Structure-based molecular modeling of a novel S-Remiketamine scaffold and derived arylcyclohexanone analogues: NMDA receptor dynamics, MM-GBSA ranking, and CES1-Oriented structural compatibility
Résumé fourni par la source
Introduction Short-acting ketamine-related scaffold design remains an important medicinal-chemistry problem, but computational studies require conservative interpretation until receptor, enzymatic, and pharmacokinetic validation is available. Methods S-ketamine, S-Remiketamine, and R1-R20 analogues were assessed using ligand curation, NMDA receptor docking, cross-target docking, explicit-solvent molecular dynamics, MM-GBSA analysis, CES1-oriented geometric assessment, and predictive ADMET/metabolite-route analysis. Results Static NMDA docking ranked R2 highest (Glide score -7.308 kcal/mol), while S-Remiketamine showed a more favorable predicted NMDA score than S-ketamine (-6.448 vs. -5.981 kcal/mol). Within the dynamically evaluated subset, NMDA end-state MM-GBSA values were -41.53 kcal/mol for R2, -28.80 kcal/mol for R11, and -42.10 kcal/mol for R14. In CES1 modeling, R14 was the only evaluated compound whose MM-GBSA became more favorable from 0 to 100 ns (-83.91 to -99.44 kcal/mol). Discussion These results support R2 as the strongest static NMDA docking/NMDA-preference benchmark and R14 as the most internally consistent integrated computational candidate. The findings are hypothesis-generating and require synthesis and experimental validation.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Structure-based molecular modeling of a novel S-Remiketamine scaffold and derived arylcyclohexanone analogues: NMDA receptor dynamics, MM-GBSA ranking, and CES1-Oriented structural compatibility
- Date Crossref
- 03/09/2026
- Éditeur
- Frontiers Media SA
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.