Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: Perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry

Volumn 22, Issue 8, 2003, Pages 1666-1679

  Perkins, Roger ^a   Fang, Hong ^a   Tong, Weida ^b   Welsh, William J ^c  

^a Logicon ROW Sciences   (United States)

^b NATIONAL CENTER FOR TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (United States)

^c RUTGERS ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Chemoinformatics; Chemometric; Drug design; Quantitative structure activity relationship; Toxicology

Indexed keywords

CHEMICALS; DRUG PRODUCTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL METHODS; TECHNOLOGY; TOXIC MATERIALS;

DRUG DISCOVERY;

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG ACTIVITY; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG TARGETING; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TECHNOLOGY; THREE DIMENSIONAL QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOXICOLOGY; TWO DIMENSIONAL QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; FORECASTING; HUMAN; INFORMATION SYSTEM; POLLUTANT; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DRUG;

DRUG DESIGN; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; FORECASTING; HUMANS; INFORMATION MANAGEMENT; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 0142026020     PISSN: 07307268     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1897/01-171     Document Type: Review

References (131)

1. Hansch C, Leo A. 1995. Exploring QSAR - Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
2. Hansch C, Telzer BR, Zhang L. 1995. Comparative QSAR in toxicology: Examples from teratology and cancer chemotherapy of aniline mustards. Crit Rev Toxicol 25:67-89.
3. Bradbury S. 1995. Quantitative structure-activity relationship and ecological risk assessment: An overview of predictive aquatic toxicology research. Toxicol Lett 79:229-237.
4. Hopfinger AJ. 1997. Practical applications of computer-aided drug design. In Charifson PS, ed, Practical Applications of Computer-Aided Design. Marcel-Dekker, New York, NY, USA, pp 105-164.
5. Kubinyi H, Folkers G, Martin YC. 1998. 3D QSAR in drug design-Recent advances. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12:R5-R7.
6. Lipinski CA, Lombardo F, Dominy BW, Feeney PJ. 1997. Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Delivery Rev 23:3-25.
7. Bradbury SP. 1994. Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure: An overview. SAR QSAR Environ Res 2:89-104.
8. Russom CL, Bradbury SP, Carlson AR. 1995. Use of knowledge bases and QSARs to estimate the relative ecological risk of agrichemicals: A problem formulation exercise. SAR QSAR Environ Res 4:83-95.
9. Benigni R, Richard AM. 1998. Quantitative structure-based modeling applied to characterization and prediction of chemical toxicity. Methods 14:264-276.
10. Schultz TW, Seward JR. 2000. Health-effects related structure-toxicity relationships: A paradigm for the first decade of the new millennium. Sci Total Environ 249:73-84.
11. Hansch C, Hoekman D, Leo A, Zhang L, Li P. 1995. The expanding role of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) in toxicology. Toxicol Lett 79:45-53.
12. Shi LM, Fang H, Tong W, Wu J, Perkins R, Blair R, Branham W, Sheehan D. 2001. QSAR models using a large diverse set of estrogens. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 4:186-195.
13. Tong W, Perkins R, Fang H, Hong H, Xie Q, Branham W, Sheehan D, Anson J. 2002. Development of quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) and their use for priority setting in testing strategy of endocrine disruptors. Regulatory Research Perspectives 1:1-16.
14. Bone RGA, Firth MA, Sykes RA. 1999. SMILES extensions for pattern matching and molecular transformations: Applications in chemoinformatics. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 39:846-860.
15. Johnson M, Maggiora GM. 1990. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. John Wiley, New York, NY, USA.
16. Tetko IV, Aksenova TI, Volkovich VV, Kasheva TN, Filipov DV, Welsh WJ, Livingstone DJ, Villa AEP. 2000. Polynomial neural network for linear and nonlinear model selection in quantitative-structure activity relationship studies on the internet. SAR QSAR Environ Res 11:263-280.
