Literature DB >> 25400148

Different electrostatic descriptors in comparative molecular field analysis: A comparison of molecular electrostatic and coulomb potentials.

R T Kroemer1, P Hecht, K R Liedl.   

Abstract

Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) is a three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) method which correlates precalculated fields surrounding a set of molecules with some target property. Among others, the electrostatic fields are commonly used. These are usually generated by calculating the Coulomb potential between a probe and the molecules bearing atom-centered point charges. The present study was performed in order to investigate up to which extent different methods to calculate electrostatic potentials can influence the results of a CoMFA. Therefore, a variety of charge calculation methods was applied to a data set consisting of 37 ligands of the benzodiazepine receptor inverse agonist-antagonist active site. These methods included Gasteiger-Marsili, semiempirical (MNDO, AM1, and PM3), and ab initio (HF/STO-3G, HF/3-21G*, and HF/6-31G*) charges. Semiempirical as well as ab initio electron populations were derived both from the Mulliken population analysis (MPA) or from fitting the charges to the molecular electrostatic potential (ESPFIT charges). In addition, the molecular electrostatic potentials (MEPs) resulting from ab initio calculations were mapped directly onto the CoMFA grid. With regard to the cross-validated r(2) values (r(2) cv ) of the resulting QSAR models, the ESPFIT-derived potentials yielded generally higher r(2) cv values than those resulting from MPA charges. For example, at the HF/3-21G* level the r(2) cv rose from 0.61 (MPA-derived potentials) to 0.76 (ESPFIT fields). The MEPs mapped directly onto the CoMFA grid were not superior to the corresponding ESPFIT-derived potentials. Semiempirical ESPFIT charges appeared to be of similar quality compared with ab initio ESPFIT electron populations in the CoMFAs. When no scaling between the steric and electrostatic descriptor matrices was applied, the electrostatic contributions were influenced to a high degree by the magnitude of the corresponding field values. © 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Copyright © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  1996        PMID: 25400148     DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199608)17:11<1296::AID-JCC2>3.0.CO;2-H

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Chem        ISSN: 0192-8651            Impact factor:   3.376


  3 in total

1.  Comparative molecular field analysis and energy interaction studies of thrombin-inhibitor complexes.

Authors:  R Bursi; P D Grootenhuis
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Comparative molecular field analysis of artemisinin derivatives: ab initio versus semiempirical optimized structures.

Authors:  S Tonmunphean; S Kokpol; V Parasuk; P Wolschann; R H Winger; K R Liedl; B M Rode
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Quantum-mechanical property prediction of solvated drug molecules: what have we learned from a decade of SAMPL blind prediction challenges?

Authors:  Nicolas Tielker; Lukas Eberlein; Gerhard Hessler; K Friedemann Schmidt; Stefan Güssregen; Stefan M Kast
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.686

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.