Literature DB >> 20721601

QMOD: physically meaningful QSAR.

Ajay N Jain1.   

Abstract

Computational methods for predicting ligand affinity where no protein structure is known generally take the form of regression analysis based on molecular features that have only a tangential relationship to a protein/ligand binding event. Such methods have utility in retrospective rationalization of activity patterns of substituents on a common scaffold, but are limited when either multiple scaffolds are present or when ligand alignment varies significantly based on structural changes. In addition, such methods generally assume independence and additivity of effect from scaffold substituents. Collectively, these non-physical modeling assumptions sharply limit the utility of widely used QSAR approaches for prospective prediction of ligand activity. The recently introduced Surflex-QMOD approach, by virtue of constructing physical models of binding sites, comes closer to a modeling approach that is congruent with protein ligand binding events. A set of congeneric CDK2 inhibitors showed that induced binding pockets can be quite congruent with the enzyme's active site but that model predictivity within a chemical series does not necessarily depend on congruence. Muscarinic antagonists were used to show that the QMOD approach is capable of making accurate predictions in cases where highly non-additive structure activity effects exist. The QMOD method offers a means to go beyond non-causative correlations in QSAR analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20721601      PMCID: PMC3109424          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-010-9379-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  20 in total

Review 1.  Pharmacophore modeling and three dimensional database searching for drug design using catalyst: recent advances.

Authors:  Osman Güner; Omoshile Clement; Yasuhisa Kurogi
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins.

Authors:  R D Cramer; D E Patterson; J D Bunce
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  1988-08-01       Impact factor: 15.419

Review 3.  Pushing the boundaries of 3D-QSAR.

Authors:  Richard D Cramer; Bernd Wendt
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2007-01-26       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Customizing scoring functions for docking.

Authors:  Tuan A Pham; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2008-02-14       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  The trouble with QSAR (or how I learned to stop worrying and embrace fallacy).

Authors:  Stephen R Johnson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  A shape-based machine learning tool for drug design.

Authors:  A N Jain; T G Dietterich; R H Lathrop; D Chapman; R E Critchlow; B E Bauer; T A Webster; T Lozano-Perez
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 3.686

7.  Compass: predicting biological activities from molecular surface properties. Performance comparisons on a steroid benchmark.

Authors:  A N Jain; K Koile; D Chapman
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1994-07-22       Impact factor: 7.446

8.  Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity.

Authors:  G Klebe; U Abraham; T Mietzner
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1994-11-25       Impact factor: 7.446

9.  3-(2-Benzofuranyl)quinuclidin-2-ene derivatives: novel muscarinic antagonists.

Authors:  G Nordvall; S Sundquist; G Johansson; G Glas; L Nilvebrant; U Hacksell
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  1996-08-16       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Binding MOAD, a high-quality protein-ligand database.

Authors:  Mark L Benson; Richard D Smith; Nickolay A Khazanov; Brandon Dimcheff; John Beaver; Peter Dresslar; Jason Nerothin; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2007-11-30       Impact factor: 16.971

View more
  6 in total

1.  Does your model weigh the same as a duck?

Authors:  Ajay N Jain; Ann E Cleves
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Extrapolative prediction using physically-based QSAR.

Authors:  Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  CASTELO: clustered atom subtypes aided lead optimization-a combined machine learning and molecular modeling method.

Authors:  Leili Zhang; Giacomo Domeniconi; Ruhong Zhou; Guojing Cong; Chih-Chieh Yang; Seung-Gu Kang
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 3.169

4.  Iterative refinement of a binding pocket model: active computational steering of lead optimization.

Authors:  Rocco Varela; W Patrick Walters; Brian B Goldman; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 7.446

5.  A structure-guided approach for protein pocket modeling and affinity prediction.

Authors:  Rocco Varela; Ann E Cleves; Russell Spitzer; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2013-11-09       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Quantitative surface field analysis: learning causal models to predict ligand binding affinity and pose.

Authors:  Ann E Cleves; Ajay N Jain
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.686

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.