17. McKinney JD, Richard A, Waller C, Newman MC, Gerberick F. 2000. The practice of structure activity relationships (SAR) in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 56:8-17.
18. Blaney JM, Martin EJ. 1997. Computational approaches for combinatorial library design and molecular diversity analysis. Curr Opin Chem Biol 1:54-59.
19. Hopfinger AJ, Duca JS. 2000. Extraction of pharmacophore information from high-throughput screens. Curr Opin Biotechnol 11:97-103.
20. Lipnick RL. 1999. Correlative and mechanistic QSAR models in toxicology, SAR QSAR Environ Res 10:239-248.
21. Wessel MD, Jurs PC, Tolan JW, Muskal SM. 1998. Prediction of human intestinal absorption of drug compounds from molecular structure. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38:726-735.
22. Yoshida F, Topliss JG. 2000. QSAR model for drug human oral bioavailability. Journal of Medical Chemistry 43:2575-2585.
23. Dai J, Xu M, Wang L. 2000. Prediction of octanol/water partitioning coefficient and sediment sorption coefficient for benzaldehydes by various molecular descriptors. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 65:190-199.
24. Gombar VK. 1999. Reliable assessment of log P of compounds of pharmaceutical relevance. SAR QSAR Environ Res 10:371-380.
25. Lewis DF, Ioannides C, Parke DV, Schulte-Hermann R. 2000. Quantitative structure-activity relationships in a series of endogenous and synthetic steroids exhibiting induction of CYP3A activity and hepatomegaly associated with increased DNA synthesis. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 74:179-185.
26. Lozano JJ, Pastor M, Cruciani G, Gaedt K, Centeno NB, Gago F, Sanz F 2000. 3D-QSAR methods on the basis of ligand-receptor complexes: Application of combine and grid/golpe methodologies to a series of CYPla2 ligands. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 14:341-353.
27. Contrera JF, Jacobs AC, DeGeorge JJ. 1997. Carcinogenicity testing and the evaluation of regulatory requirements for pharmaceuticals. Reg Toxicol Pharmacol 25:130-145.
28. Richard AM. 1998. Commercial toxicology prediction systems: A regulatory perspective. Toxicol Lett 102-103:611-616.
29. Klopman G. 1992. 1. A hierarchical computer automated structure evaluation program. QSAR 11: 176-184.
30. Rosenkranz HS, Klopman G. 1990. Structural basis of carcinogenicity in rodents of genotoxicants and non-genotoxicants. Mutat Res 228:105-124.
31. Enslein K, Blake BW, Borgstedt HH. 1990. Prediction of probability of carcinogenicity for a set of ongoing ntp bioassays. Mutagenesis 5:305-306.
32. Enslein K, Gombar VK, Blake BW. 1994. International commission for protection against environmental mutagens and carcinogens: Use of SAR in computer-assisted prediction of carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of chemicals by the TOPKAT program. Mutat Res 305:47-61.
33. Mekenyan OG, Kamenska V, Schmieder PK, Ankley GT, Bradbury SP. 2000. A computationally-based identification algorithm for estrogen receptor-ligands. Part II. Evaluation of a heRa binding affinity model. Toxicol Sci 58:270-281.
34. Bradbury SP, Kamenska V, Schmieder PK, Ankley GT, Mekenyan OG. 2000. A computationally-based identification algorithm for estrogen receptor-ligands. Part I. Predicting heRa binding affinity. Toxicol Sci 58:253-269.
35. Sanderson DM, Earnshaw CG. 1991. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure; the DEREK system. Hum Exp Toxicol 10:261-273.
36. Ridings JE, Barratt MD, Cary R, Earnshaw CG, Eggington CE, Ellis MK, Judson PN, Langowski JJ, Marchant CA, Payne MP, et al. 1996. Computer prediction of possible toxic action from chemical structure: An update on the DEREK system. Toxicology 106:267-279.
37. Woo YT, Lai DY, Argus MF, Arcos JC. 1995. Development of structure-activity relationship rules for predicting carcinogenic potential of chemicals. Toxicol Lett 79:219-228.
38. Benfenati E, Gini G. 1997. Computational predictive programs (expert systems) in toxicology. Toxicology 119:213-225.
39. Borman S. 1990. New QSAR techniques eyed for environmental assessments. Chem Eng News 68:20-23.
40. Lipnick RL. 1986. Charles Ernest Overton: Narcosis studies and a contribution to general pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 7:161-164.
41. Hammett LP. 1940. Physical Organic Chemistry. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA.
