Comparative Analysis of Molecular Docking Programs GOLD, Glide, and MOE on Quinazoline Derivatives as Antiproliferative Agents: Implications for EGFR-Targeted Therapies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32947/ajps.v25i5.1309Keywords:
Molecular docking, EGFR inhibitors, Quinazoline derivatives, Docking software (GOLD, Glide, MOE) evaluation and comparison, Binding affinity prediction, Docking pose accuracyAbstract
Background: To aid in the identification of drug candidates and the prediction of protein-ligand interactions, molecular docking predicts how ligands interact with receptors, aiding drug discovery. EGFR’s role in NSCLC makes quinazoline derivatives promising anticancer agents. However, accurately predicting their EGFR binding affinities remains a challenge.
Objectives: This research was designed to comparatively analyze three popular molecular docking tools; GOLD, Glide, and MOE by comparing their performance in predicting quinazoline derivative binding poses and affinities against EGFR. This study aimed to identify the most effective docking tool for screening quinazoline-based antiproliferative drugs.
Method: Quinazoline derivatives were docked into the EGFR receptor binding site using GOLD, Glide, and MOE. The ligands were energy-minimized, and the proteins were prepared by removing water molecules and adding hydrogen atoms. Docking simulations ran under default settings, comparing binding affinities via various scoring functions.
Results: GOLD identified N-(CH3)3 and 3-NO₂ derivatives as strong binders, while Glide favored Erlotinib due to π-π stacking interactions. MOE highlighted Ethyl Vanillin and N-(CH3)3 derivatives, particularly for their polar interactions. The docking results demonstrated that each program had strengths depending on the ligand's interaction type.
Conclusion: GOLD and MOE showed the most promise in identifying high-affinity binders for quinazoline derivatives targeting EGFR, while Glide excelled in handling hydrophobic interactions. The findings highlight the importance of selecting the appropriate docking tool based on ligand characteristics to optimize the drug discovery process for EGFR inhibitors.
References
1- Rajeeve A.D., Yamuna R., Namboori P.K.K. Elucidating the potential of EGFR mutated NSCLC and identifying its multitargeted inhibitors. Sci. Rep. 2025. Vol.15. Pp: 3649. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-83868-5
2- Stanzione F., Giangreco I. and Cole J. C. Use of molecular docking computational tools in drug discovery. Prog. Med. Chem. 2021. Vol.60. Pp: 273-343. [HTML]
3- Zhang X, Shen C, Zhang H, Kang Y, Hsieh CY, Hou T. Advancing ligand docking through deep learning: challenges and prospects in virtual screening. Acc Chem Res. 2024;57(10):1500-9. [HTML]
4- Abdulredha, Farah Haidar; Mahdi, Monther Faisal; Khan, Ayad Kareem. In silico evaluation of binding interaction and ADME study of new 1,3-diazetidin-2-one derivatives with high antiproliferative activity. Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research 14(3):p 176-184, Jul–Sep 2023. | https://doi.org/10.4103/JAPTR.JAPTR_116_23
5- Huo D, Wang S, Kong Y, Qin Z, Yan A. Discovery of novel epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors using computational approaches. J Chem Inf Model. 2021;62(21):5149-64. [HTML]
6- Jubeen F, Ijaz S, Jabeen I, Aftab U, Mehdi W, Altaf A, et al. Anticancer potential of novel 5-Fluorouracil co-crystals against MCF7 breast and SW480 colon cancer cell lines along with docking studies. Arab J Chem. 2022;15(12):104299. sciencedirect.com
7- Makhija R, Sharma A, Dubey R, Asati V. Structural perspectives in the development of novel EGFR inhibitors for the treatment of NSCLC. Mini Rev Med Chem. 2024;24(19):1746-83. [HTML]
8- Haider K, Das S, Joseph A, Yar MS. An appraisal of anticancer activity with structure–activity relationship of quinazoline and quinazolinone analogues through EGFR and VEGFR inhibition: A review. Drug Dev Res. 2022;83(4):859-90. [HTML]
9- Baraskar K., Tiwari A., Dubey P.K. In-Silico ADMET Prediction, Structure-Based Drug Design and Molecular Docking Studies of Quinazoline Derivatives as Novel EGFR Inhibitors. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Med. 2024. Vol.9 (9). Pp: 1-28. ijpsm.com
10- Zhao J, Cao Y, Zhang L. Exploring the computational methods for protein-ligand binding site prediction. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2020;18:417-26. sciencedirect.com
11- Blanco-Gonzalez A, Cabezon A, Seco-Gonzalez A, Conde-Torres D, Antelo-Riveiro P, Pineiro A, et al. The role of AI in drug discovery: challenges, opportunities, and strategies. Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2023;16(6):891. mdpi.com
