| Literature DB >> 24955417 |
Zahra Ghanbari1, Mohammad R Housaindokht2, Mohammad Izadyar1, Mohammad R Bozorgmehr3, Hossein Eshtiagh-Hosseini2, Ahmad R Bahrami2, Maryam M Matin2, Maliheh Javan Khoshkholgh1.
Abstract
Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) for the anticancer activity of Fe(III)-salen and salen-like complexes was studied. The methods of density function theory (B3LYP/LANL2DZ) were used to optimize the structures. A pool of descriptors was calculated: 1497 theoretical descriptors and quantum-chemical parameters, shielding NMR, and electronic descriptors. The study of structure and activity relationship was performed with multiple linear regression (MLR) and artificial neural network (ANN). In nonlinear method, the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) was applied in order to choose the most effective descriptors. The ANN-ANFIS model with high statistical significance (R (2) train = 0.99, RMSE = 0.138, and Q (2) LOO = 0.82) has better capability to predict the anticancer activity of the new compounds series of this family. Based on this study, anticancer activity of this compound is mainly dependent on the geometrical parameters, position, and the nature of the substituent of salen ligand.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24955417 PMCID: PMC3997896 DOI: 10.1155/2014/745649
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Structure of the complexes studied.
Experimental and predicted values of PIC50 for various salen complexes by MLR and ANN models.
| Structure | PIC50 experimental | PIC50 predicted | |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANN | MLR | ||
| 1 | −1.34227 | −1.30399 | −1.34220 |
| 2 | −1.77815 | −1.81275 | −1.77810 |
| 3 | −1.77815 | −2.15957 | −1.77810 |
| 4 | −1.77815 | −2.11785 | −1.77810 |
| 5 | −1.77815 | −1.47180 | −1.77820 |
| 6 | −1.07918 | −0.82961 | −1.07920 |
| 7 | −0.65321 | −0.54961 | −0.65320 |
| 8 | −0.11394 | −0.54747 | −0.11390 |
| 9 | 0.52288 | 0.24813 | 0.60580 |
| 10 | −1.77815 | −1.80770 | −1.78810 |
| 11 | −1.77815 | −1.35897 | −1.78810 |
| 12 | −0.61278 | −0.67836 | −0.61280 |
| 13 | 0.1549 | −0.01870 | 0.15500 |
| 14 | −0.49136 | −0.46266 | −0.12430 |
| 15 | 0.30103 | −0.24032 | 0.30110 |
| 16 | 0.69897 | 0.73866 | 0.69890 |
| 17 | −2.00000 | −1.12536 | −1.60450 |
| 18 | −2.00000 | −1.14808 | −2.00000 |
| 19 | −0.17609 | −0.22396 | −0.17610 |
| 20 | 0.30103 | 0.41782 | 0.30100 |
| 21 | −0.11394 | −0.21354 | −0.11390 |
| 22 | −1.37475 | −1.42517 | −1.37470 |
| 23 | −1.11727 | −1.45753 | −1.11730 |
| 24 | −1.31387 | −1.10417 | −1.31390 |
| 25 | −1.26245 | −1.61461 | −1.71060 |
| 26 | −1.22789 | −1.04990 | −1.22790 |
| Cisplatin | −1.25527 | ||
PIC50 = −log(IC50).
Descriptors used in MLR.
| Number | Symbol | Chemical meaning | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MATS8e | Moreau autocorrelation—lag8/weighted by atomic sanderson electronegativities | 2D autocorrelation |
| 2 | Mor28u | Signal 28/unweighted | 3D-MoRSE |
| 3 | H8m | H autocorrelation of lag8/weighted by atomic masses | GETAWAY |
| 4 | CIC1 | Complementary information content | Topological |
| 5 | G3s | 3st component symmetry directional WHIM index/ | WHIM |
Correlation coefficient matrix of the selected descriptors.
| MATS8e | Mor28u | H8m | CIC1 | G3s | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MATS8e | 1 | −0.273 | 0.270 | 0.026 | −0.283 |
| Mor28u | 1 | −0.109 | −0.668 | 0.347 | |
| H8m | 1 | −0.124 | −0.259 | ||
| CIC1 | 1 | −0.009 | |||
| G3s | 1 |
Five most efficient descriptors selected by ANFIS models.
| No. | Symbol | Chemical meaning | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mor28p | Signal28/weighted by atomic polarizabilities | 3D-MoRSE |
| 2 | SPI | Superpendentic index | Topological |
| 3 | RDF110m | Radial distribution function 11.0/weighted by atomic masses | RDF |
| 4 | SPCN8 | Shielding NMR (ppm) of Nitrogen8 | NMR |
| 5 | MATS5v | Moreau autocorrelation—lag5/weighted by atomic van der Waals volumes | 2D autocorrelation |
Figure 2The architecture of feedforward neural network.
Results and validation of QSAR models.
|
|
| RMSE | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MLR-stepwise | 0.863 | 0.769 | 0.342 |
| ANN-ANFIS | 0.999 | 0.820 | 0.138 |
Figure 3Results and comparison of MLR-stepwise and ANN-ANFIS models.
Figure 4Importance of the position and nature of the substituent of the salen ligand.