Consensus Molecular Alignment Based on Generalized Procrustes Analysis

Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 2025-2032

  Kroonenberg, P M ^a   Dunn III, W J ^b   Commandeur, J J F ^c  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^c SWOV INSTITUTE FOR ROAD SAFETY RESEARCH   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; CONFORMATIONS; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; STEREOCHEMISTRY; VECTORS; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY;

GENERALIZED PROCRUSTES ANALYSIS (GPA); SUPERIMPOSED STRUCTURES;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

EID: 0344254843     PISSN: 00952338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0302916     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cramer, R. D.; Patterson, D. E.; Bunce, J. D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA): 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959-5967.
2. Norinder, U. Recent Progress in CoMFA Methodology and Related Developments; Kubinyi, H., Folkers, G., Martin, Y. C., Ed.; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; Vol. 3, pp 41-56.
3. Gerber, P. R. M.; Muller, K. Superimposing several sets of atomic coordinates. Acta Crystallogr. 1987, A43, 426-428.
4. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational methods for the structural alignment of molecules. J. Comput-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
5. Kearsley, S. An alternaitve method for the alignment of molecular structures: maximizing electrostatic and steric overlap. Tetrahedron Comput. Method. 1990, 3, 615-663.
6. Melani, F.; Gratteri, P.; Adamo, M.; Bonaccini, C. Field interaction and geometrical overlap: A new simplex and experimental design based computational procedure for superposing small ligand molecules. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 1359-1371.
7. Kim, K. H. Building a Bridge between G-Protein-Couled Receptor Modelling, Protein Crystallography and 3D QSAR Studies for Ligand Design; Kluwer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; Vol. 3.
8. Dijksterhuis, G. B. G.; Gower, J. C. The interpretation of generalized Procrustes analysis and allied methods. Food Qua. Prefer. 1992-3, 3, 67-87.
9. Dijksterhuis, G. B. Multivariate Data Analysis in Sensory and consumer Science; Leiden University: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1995.
10. Gower, J. C. Generalized Procrustes analysis. Psychometrica 1975, 40, 33-51.
11. Gower, J. C. Orthogonal and Projection Procrustes Analysis; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1995; pp 113-134.
12. Rose, F. S.; Rahr, E.; Hudson, B. D. The use of Procrustes analysis to compare different property sets for the characterization of a diverse set of compounds. QSAR 1994, 13, 152-158.
13. Robert, D.; Carbo-Dorca, R. AnBlisi de Procrustes i alineament molecular. Scientia Gerundensis 1999, 24, 175-181.
14. Commandeur, J. J. F. Matching Configurations; DSWO: Leiden, The Netherlands, 1991.
15. Robinson, D. D.; Lyne, P. D.; Richards, W. G. Partial molecular alignment via local structure analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 503-512.
16. Appell, A.; Dunn III, W. J.; Reith, M. E. A.; Miller, L.; Flippen-Anderson, J. L. An analysis of the binding of cocaine analogues to the monoamine transporters using tensor decomposition 3D-QSAR. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2002, 20, 1197-1206.
17. Appell, M.; Krunic, A.; Choi, T. J.; Mariappan, S.; Dunn III, W. J.; Reith, M. E. A. NMR study of conformational preferences of inhibitors of monoamine uptake. QSAR 2002, 21, 38-40.
18. Casewit, C. J.; Colwell, K. S.; Rappé, A. K. Application of a universal force field to organic molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1992, 114, 10035-10046.
19. Rappé, A. K.; Goddard W. A. Charge equilibrium for molecular dynamic simulations. J. Phys. Chem. 1991, 95, 3358-3363.