ABSTRACT:
Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models are essential computational tools in modern drug discovery, enabling the prediction of biological activity based on the structural features of chemical compounds. While traditional 2D-QSAR methods rely on physicochemical and topological descriptors, they lack spatial information and therefore cannot accurately represent the three-dimensional nature of ligand–receptor interactions. To address these limitations, three-dimensional QSAR (3D-QSAR) approaches such as Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) and Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis (CoMSIA) were developed. These methods analyze steric, electrostatic, hydrophobic, and hydrogen-bonding fields around aligned molecular structures, offering more realistic insights into the molecular determinants of biological activity. 3D-QSAR generates contour maps that visually guide medicinal chemists during lead optimization by indicating favorable and unfavorable regions for structural modification. The integration of 3D-QSAR with molecular docking, pharmacophore modeling, and machine learning techniques has further enhanced its accuracy and applicability, even in cases where receptor structures are unavailable. Despite challenges such as alignment dependency and conformational variability, 3D-QSAR remains a powerful tool for rational drug design, ADMET prediction, and receptor-subtype selectivity. With advancements in artificial intelligence and computational power, 3D-QSAR continues to evolve as a cornerstone of modern medicinal chemistry.
Cite this article:
Dr Ruchi Sharma (2025), 3D-QSAR and Its Emerging Role in Modern Medicinal Chemistry. Spectrum of Emerging Sciences, 5 (2) 77-86., DOI: https://doi.org/10.55878/SES2025-5-2-18
Reference:
1. Hansch
C, Fujita T. ρ–σ–π analysis. A method for the correlation of biological
activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc.
1964;86(8):1616–1626.
2. Free
SM Jr, Wilson JW. A mathematical contribution to structure–activity studies. J
Med Chem. 1964;7(4):395–399.
3. Kubinyi
H. QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design. Drug Discov Today.
1997;2(11):457–467.
4. Cherkasov
A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, Varnek A, Baskin II, Cronin M, et al. QSAR modeling:
where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem.
2014;57(12):4977–5010.
5. Taft
RW. Steric effects in organic chemistry. New York: Wiley;
1956.
6. Cramer
RD III, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). J
Am Chem Soc. 1988;110(18):5959–5967.
7. Klebe
G, Abraham U, Mietzner T. Molecular similarity indices in a comparative
analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules. J Med Chem.
1994;37(24):4130–4146.
8. Klebe
G. Comparative molecular similarity indices analysis: CoMSIA. Perspect
Drug Discov Des. 1998;12–14:87–104.
9. Verma
J, Khedkar VM, Coutinho EC. 3D-QSAR in drug design – a review. Curr Top
Med Chem. 2010;10(1):95–115.
10. Kubinyi H.
3D QSAR in drug design: theory, methods and applications. Drug Discov
Today. 1997;2(11):538–546.
11. Langer T,
Hoffmann RD. Pharmacophores and pharmacophore searches.
Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2006.
12. Lionta E,
Spyrou G, Vassilatis DK, Cournia Z. Structure-based virtual screening for drug
discovery: principles, applications and recent advances. Curr Top Med
Chem. 2014;14(16):1923–1938.
13. Schneider
G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat Rev Drug Discov.
2010;9(4):273–276.
14. Liu HX,
Zhang RS, Luan F, Yao XJ, Liu MC, Hu ZD, et al. QSAR study of drug–protein
binding using machine learning methods. J Chem Inf Comput Sci.
2004;44(6):1936–1941.
15. Baskin II.
Machine learning methods in computational medicinal chemistry. Methods
Mol Biol. 2018;1820:271–292.
16. Walters WP,
Murcko MA. Assessing the impact of generative AI on medicinal chemistry. Nat
Biotechnol. 2020;38(2):143–145.
17. Hopfinger
AJ, Wang S, Tokarski JS, Jin B, Albuquerque M, Basu A, et al. Construction of
4D-QSAR models. J Am Chem Soc. 1997;119(43):10509–10524.
18. Vedani A,
Dobler M, Smiesko M. Virtual screening with three-dimensional pharmacophores. Curr
Top Med Chem. 2012;12(18):2032–2041.
19. Erlanson
DA, McDowell RS, O’Brien T. Fragment-based drug discovery. J Med Chem.
2004;47(14):3463–3482.
20. Lionta E,
Cournia Z. Structure-based and ligand-based drug design. Drug Discov
Today. 2015;20(7):881–892.