. Toxicology Strategies for Drug Discovery: Present and Future. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2016 29 4 473 504 [http:// dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.5b00407]. [PMID: 26588328]. 26588328 90 van de Waterbeemd H. Gifford E. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003 2 3 192 204 [PMID: 12612645]. 12612645 91 McGann M. FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2012 26 8 897 906 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-012-9584-8]. [PMID: 22669221]. 22669221 92 Neves M.A. Totrov M. Abagyan R. Docking and scoring with ICM: the benchmarking results and strategies for improvement. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2012 26 6 675 686 [http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10822-012-9547-0]. [PMID: 22569591]. 22569591 93 Ravitz O. Zsoldos Z. Simon A. Improving molecular docking through eHiTS' tunable scoring function. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2011 25 11 1033 1051 [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10822-011-9482-5]. [PMID: 22076470]. 22076470