42. Hansch C, Leo A, Taft RW. 1991. A survey of Hammett substituent constraints and resonance and field parameters. Chem Rev 91:165-195.
43. Hansch C. 1969. A quantitative approach to biological structure-activity relationships. Accounts of Chemical Research 2:232-239.
44. Fujita T, Iwasa J, Hansch C. 1964. A new substituent constant, π derived from partition coefficient. J Am Chem Soc 86:5175-5180.
45. Hall LH. 1995. Molecular similarity based on novel atom-type electrotopological state indices. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 35: 1074-1080.
46. Hall LH. 1995. Electrotopological state indices for atom types: A novel combination of electronic, topological, and valence state information. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 35:1039-1045.
47. De Gregorio C, Kier LB, Hall LH. 1998. QSAR modeling with the electrotopological state indices: Corticosteroids. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 12:557-561.
48. Hall LH, Kier LB. 2000. The E-state as the basis for molecular structure space definition and structure similarity. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 40:784-791.
49. Rohrbaugh RH, Jurs PC. 1987. Descriptions of molecular shape applied in studies of structure/activity and structure/property relationships. Anal Chim Acta 11:220.
50. Stanton DT, Jurs PC. 1990. Development and use of charge partial surface area structural descriptors in computer-aided quantitative structure-property relationship studies. Anal Chem 62:2323-2329.
51. Shi LM, Tong W, Fang H, Perkins R, Wu J, Tu M, Blair R, Branham W, Waller C, Walker J, Sheehan D. 2002. An integrated "Four-Phase" approach for priority setting of endocrine disruptors-Phase I and II for prediction of potential estrogenic endocrine disruptor. SAR/QSAR Environ Res 13:69-88.
52. Rogers D, Hopfinger AJ. 1994. Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 34:854-866.
53. Coats EA. 1998. The CoMFA steroids as a benchmark dataset for development of 3D QSAR methods. Perspect Drug Discov Des 12:199-214.
54. Clark DE, Westhead DR. 1996. Evolutionary algorithms in computer-aided molecular design. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 10:337-358.
55. Forrest S. 1993. Genetic algorithms-principles of natural selection applied to computation. Science 261:872-878.
56. Cho SJ, Cummins D, Bentley J, Andrews CW, Tropsha A. 2003. An alternative to 3D QSAR: Application of genetic algorithms and partial least squares to variable selection of topological indices. J Comput Aided Mol Des (in press).
57. Hoffman BT, Kopajtic T, Katz JL, Newman AH. 2000.2D QSAR modeling and preliminary database searching for dopamine transporter inhibitors using genetic algorithm variable selection of molconn z descriptors. J Med Chem 43:4151-4159.
58. Zheng W, Tropsha A. 2000. A novel variable selection QSAR approach based on the k-Nearest Neighbor principle. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 40:185-194.
59. Bruice TC, Kharasch N, Winzler RJ. 1956. A correlation of thyroxine-like activity and chemical structure. Arch Biochem Biophys 62:305-317.
60. Leo A, Hansch C, Elkins D. 1971. Partition coefficients and their uses. Chem Rev 71:525-616.
61. Ghose A, Crippen G. 1986. Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships I. Partition coefficients as a measure of hydrophobicity. J Med Chem 7:565-578.
62. Ghose AK, Prichett A, Crippen GM. 1988. Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships. III. Modeling hydrophic interactions. J Comput Chem 9:80-90.
63. Viswanadhan VN, Ghose AK, Revankar GR, Robins RK. 1989. Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships. 4. Additional parameters for hydrophobic and dispersive interactions and their application. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 29:163-172.
64. Klopman G, Wang S. 1992. A computer automated structure evaluation (CASE) approach to calculation of partition coefficient. J Comput Chem 12:1025-1032.
65. Turner D, Tyrell S, Willett P. 1997. Rapid quantification of molecular diversity for selective database acquisition. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 37:18-22.
66. Rosenkranz HS, Cunningham A, Klopman G. 1996. Identification of a 2-D geometric descriptor associated with non-genotoxic carcinogens and some estrogens and antiestrogens. Mutagenesis 11:95-100.
