Research AppraisalSystematic Review

Carbonic anhydrase under the computational lens: a review of advances, challenges, and future directions

Journal of molecular modelingGhiasi, Mina, Noohi, Bahare13 May 2026DOI

Clinical Snapshot

5CEBM
Evidence: InsufficientSystematic Review

PICO Framework

P — PopulationNot applicable - this is a narrative review of computational methods
I — InterventionNot applicable - review of computational approaches
C — ComparatorNot applicable - narrative review
O — OutcomesNot applicable - methodological review

Bottom Line

This narrative review examines computational methods used to study carbonic anhydrases, including quantum mechanics, molecular dynamics, and machine learning approaches. While it provides valuable insights for researchers developing CA modulators for conditions like cancer and Alzheimer's disease, it is not a systematic review and cannot be appraised using clinical evidence frameworks. The review lacks systematic methodology, quality assessment, and clinical outcome measures. For clinicians, this work primarily serves as background on the computational tools being used to develop potential CA-targeted therapies rather than providing evidence to guide current practice. The methodological focus limits its immediate clinical applicability, though it may inform future drug development efforts.

Evidence: Insufficient

Key Findings

  • Effect Size: Not applicable - narrative review

  • Primary Outcome: Review of computational methods for studying carbonic anhydrases

  • Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not applicable - methodological review

Clinical Application

Limited direct clinical application - primarily methodological May inform Australian research into CA-targeted therapeutics, but no direct clinical practice implications Researchers studying carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and activators

Abstract

CONTEXT: Carbonic anhydrases (CAs) are zinc metalloenzymes responsible for the catalysis of the reversible hydration of carbon dioxide and play pivotal roles in many physiological and pathological processes. The complexity of CA isoforms with distinct expression patterns and catalytic characteristics has aroused fierce interest in the development of isoform-selective inhibitors and activators for therapeutic purposes and diagnostics. In this review, a systematic overview of computational and theoretical methods utilized to determine the structure, mechanism, inhibition, and activation of CAs was given. It reviews the evolution and utilization of computational methods in deciphering catalytic and proton transfer mechanisms as well as active-site interactions into atomic resolution and also features recent developments in drug design and screening strategies engineered for CA isoforms, particularly those involved in cancers and Alzheimer's disease. This study can be a reference for multidisciplinary researchers and inspire the future rational design of CA modulators. METHODS: This review summarizes the literature that employed QM and QM/MM by using like B3LYP, BE0-D3BJ, and MD simulations, GROMACS and Desmond packages, and various force fields: OPLS-AA, AMBER14, and CHARMM36. Molecular docking was performed using such as Glide, AutoDock Vina, and GOLD. Machine learning and AI techniques including SVM, LightGBM, SHAP, and neural networks were also reviewed. This review addresses the limitations in these models as well as prospects with newly emerging instruments such as polarizable force fields and real-time DFT as well as explainable AI frameworks, too. Incorporating data-driven insights with physics-based simulations, the next era of work is primed to provide predictive, scalable platforms for rational design of next-generation CA modulators.

References

  1. 1.Ghiasi, M., & Noohi, B. (2026). Carbonic anhydrase under the computational lens: a review of advances, challenges, and future directions. Journal of Molecular Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c06393
Share:XLinkedIn

This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service