12- Babu S, Nagarajan SK, Sathish S, Negi VS, Sohn H, Madhavan T. Identification of potent and selective JAK1 lead compounds through ligand-based drug design approaches. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:837369. frontiersin.org
13- Shamsian S., Sokouti B. and Dastmalchi S. Benchmarking different docking protocols for predicting the binding poses of ligands complexed with cyclooxygenase enzymes and screening chemical libraries. Bioimpacts. 2024. Vol.14 (2). Pp: 29955. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
14- Mursal M., Ahmad M., Hussain S., Faraz Khan M. Navigating the Computational Seas: A Comprehensive Overview of Molecular Docking Software in Drug Discovery. Biomed. Eng. 2024. intechopen.com
15- Liu W, Liu Z, Liu H, Westerhoff LM, Zheng Z. Free energy calculations using the movable type method with molecular dynamics driven protein–ligand sampling. J Chem Inf Model. 2022;62(22):5645-65. acs.org
16- Javed N. M. Advancements in Quinazoline Derivatives as Targeted Anticancer Agents: A Review on its Synthesis, Mechanisms, and Therapeutic Potential. J. Angiother. 2024. Vol.8 (10). 1-16 https://doi.org/10.25163/angiotherapy.8109970
17- Ouf A., Marzouk A., Shykhoon M. and El-Zahabi M. A. Exploring the protein kinase inhibitory activity of quinazolines as anticancer agents: FDA-approved drugs and promising reported compounds. Al-Azhar J. Pharm. Sci. 2023. Vol.68. Pp: 82-110 DOI:10.21608/ajps.2023.332169
18- Kaur J., Kaur S., Muskan, Kaur N., Kumar V. and Anand A. Unveiling the therapeutic potential of quinazolinone derivatives in cancer treatment: A comprehensive exploration. Chem. Select. 2024. Vol.9 (32). Pp: e202401366. https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202401366
19- Kaur J., Kaur S., Anand A., Islam N., Singh S. and Singh A. An updated overview on the synthesis and anticancer evaluation of quinazoline derivatives. Chem. Select. 2023. Vol.8. Pp: e202302778. https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202302778
20- Zayed M. F. Quinazoline derivatives as targeted chemotherapeutic agents. Cureus. 2024. Vol.16 (5). Pp: e60662. https://doi.org10.7759/cureus.60662
21- Fischer A, Smiesko M, Sellner M, Lill MA. Decision making in structure-based drug discovery: visual inspection of docking results. J Med Chem. 2021;64(5):2489-2500. [HTML]
22- Tripathi N. M., Bandyopadhyay A. High throughput virtual screening (HTVS) of peptide library: Technological advancement in ligand discovery. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2022. Vol.243. Pp: 114766. [HTML]
23- Dasmahapatra U., Kumar C. K., Das S., Subramanian P. T., Murali P., Isaac A. E., Ramanathan K., Mm B., Chanda K. In-silico molecular modelling, MM/GBSA binding free energy and molecular dynamics simulation study of novel pyrido fused imidazo[4,5-c]quinolines as potential anti-tumor agents. Front. Chem. 2022. Vol.10. Pp: 991369. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
24- Wahan SK, Sharma B, Chawla PA. Medicinal perspective of quinazolinone derivatives: Recent developments and structure–activity relationship studies. J Heterocycl Chem. 2022;59(2):239-257. [HTML]
25- Sidat PS, Jaber TMK, Vekariya SR, Mogal AM, Patel AM, Noolvi M. Anticancer biological profile of some heterocyclic moieties—thiadiazole, benzimidazole, quinazoline, and pyrimidine. Pharmacophore. 2022;13(4):59-71. pharmacophorejournal.com
26- Yazdani B, Sirous H, Enguita FJ, Brogi S, Wing PA, Fassihi A. Discovery of novel direct small-molecule inhibitors targeting HIF-2α using structure-based virtual screening, molecular dynamics simulation, and MM-GBSA calculations. Mol Divers. 2024;28(3):1203-1224. researchgate.net
27- Ibrahim N. W., Mahdi M., Raauf A. M. R. Design, Molecular Docking, Synthesis and Evaluation of New Isatin Derivatives Bearing Pyridine Moiety as Potential Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors. Egypt. J. Chem. 2022. Vol.65 (2). Pp: 9-18. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2021.72747.3607
28- Jain A. N., Cleves A. E., Walters W. P. Deep-Learning Based Docking Methods: Fair Comparisons to Conventional Docking Workflows. arXiv. 2024. ep: 2412.02889. http://dx.doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.02889
29- Berenger F., Kumar A., Zhang K. Y. J., Yamanishi Y. Lean-Docking: Exploiting Ligands' Predicted Docking Scores to Accelerate Molecular Docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. May 2021. Vol. 61 (5). Pp: 2341-2352.researchgate.net
30- Wabdan A. K., Mahdi M. F., Khan A. K. Molecular Docking, Synthesis and ADME Studies of New Pyrazoline Derivatives as Potential Anticancer Agents. Egypt. J. Chem. Aug 2021. Vol. 64 (8). Pp: 4311-4322. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2021.64042.3377
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ali Hussein Sabr, Monther Faisal Mahdi, Talal Aburjai
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
