Literature DB >> 30324305

SAMPL6 challenge results from [Formula: see text] predictions based on a general Gaussian process model.

Caitlin C Bannan1,2, David L Mobley3, A Geoffrey Skillman4.   

Abstract

A variety of fields would benefit from accurate [Formula: see text] predictions, especially drug design due to the effect a change in ionization state can have on a molecule's physiochemical properties. Participants in the recent SAMPL6 blind challenge were asked to submit predictions for microscopic and macroscopic [Formula: see text]s of 24 drug like small molecules. We recently built a general model for predicting [Formula: see text]s using a Gaussian process regression trained using physical and chemical features of each ionizable group. Our pipeline takes a molecular graph and uses the OpenEye Toolkits to calculate features describing the removal of a proton. These features are fed into a Scikit-learn Gaussian process to predict microscopic [Formula: see text]s which are then used to analytically determine macroscopic [Formula: see text]s. Our Gaussian process is trained on a set of 2700 macroscopic [Formula: see text]s from monoprotic and select diprotic molecules. Here, we share our results for microscopic and macroscopic predictions in the SAMPL6 challenge. Overall, we ranked in the middle of the pack compared to other participants, but our fairly good agreement with experiment is still promising considering the challenge molecules are chemically diverse and often polyprotic while our training set is predominately monoprotic. Of particular importance to us when building this model was to include an uncertainty estimate based on the chemistry of the molecule that would reflect the likely accuracy of our prediction. Our model reports large uncertainties for the molecules that appear to have chemistry outside our domain of applicability, along with good agreement in quantile-quantile plots, indicating it can predict its own accuracy. The challenge highlighted a variety of means to improve our model, including adding more polyprotic molecules to our training set and more carefully considering what functional groups we do or do not identify as ionizable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Blind challenge; Gaussian process; SAMPL6

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30324305      PMCID: PMC6438616          DOI: 10.1007/s10822-018-0169-z

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


  25 in total

1.  Estimating the pKa of phenols, carboxylic acids and alcohols from semi-empirical quantum chemical methods

Authors: 
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 7.086

2.  Fast, efficient generation of high-quality atomic charges. AM1-BCC model: II. Parameterization and validation.

Authors:  Araz Jakalian; David B Jack; Christopher I Bayly
Journal:  J Comput Chem       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.376

3.  SAMPL2 and continuum modeling.

Authors:  Anthony Nicholls; Stanislaw Wlodek; J Andrew Grant
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2010-04-06       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  Generation of a set of simple, interpretable ADMET rules of thumb.

Authors:  M Paul Gleeson
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2008-01-31       Impact factor: 7.446

5.  pKa measurements for the SAMPL6 prediction challenge for a set of kinase inhibitor-like fragments.

Authors:  Mehtap Işık; Dorothy Levorse; Ariën S Rustenburg; Ikenna E Ndukwe; Heather Wang; Xiao Wang; Mikhail Reibarkh; Gary E Martin; Alexey A Makarov; David L Mobley; Timothy Rhodes; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-11-07       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Evaluation of pKa estimation methods on 211 druglike compounds.

Authors:  John Manchester; Grant Walkup; Olga Rivin; Zhiping You
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-04-26       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 7.  Blind prediction of solvation free energies from the SAMPL4 challenge.

Authors:  David L Mobley; Karisa L Wymer; Nathan M Lim; J Peter Guthrie
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.686

8.  Reconciling the magnitude of the microscopic and macroscopic hydrophobic effects.

Authors:  K A Sharp; A Nicholls; R F Fine; B Honig
Journal:  Science       Date:  1991-04-05       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  How Does the Methodology of 3D Structure Preparation Influence the Quality of pKa Prediction?

Authors:  Stanislav Geidl; Radka Svobodová Vařeková; Veronika Bendová; Lukáš Petrusek; Crina-Maria Ionescu; Zdeněk Jurka; Ruben Abagyan; Jaroslav Koča
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 4.956

10.  Predicting p Ka values from EEM atomic charges.

Authors:  Radka Svobodová Vařeková; Stanislav Geidl; Crina-Maria Ionescu; Ondřej Skřehota; Tomáš Bouchal; David Sehnal; Ruben Abagyan; Jaroslav Koča
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 5.514

View more
  9 in total

1.  A blind SAMPL6 challenge: insight into the octanol-water partition coefficients of drug-like molecules via a DFT approach.

Authors:  Evrim Arslan; Basak K Findik; Viktorya Aviyente
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  SAMPL6 logP challenge: machine learning and quantum mechanical approaches.

Authors:  Prajay Patel; David M Kuntz; Michael R Jones; Bernard R Brooks; Angela K Wilson
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Standard state free energies, not pKas, are ideal for describing small molecule protonation and tautomeric states.

Authors:  M R Gunner; Taichi Murakami; Ariën S Rustenburg; Mehtap Işık; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-02-12       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  SAMPL6 Octanol-water partition coefficients from alchemical free energy calculations with MBIS atomic charges.

Authors:  Maximiliano Riquelme; Esteban Vöhringer-Martinez
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2020-01-20       Impact factor: 3.686

5.  SAMPL7 blind challenge: quantum-mechanical prediction of partition coefficients and acid dissociation constants for small drug-like molecules.

Authors:  Basak Koca Fındık; Zeynep Pinar Haslak; Evrim Arslan; Viktorya Aviyente
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 3.686

6.  Assigning confidence to molecular property prediction.

Authors:  AkshatKumar Nigam; Robert Pollice; Matthew F D Hurley; Riley J Hickman; Matteo Aldeghi; Naruki Yoshikawa; Seyone Chithrananda; Vincent A Voelz; Alán Aspuru-Guzik
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Discov       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 7.050

7.  Stacking Gaussian processes to improve [Formula: see text] predictions in the SAMPL7 challenge.

Authors:  Robert M Raddi; Vincent A Voelz
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-08-07       Impact factor: 4.179

8.  Overview of the SAMPL6 pKa challenge: evaluating small molecule microscopic and macroscopic pKa predictions.

Authors:  Mehtap Işık; Ariën S Rustenburg; Andrea Rizzi; M R Gunner; David L Mobley; John D Chodera
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 3.686

9.  Evaluation of log P, pKa, and log D predictions from the SAMPL7 blind challenge.

Authors:  Teresa Danielle Bergazin; Nicolas Tielker; Yingying Zhang; Junjun Mao; M R Gunner; Karol Francisco; Carlo Ballatore; Stefan M Kast; David L Mobley
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 3.686

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.