67. Tong W, Lowis DR, Perkins R, Chen Y, Welsh WJ, Goddette DW, Heritage TW, Sheehan DM. 1998. Evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationship methods for large-scale prediction of chemicals binding to the estrogen receptor. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38:669-677.
68. Silverman BD, Platt DE. 1996. Comparative molecular moment analysis (COMMA): 3D-QSAR without molecular superposition. J Med Chem 39:2129-2140.
69. Platt DE, Silverman BD. 1996. Registration, orientation, and similarity of molecular electrostatic potentials through multipole matching. Journal of Computational Chemistry 17:358-366.
70. Todeschini R, Lasagni M, Marengo E. 1994. New molecular descriptors for 2D and 3D structures theory: Part 1. J Chemom 8:263-272.
71. Todeschini R, Gramatica P, Provenzani R, Marengo E. 1995. Weighted holistic invariant molecular descriptors: Part 2. Theory development and application on modeling physico-chemical properties of polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Chemom Intell Lab Syst 27:221-229.
72. Todeschini R, Gramatica P. 1997. 3D-modelling and prediction by WHIM descriptors. Part 6. Application of WHIM descriptors in QSAR studies. QSAR 16:120-125.
73. Ferguson AM, Heritage T, Jonathon P, Pack SE, Phillips L, Rogan J, Snaith PJ. 1997. A new theoretically based molecular description for use in QSAR/QSPR analysis. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 11: 143-152.
74. Ginn CMR, Turner DB, Willett P, Ferguson AM, Heritage T 1997. Similarity searching in files of three-dimensional chemical structures: Evaluation of the EVA descriptor and combination of rankings using data fusion. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 37:23-37.
75. Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD. 1988. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959-5967.
76. Martin YC. 1998. 3D QSAR-current state, scope, and limitations. Perspect Drug Disc Des 12:3-23.
77. Kim KH, Greco G, Novellino E. 1998. A critical review of recent CoMFA applications. Perspect Drug Disc Des 12:257-315.
78. Horwitz JP, Massova I, Wiese TE, Besler BH, Corbett TH. 1994. Comparative molecular field analysis of the antitumor activity of 9h-thioxanthen-9-one derivatives against pancreatic ductal carcinoma 03. J Med Chem 37:781-786.
79. Recanatini M. 1996. Comparative molecular field analysis of nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors related to fadrozole. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 10:74-82.
80. 2-guided region selection for comparative molecular field analysis: A simple method to achieve consistent results. J Med Chem 38:1060-1066.
81. Wiese TE, Brooks SC. 1994. Molecular modeling of steroidal estrogens: Novel conformations and their role in biological activity. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 50:61-73.
82. Wang R, Gao Y, Lin L, Lai L. 1998. All orientation search and all-placement search in comparative molecular field analysis. J Molecular Modeling 4:276-283.
83. Cruciani G, Watson KA. 1994. Comparative molecular field analysis using grid force-field and GOLPE variable selection methods in a study of inhibitors of glycogen phosphorylase b. J Med Chem 37:2589-2601.
84. Cho SJ, Tropsha A, Suffness M, Cheng YC, Lee KH. 1996. Antitumor agents. 163. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study of 4′-o-demethylepipodophyllotoxin analogs using the modified CoMFA/q2-GRS approach. J Med Chem 39:1383-1395.
85. Kellogg GE, Semus SF, Abraham DJ. 1991. HINT: A new method of empirical hydrophobic field calculation for CoMFA. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 5:545-552.
86. Kellogg GE, Kier LB, Gaillard P, Hall LH. 1996. E-state fields: Applications to 3D QSAR. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 10:513-520.
87. Kim KH. 1993. 3D-quantitative structure-activity relationships: Describing hydrophobic interactions directly from 3D structures using a comparative molecular-field analysis (CoMFA) approach. Quant Struct-Act Relat 12:232-238.
88. Waller CL, Marshall GR. 1993. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship of angiotesin-converting enzyme and thermolysin inhibitors. II. A comparison of CoMFA models incorporating molecular orbital fields and desolvation free energies based on active-analog and complementary- receptor-field alignment rules. J Med Chem 36:2390-2403.
