| Literature DB >> 26600747 |
Saeed Ghanbarzadeh1, Saeed Ghasemi2, Ali Shayanfar3, Heshmatollah Ebrahimi-Najafabadi2.
Abstract
Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) models can be used to predict the activity of new drug candidates in early stages of drug discovery. In the present study, the information of the ninety two 2,5-diaminobenzophenone-containing farnesyltranaferase inhibitors (FTIs) were taken from the literature. Subsequently, the structures of the molecules were optimized using Hyperchem software and molecular descriptors were obtained using Dragon software. The most suitable descriptors were selected using genetic algorithms-partial least squares and stepwise regression, where exhibited that the volume, shape and polarity of the FTIs are important for their activities. The two-dimensional QSAR models (2D-QSAR) were obtained using both linear methods (multiple linear regression) and non-linear methods (artificial neural networks and support vector machines). The proposed QSAR models were validated using internal validation method. The results showed that the proposed 2D-QSAR models were valid and they can be used for prediction of the activities of the 2,5-diaminobenzophenone-containing FTIs. In conclusion, the 2D-QSAR models (both linear and non-linear) showed good prediction capability and the non-linear models were exhibited more accuracy than the linear models.Entities:
Keywords: QSAR; artificial neural network; multiple linear regression; support vector machine
Year: 2015 PMID: 26600747 PMCID: PMC4652634 DOI: 10.17179/excli2015-177
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EXCLI J ISSN: 1611-2156 Impact factor: 4.068
Figure 1Structures of the studied 2,5-diaminobenzophenone-containing farnesyltranaferase inhibitors
Table 1Selected descriptors by GA-PLS and stepwise regression from DRAGON software
Table 2Correlation matrix between selected descriptors
Table 3Coefficients and standard error of estimate and the p-value of the selected descriptors of the most accurate MLR model
Table 4Statistical information for the proposed models for the Training Set
Figure 2Effects of the number of descriptors on R and Radj values.
Table 5Experimental (exp) pIC50, predicted (pred) IC50 and absolute error (AE) values of 74 training and 18 test set compounds
Figure 3Experimental versus predicted pIC50 values using MLR, ANN and SVM models
Table 6AAE's of the proposed models using different chemometrics methods