A comparison of methods for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships

被引:195
|
作者
Sutherland, JJ
O'Brien, LA
Weaver, DF [1 ]
机构
[1] Dalhousie Univ, Sch Biomed Engn, Halifax, NS B3H 4J3, Canada
[2] Queens Univ, Dept Chem & Pathol, Kingston, ON K7L 3N6, Canada
[3] Dalhousie Univ, Dept Med Neurol, Halifax, NS B3H 4J3, Canada
[4] Dalhousie Univ, Dept Chem, Halifax, NS B3H 4J3, Canada
关键词
D O I
10.1021/jm0497141
中图分类号
R914 [药物化学];
学科分类号
100701 ;
摘要
A large number of methods are available for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). We examine the predictive accuracy of several methods applied to data sets of inhibitors for angiotensin converting enzyme, acetylcholinesterase, benzodiazepine receptor, cyclooxygenase-2, dihydrofolate reductase, glycogen phosphorylase b, thermolysin, and thrombin. Descriptors calculated with CoMFA, CoMSIA, EVA, HQSAR, and traditional 2D and 2.5D descriptors were used for developing models with partial least squares (PLS). In addition, the genetic function approximation algorithm, genetic PLS, and back-propagation neural networks were used for deriving models from 2.5D descriptors (i.e., 2D descriptors and 3D descriptors calculated from CORINA structures and Gasteiger-Marsili charges). Predictive accuracy was assessed using designed test sets. It was found that HQSAR generally performs as well as CoMFA and CoMSIA; other descriptor sets performed less well. When 2.5D descriptors were used, only neural network ensembles were found to be similarly or more predictive than PLS models. In addition, we show that many cross-validation procedures yield similar estimates of the interpolative accuracy of methods. However, the lack of correspondence between cross-validated and test set predictive accuracy for four sets underscores the benefit of using designed test sets.
引用
收藏
页码:5541 / 5554
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Quantitative structure-activity relationships for new aerospace fuels
    Trohalaki, S
    Pachter, R
    MATERIALS FOR ENERGY STORAGE, GENERATION AND TRANSPORT, 2002, 730 : 107 - 112
  • [42] Quantitative structure-activity relationships of organic acids and bases
    Zhao, YH
    Yuan, X
    Yang, LH
    Wang, LS
    BULLETIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION AND TOXICOLOGY, 1996, 57 (02) : 242 - 249
  • [43] QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS IN LEUCOMYCIN AND LINCOMYCIN ANTIBIOTICS
    MARTIN, YC
    LYNN, KR
    JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY, 1971, 14 (12) : 1162 - &
  • [44] Quantitative structure-activity relationships of functionalized carbon nanotubes
    Lougee, Ryan
    Fourches, Denis
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2016, 252
  • [45] Quantitative structure-activity relationships of α1 adrenergic antagonists
    Eric, S
    Solmajer, T
    Zupan, J
    Novic, M
    Oblak, M
    Agbaba, D
    JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR MODELING, 2004, 10 (02) : 139 - 150
  • [46] Interpretable correlation descriptors for quantitative structure-activity relationships
    Hirst, Jonathan D.
    ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY, 2010, 240
  • [47] PQSAR: The membrane quantitative structure-activity relationships in cheminformatics
    Adl, Ammar
    Zein, Moustafa
    Hassanien, Aboul Ella
    EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2016, 54 : 219 - 227
  • [48] Quantitative structure-activity relationships studies on oxytocin analogues
    Mei, Hu
    Yang, Li
    Shu, Mao
    Liu, Li
    Li, Zhi-Liang
    Gaodeng Xuexiao Huaxue Xuebao/Chemical Journal of Chinese Universities, 2007, 28 (05): : 964 - 967
  • [49] Guidelines for developing and using quantitative structure-activity relationships
    Walker, JD
    Jaworska, J
    Comber, MHI
    Schultz, TW
    Dearden, JC
    ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY, 2003, 22 (08) : 1653 - 1665
  • [50] Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships for Substituted Aromatic Compounds
    何艺兵
    刘征涛
    赵元慧
    王连生
    Chinese Science Bulletin, 1994, (19) : 1612 - 1615