Literature DB >> 15481990

A comparison of methods for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships.

Jeffrey J Sutherland1, Lee A O'Brien, Donald F Weaver.   

Abstract

A large number of methods are available for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). We examine the predictive accuracy of several methods applied to data sets of inhibitors for angiotensin converting enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, benzodiazepine receptor, cyclooxygenase-2, dihydrofolate reductase, glycogen phosphorylase b, thermolysin, and thrombin. Descriptors calculated with CoMFA, CoMSIA, EVA, HQSAR, and traditional 2D and 2.5D descriptors were used for developing models with partial least squares (PLS). In addition, the genetic function approximation algorithm, genetic PLS, and back-propagation neural networks were used for deriving models from 2.5D descriptors (i.e., 2D descriptors and 3D descriptors calculated from CORINA structures and Gasteiger-Marsili charges). Predictive accuracy was assessed using designed test sets. It was found that HQSAR generally performs as well as CoMFA and CoMSIA; other descriptor sets performed less well. When 2.5D descriptors were used, only neural network ensembles were found to be similarly or more predictive than PLS models. In addition, we show that many cross-validation procedures yield similar estimates of the interpolative accuracy of methods. However, the lack of correspondence between cross-validated and test set predictive accuracy for four sets underscores the benefit of using designed test sets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15481990     DOI: 10.1021/jm0497141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Chem        ISSN: 0022-2623            Impact factor:   7.446


  36 in total

1.  Fragment-guided approach to incorporating structural information into a CoMFA study: BACE-1 as an example.

Authors:  Lívia Barros Salum; Napoleão Fonseca Valadares
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-07-27       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Toward better QSAR/QSPR modeling: simultaneous outlier detection and variable selection using distribution of model features.

Authors:  Dongsheng Cao; Yizeng Liang; Qingsong Xu; Yifeng Yun; Hongdong Li
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Benchmarking sets for molecular docking.

Authors:  Niu Huang; Brian K Shoichet; John J Irwin
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2006-11-16       Impact factor: 7.446

4.  A novel workflow for the inverse QSPR problem using multiobjective optimization.

Authors:  Nathan Brown; Ben McKay; Johann Gasteiger
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2006-09-21       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  Effect of steric molecular field settings on CoMFA predictivity.

Authors:  Ruchi R Mittal; Ross A McKinnon; Michael J Sorich
Journal:  J Mol Model       Date:  2007-11-24       Impact factor: 1.810

6.  Hierarchical QSAR technology based on the Simplex representation of molecular structure.

Authors:  V E Kuz'min; A G Artemenko; E N Muratov
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-02-06       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  The continuous molecular fields approach to building 3D-QSAR models.

Authors:  Igor I Baskin; Nelly I Zhokhova
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Open3DALIGN: an open-source software aimed at unsupervised ligand alignment.

Authors:  Paolo Tosco; Thomas Balle; Fereshteh Shiri
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  Predicting inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase by regression and classification machine learning approaches with combinations of molecular descriptors.

Authors:  Dmitriy Chekmarev; Vladyslav Kholodovych; Sandhya Kortagere; William J Welsh; Sean Ekins
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 4.200

10.  Interpretable correlation descriptors for quantitative structure-activity relationships.

Authors:  Benson M Spowage; Craig L Bruce; Jonathan D Hirst
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 5.514

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.