Ight, have less than 7 rotatable bonds, and have an xlogP between 2.5 and 3.5. The docking spheres used as anchor points in the binding site to position the order AKT inhibitor 2 database molecules in the orthosteric pocket were calculated based on the heavy-atom positions of carazolol and 1 when superimposing the backbone atoms of the b2-adrenergic receptor (PDB code 2RH1) and A2AAR, respectively, with the A1AR model. Where ITI-007 web necessary, spheres were moved manually to obtain a more homogenous distribution. During docking, every molecule was fitted onto spheres chosen by 
the algorithm based on the similarity of the distances 22948146 between the spheres and corresponding heavy atoms in the molecules. Each molecule pose was minimized for 25 steps with the simplex method. Finally, the binding affinity was estimated by adding the electrostatic and van der Waals interaction energies and correcting for solvation penalty. These energy terms were obtained from precalculated values stored on cubic grids. To emphasize the highly conserved interaction of adenosine with Asn2546.55, partial charges on the polar side chain atoms were amplified by 0.4 units in such a way that the overall charge of the residue remained neutral. After docking, the top 500 poses were inspected visually to filter outIn Silico Screening for A1AR AntagonistsFigure 4. Chart 1. Reference compounds (known selective A1AR antagonists) mentioned in the text. Ki values are as follows, with targets other than human A1AR in parentheses: 1: Ki 0.8 nM [8]; 2: Ki 18 nM; 3: Ki 1 1662274 nM; 4: Ki 1 nM [11]; 5: Ki 3 nM (bovine A1AR [20]); 6: Ki 584 nM [21]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049910.gmolecules with unsatisfied hydrogen bond donors or acceptors, incorrect protonation states, unlikely binding modes due to incorrect parametrization, or highly strained conformations. The selected molecules were acquired from their respective vendors as listed in the ZINC database.Selectivity Ratios of known AR LigandsAll ligands annotated with an activity value against at least one of the investigated AR subtypes were downloaded from version 12 of the ChEMBL database [34]. The data was made uniform by keeping only affinities measured as Ki. Ki-values described as “greater than” a threshold (ranging from 1028 M to 1022 M, depending on the study the data originated from) were treated as “inactive”. For molecules with more than one independentlymeasured Ki value, the average was calculated. Cases with at least one “active” and one “inactive”, i.e. inconsistent, classification with respect to a particular receptor were discarded. The selectivity ratio was calculated by dividing the respective Ki values of one ligand against two different receptor subtypes, and binned according to their ratio. The Ki-value of an inactive molecule was arbitrarily set to 1 M, except for cases where a molecule was inactive against both investigated subtypes, and was thus not considered further in the analysis. The choice of the numerical value for inactive compounds had no influence on the conclusions drawn, as we only compared data that had been obtained with the same settings.In Silico Screening for A1AR AntagonistsFigure 5. Chart 2. Molecules identified in this study. Binding affinity data at three AR subtypes are presented in Table 1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049910.gIn Silico Screening for A1AR AntagonistsExperimental AssaysBinding affinity for three human AR (hAR) subtypes was measured using standard radioligand assays and membrane preparations from C.Ight, have less than 7 rotatable bonds, and have an xlogP between 2.5 and 3.5. The docking spheres used as anchor points in the binding site to position the database molecules in the orthosteric pocket 
were calculated based on the heavy-atom positions of carazolol and 1 when superimposing the backbone atoms of the b2-adrenergic receptor (PDB code 2RH1) and A2AAR, respectively, with the A1AR model. Where necessary, spheres were moved manually to obtain a more homogenous distribution. During docking, every molecule was fitted onto spheres chosen by the algorithm based on the similarity of the distances 22948146 between the spheres and corresponding heavy atoms in the molecules. Each molecule pose was minimized for 25 steps with the simplex method. Finally, the binding affinity was estimated by adding the electrostatic and van der Waals interaction energies and correcting for solvation penalty. These energy terms were obtained from precalculated values stored on cubic grids. To emphasize the highly conserved interaction of adenosine with Asn2546.55, partial charges on the polar side chain atoms were amplified by 0.4 units in such a way that the overall charge of the residue remained neutral. After docking, the top 500 poses were inspected visually to filter outIn Silico Screening for A1AR AntagonistsFigure 4. Chart 1. Reference compounds (known selective A1AR antagonists) mentioned in the text. Ki values are as follows, with targets other than human A1AR in parentheses: 1: Ki 0.8 nM [8]; 2: Ki 18 nM; 3: Ki 1 1662274 nM; 4: Ki 1 nM [11]; 5: Ki 3 nM (bovine A1AR [20]); 6: Ki 584 nM [21]. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049910.gmolecules with unsatisfied hydrogen bond donors or acceptors, incorrect protonation states, unlikely binding modes due to incorrect parametrization, or highly strained conformations. The selected molecules were acquired from their respective vendors as listed in the ZINC database.Selectivity Ratios of known AR LigandsAll ligands annotated with an activity value against at least one of the investigated AR subtypes were downloaded from version 12 of the ChEMBL database [34]. The data was made uniform by keeping only affinities measured as Ki. Ki-values described as “greater than” a threshold (ranging from 1028 M to 1022 M, depending on the study the data originated from) were treated as “inactive”. For molecules with more than one independentlymeasured Ki value, the average was calculated. Cases with at least one “active” and one “inactive”, i.e. inconsistent, classification with respect to a particular receptor were discarded. The selectivity ratio was calculated by dividing the respective Ki values of one ligand against two different receptor subtypes, and binned according to their ratio. The Ki-value of an inactive molecule was arbitrarily set to 1 M, except for cases where a molecule was inactive against both investigated subtypes, and was thus not considered further in the analysis. The choice of the numerical value for inactive compounds had no influence on the conclusions drawn, as we only compared data that had been obtained with the same settings.In Silico Screening for A1AR AntagonistsFigure 5. Chart 2. Molecules identified in this study. Binding affinity data at three AR subtypes are presented in Table 1. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049910.gIn Silico Screening for A1AR AntagonistsExperimental AssaysBinding affinity for three human AR (hAR) subtypes was measured using standard radioligand assays and membrane preparations from C.