89. Goodford PJ. 1985. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules. J Med Chem 28:849-857.
90. Norinder U. 1995. The alignment problem in 3D-QSAR: A combined approach using catalyst and a 3D-QSAR technique. In Sanz F. Giraldo J, Manaut F, eds, QSAR and Molecular Modelling: Concepts, Computational Tools and Biological Applications. Prous Science, Barcelona, Spain, pp 433-438.
91. Tong W, Collantes ER, Welsh WJ, Berglund BA, Howlett AC. 1998. Derivation of a pharmacophore model for anandamide using constrained conformational searching and comparative molecular field analysis. J Med Chem 41:4207-4215.
92. Tong W, Collantes ER, Chen Y, Welsh WJ. 1996. A comparative molecular field analysis study of n-benzylpiperidines as acetyl-cholinesterase inhibitors. J Med Chem 39:380-387.
93. Tong W, Perkins R, Xing L, Welsh WJ, Sheehan DM. 1997. QSAR models for binding of estrogenic compounds to estrogen receptor alpha and beta subtypes. Endocrinology 138:4022-4025.
94. Tong W, Perkins R, Strelitz R, Collantes ER, Keenan S, Welsh WJ, Branham WS, Sheehan DM. 1997. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for estrogen binding to the estrogen receptor: Predictions across species. Environ Health Perspect 105:1116-1124.
95. Waller CL, Oprea TI, Chae K, Park HK, Korach KS, Laws SC, Wiese TE, Kelce WR, Gray LE Jr. 1996. Ligand-based identification of environmental estrogens. Chem Res Toxicol 9:1240-1248.
96. Howlett AC, Mukhopadhyay S, Shim JY, Welsh WJ. 1999. Signal transduction of eicosanoid cbl receptor ligands. Life Sci 65: 617-625.
97. Martin YC, Bures MG, Danaher EA, DeLazzer J, Lico I, Pavlik PA. 1993. A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 7:83-102.
98. Shim JY, Collantes ER, Welsh WJ, Howlett AC. 1999. Unified pharmacophoric model for cannabinoids and aminoalkylindoles derived from molecular superimposition of CBI cannabinoid receptor agonists CP55244 and WIN55212-2. In Parrill AL, Reddi MR, eds, ACS symposium series on rational drug design: Novel Methodology and Practical Applications, ACS Symposium Series, American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp 165-184.
99. Shim JY, Collantes ER, Welsh WJ, Howlett AC. 2000. Unified pharmacophoric model for cannabinoids and aminoalkylindoles. In Gundertofte K, Jorgensen FS, eds, Molecular Modeling and Prediction of Bioactivity. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York, NY, USA, pp 201-206.
100. Welsh WJ, Tong WD, Collantes ER, Chickos JS, Gagarin SG. 1997. Enthalpies of sublimation and formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) derived from comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA)-Application of moment of inertia for molecular alignment. Thermochem Acta 290:55-64.
101. Collantes ER, Tong W, Weish WJ, Zielinski WL. 1996. Use of moment of inertia in comparative molecular field analysis to model chromatographic retention of nonpolar solutes. Anal Chem 68:2038-2043.
102. Tong W, Perkins R, Sheehan DM. 1999. Perspectives on three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR)/comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) in determining estrogenic effects. Japan Chemistry Today 2:50-57.
103. Walker JD, Fang H, Perkins R, Tong W. 2003. QSARs for endrocrine disruptor priority setting database 2: The integrated 4-phase model. QSAR Comb Sci 22:89-105.
104. Lemmen C, Lengauer T. 1997. Time-efficient flexible super-position of medium-sized molecules. J Comput-Aided Mol Des 11:357-368.
105. Lemmen C, Lengauer T, Klebe G. 1998. FLEXs: A method for fast flexible ligand superposition. J Med Chem 41:4502-4520.
106. Hopfinger AJ, Wang S, Tokarski JS, Jin G, Albuquerque M, Madhav PJ, Duraiswami C. 1997. Construction of 3D-QSAR models using the 4D-QSAR analysis formalism. J Am Chem Soc 119:10509-10524.
107. Vedani A, McMasters DR, Dobler M. 1999. Genetic algorithms in 3D-QSAR: The use of multiple ligand orientations for improved predictions of toxicity. Altex Arch 16:142-145.
108. Vedani A, Briem H, Dobler M, Dollinger H, McMasters DR. 2000. Multiple-conformation and protonation-state representation in 4D-QSAR: The neurokinin-1 receptor system. J Med Chem 43:4416-4427.
109. Klebe G. 1998. Comparative molecular similarity indices analysis-CoMSIA. In Kubinyi H, Folkers G, Martin YC, eds, 3D QSAR in Drug Design, Vol 3. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 87-104.
