{"title":"Computational Identification of Potential HMG-CoA Reductase Modulators Through Drug Repurposing: Structural Insights and Therapeutic Implications.","authors":"Qusay Abdulsattar Mohammed, Mohammed R Al-Shaheen","doi":"10.2174/0115734099490379260809123720","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>HMG-CoA reductase (HMGCR) is a validated lipid-lowering target, but statin intolerance, variable response, and drug-drug interactions justify exploration of mechanistically distinct modulators. This study prioritized approved drugs that may bind predicted non-orthosteric HMGCR pockets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A computational workflow combining homology modeling (SWISS-MODEL; GMQE = 0.95), CB-Dock pocket detection, AutoDock Vina docking, 100 ns all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (GROMACS 2023.2), MM/PBSA binding-free-energy estimation, and in silico ADMET screening was applied to Fluspirilene, Lenvatinib, Siponimod, and Lumacaftor.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two putative non-orthosteric pockets were identified with calculated volumes of 394 Å3 (Pocket 1) and 305 Å3 (Pocket 2). Fluspirilene showed the most favorable Pocket 1 docking score (-9.4 kcal/mol) and MM/PBSA binding-free-energy estimate (-65.2 ± 3.8 kcal/mol), whereas Lumacaftor showed the most favorable Pocket 2 score (-8.9 kcal/mol; MM/PBSA: -55.7 ± 4.1 kcal/mol). MD trajectories supported retention of the selected poses throughout the 100 ns simulation window.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The predicted interactions involved hydrophobic contacts, π-associated interactions, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic contacts at sites spatially distinct from the canonical statin/HMG-CoA catalytic region. These findings support a non-orthosteric binding hypothesis but do not establish functional allosteric inhibition without enzyme kinetics, direct binding assays, and structural validation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study identifies computationally prioritized candidate scaffolds for putative non-orthosteric HMGCR modulation and defines the biochemical, kinetic, and structural validation required before any therapeutic interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93961,"journal":{"name":"Current computer-aided drug design","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current computer-aided drug design","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/0115734099490379260809123720","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: HMG-CoA reductase (HMGCR) is a validated lipid-lowering target, but statin intolerance, variable response, and drug-drug interactions justify exploration of mechanistically distinct modulators. This study prioritized approved drugs that may bind predicted non-orthosteric HMGCR pockets.
Methods: A computational workflow combining homology modeling (SWISS-MODEL; GMQE = 0.95), CB-Dock pocket detection, AutoDock Vina docking, 100 ns all-atom molecular dynamics (MD) simulations (GROMACS 2023.2), MM/PBSA binding-free-energy estimation, and in silico ADMET screening was applied to Fluspirilene, Lenvatinib, Siponimod, and Lumacaftor.
Results: Two putative non-orthosteric pockets were identified with calculated volumes of 394 Å3 (Pocket 1) and 305 Å3 (Pocket 2). Fluspirilene showed the most favorable Pocket 1 docking score (-9.4 kcal/mol) and MM/PBSA binding-free-energy estimate (-65.2 ± 3.8 kcal/mol), whereas Lumacaftor showed the most favorable Pocket 2 score (-8.9 kcal/mol; MM/PBSA: -55.7 ± 4.1 kcal/mol). MD trajectories supported retention of the selected poses throughout the 100 ns simulation window.
Discussion: The predicted interactions involved hydrophobic contacts, π-associated interactions, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic contacts at sites spatially distinct from the canonical statin/HMG-CoA catalytic region. These findings support a non-orthosteric binding hypothesis but do not establish functional allosteric inhibition without enzyme kinetics, direct binding assays, and structural validation.
Conclusion: The study identifies computationally prioritized candidate scaffolds for putative non-orthosteric HMGCR modulation and defines the biochemical, kinetic, and structural validation required before any therapeutic interpretation.