110. Sosnowski RG, Tu E, Butler WF, O'Connell JP. Heller MJ. 1997. Rapid determination of single base mismatch mutations in DNA hybrids by direct electric field control. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:1119-1123.
111. Timm GE, Darr JF, Flessner CJ, Kennedy PW, Maciorowski AF, O'Bryan TR, Walker JD. 2003. Priority setting and framework for endocrine disruptor screening. In Katz SA, Salem H, eds, Alternative Toxicological Methods for the New Millennium. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, USA (in press).
112. Scherf U, Ross DT, Waltham M, Smith LH, Lee JK, Tanabe L, Kohn KW, Reinhold WC, Myers TG, Andrews DT, Scudiero DA, Eisen MB, Sausville EA, Pommier Y, Botstein D, Brown PO, Weinstein JN. 2000. A gene expression database for the molecular pharmacology of cancer. Nat Genet 24:236-244.
113. Rognan D. 1998. Molecular dynamics simulations: A tool for drug design. In Kubinyi H, ed, 3D QSAR in Drug Design, Vol 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 181-209.
114. Kuntz ID. 1992. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Science 257:1078-1082.
115. Blundell TL. 1996. Structure-based drug design. Nature 384(Suppl. 6604):23-26.
116. Jayatilleke PR, Nair AC, Zauhar R, Welsh WJ. 2000. Computational studies on HIV-1 protease inhibitors: Influence of calculated inhibitor-enzyme binding affinities on the statistical quality of 3D-QSAR CoMFA models. J Med Chem 43:4446-4451.
117. Head RD, Smythe ML, Oprea TI, Waller CL, Green SM, Marshall GR. 1996. Validate: A new method for the receptor-based prediction of binding affinities of novel ligands. J Am Chem Soc 118:3959-3969.
118. Ortiz AR, Pisabarro MT, Gago F. Wade RC. 1995. Prediction of drug binding affinities by comparative binding energy analysis. J Med Chem 38:2681-2691.
119. Tomic S, Nilsson L, Wade RC. 2000. Nuclear receptor-DNA binding specificity: A COMBINE and Free-Wilson QSAR analysis. J Med Chem 43:1780-1792.
120. Kollman P. 1993. Free energy calculations: Applications to chemical and biochemical phenomena. Chem Rev 93:2395-2417.
121. Oostenbrink BC, Pitera JW, van Lipzig MM, Meerman JH, van Gunsteren WF. 2000. Simulations of the estrogen receptor ligand-binding domain: Affinity of natural ligands and xenoestrogens. J Med Chem 43:4594-4605.
122. Hoffman BT, Cho SJ, Zheng W, Nicols DE, Tropsha A. 1999. Quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling of dopamine Dl antagonists using comparative molecular field analysis, genetic algorithms-partial least-squares, and k Nearest Neighbor methods. J Med Chem 42:3217-3226.
123. Wold S. 1991. Validation of QSARs. Quant Struct-Act Relat 10:191-193.
124. Shao J. 1993. Linear model selection by cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 88:486-494.
125. Baroni M, Costantino G, Cruciani G, Riganelli D, Valigi R, Clementi S. 1992. Generating optimal linear PLS estimations (GOLPE): An advanced chemometric tool for handling 3D-QSAR problems. Quant Struct-Act Relat 12:9-20.
126. Collantes ER, Xing L, Miller PC, Welsh WJ, Profeta S Jr. 1999. Comparative molecular field analysis as a tool to evaluate mode of action of chemical hybridization agents. J Agric Food Chem 47:5245-5251.
127. Rogers D. 1994. Genetic function approximation: A genetic approach to building quantitative structure-activity relationship models. In Sanz F, Giraldo J, Manaut F, eds, QSAR and Molecular Modelling: Computational Tools and Biological Applications. Prous Science, Barcelona, Spain, pp 420-426.
128. Rogers D. 1995. Development of the genetic function approximation algorithm. Proceedings, 6th International Conference on Genetic Algorithms. Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA. USA, pp 589-596.
129. Rogers D. 1996. Some theory and examples of genetic approximation with comparison to evolutionary techniques. In Devillers J, ed, Genetic Algorithms in Molecular Modeling. Academic, London, UK, pp 87-107.
130. Parbhane RV, Unniraman S, Tambe SS, Nagaraja V, Kulkarni BD. 2000. Optimum DNA curvature using a hybrid approach involving an artificial neural network and genetic algorithm. J Biomol Struct Dyn 17:665-672.
131. Dybowski R, Weller P, Chang R, Gant V. 1996. Prediction of outcome in critically ill patients using artificial neural network synthesised by genetic algorithm. Lancet 347:1146-1150.