Comparing the performance of FLUFF-BALL to SEAL-CoMFA with a large diverse estrogen data set: From relevant superpositions to solid predictions

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1874-1883

  Korhonen, Samuli Petrus ^a   Tuppurainen, Kari ^a   Laatikainen, Reino ^a   Peräkylä, Mikael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; BENCHMARKING; FORCE CONTROL; HORMONES; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE;

BOUNDLESS LOCALIZED LIGAND (BALL); SUPERPOSITION ALGORITHMS;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

ESTROGEN; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; LIGAND; XENOBIOTIC AGENT;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CATTLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DRUG EFFECT; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE BASE; METABOLISM; MOUSE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; RAT; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; CATTLE; ESTROGENS; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE BASES; LIGANDS; MICE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RATS; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 29044434036     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci050021i     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (80)

1. Oprea, T. I.; Marshall, G. R. Receptor-Based Prediction of Binding Affinities. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 9/10/11, 35-61.
2. Mestres, J.; Knegtel, R. M. A. Similarity Versus Docking in 3D Virtual Screening. Perspect Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 191-207.
3. Krovat, E. M.; Steindl, T.; Langer, T. Recent Advances in Docking and Scoring. Curr. Comput.-Aided Drug Des. 2005, 1, 93-102.
4. Taylor, R. D.; Jewsbury, P. J.; Essex, J. W. A Review of Protein-Small Molecule Docking Methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 151-166.
5. De Rosa, M. C.; Berglund, A. A New Method for Predicting the Alignment of Flexible Molecules and Orienting Them in a Receptor Cleft of Know Structure. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 691-698.
6. Hare, B. J.; Walters, W. P.; Caron, P. R.; Bemis, G. W. CORES: An Automated Method for Generating Three-Dimensional Models of Protein/Ligand Complexes. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 4731-4740.
7. Goodford, P. J. A Computational Procedure for Determining Energetically Favourable Binding Sites on Biologically Important Macromolecules. J. Med. Chem. 1985, 28, 849-857.
8. Kim, K. H.; Greco, G.; Novellino, E. A Critical Review of Recent CoMFA Applications. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 257-315.
9. Doweyko, A. 3D-QSAR Illusions. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2004, 18, 587-596.
10. Clark, D. E.; Pickett, S. D. Computational Methods for the Prediction of 'Drug-Likeness'. Drug Discovery Today 2000, 5, 49-58.
11. Sutherland, J. J.; O'Brien, L. A.; Weaver, D. F. A Comparison of Methods for Modelling Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 5541-5554.
12. Hansch, C.; Leo, A. Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1995.
13. Cramer, R. D., III.; 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.
14. Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; McLay, I.; Pickett, S.; Clementi, S. GRid-INdependent Descriptors (GRIND): A Novel Class of Alignment-Independent Three-Dimensional Molecular Descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3233-3243.
15. Wan, J.; Yang, G.; Zhan, C.-G. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship for Cyclic Imide Derivatives of Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase Inhibitors: A Study of Quantum Chemical Descriptors From Density Functional Theory. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 2099-2105.
16. Pan, D.; Iyer, M.; Liu, J.; Hopfinger, A. J. Constructing Optimum Blood Brain Barrier QSAR Models Using a Combination of 4D-Molecular Similarity Measures and Cluster Analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 2083-2098.
17. Lill, M. A.; Vedani, A.; Dobler, M. Raptor: Combining Dual-Shell Representation, Induced-Fit Simulation, and Hydrophobicity Scoring in Receptor Modeling: Application Toward the Simulation of Structurally Diverse Ligand Sets. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6174-6186.
18. Chae, C. H.; Yoo, S.-E.; Whanchul, S. Novel Receptor Surface Approach for 3D-QSAR: The Weighted Probe Interaction Energy Method. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1774-1787.
19. Kotani, T.; Higashiura, K. Comparative Molecular Active Site Analysis (CoMASA). 1. An Approach to Rapid Evaluation of 3D QSAR. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 2732-2742.
20. Dunn, W. J. I.; Hopfinger, A. J. 3D QSAR of Flexible Molecules Using Tensor Representation. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 167-182.
21. Waller, C. L. A Comparative QSAR Study Using CoMFA, HQSAR, and FRED/SKEYS Paradigms for Estrogen Receptor Binding Affinities of Structurally Diverse Compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 758-765.
22. Vedani, A. 5D-QSAR: The Key for Simulating Induced Fit. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2139-2149.
23. Silverman, B. D.; Platt, D. E. Comparative Molecular Moment Analysis (CoMMA): 3D-QSAR Without Molecular Superposition. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2129-2140.
24. Norinder, U. 3-D QSAR Analysis of Steroid/Protein Interactions: The Use of Difference Maps. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1991, 5, 419-426.
25. So, S.-S.; Karplus, M. Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships From Molecular Similarity Matrices and Neural Networks. 1. Method and Validations. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 4347-4359.
26. Hopfmger, A. J.; Wang, S.; Tokarski, J. S.; Baiqiang, J.; Albuquerque, M.; Madhav, P. J.; Duraiswami, C. Construction of 3D-QSAR Models Using the 4D-QSAR Analysis Formalism. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1997, 119, 10509-10524.
27. Hasegawa, K.; Matsuoka, S.; Arakawa, M.; Funatsu, K. New Molecular Surface-Based 3D-QSAR Method Using Kohonen Neural Network and 3-Way PLS. Comput. Chem. 2002, 26, 583-589.
28. Melani, F.; Gratteri, P.; Adamo, M.; Bonaccini, C. Field Interaction and Geometrical Ovelap: A New Simplex and Experimental Design Based Computational Procedure for Superposing Small Ligand Molecules. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 1359-1371.
29. Martin, Y. C. 3D QSAR: Current State, Scope and Limitations. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 3-23.
30. McMartin, C.; Bohacek, R. QXP: Powerful, Rapid Computer Algorithms for Structure-Based Drug Design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 333-344.
31. Kearsley, S. K.; Smith, G. M. An Alternative Method for the Alignment of Molecular Structures: Maximizing Electrostatic and Steric Overlap. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 1990, 3, 613-633.
32. Arakawa, M.; Hasegawa, K.; Funatsu, K. Novel Alignment Method of Small Molecules Using the Hopfield Neural Networks. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1390-1395.
33. Arakawa, M.; Hasegawa, K.; Funatsu, K. Application of Novel Alignment Method of Small Molecules Using the Hopfield Neural Networks to 3D-QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1396-1402.
34. McMartin, C.; Bohacek, R. Flexible Matching of Test Ligands to a 3D Pharmacophore Using a Molecular Superposition Force Field: Comparison of Predicted and Experimental Conformations of Inhibitors of Three Enzymes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 237-250.
35. Mestres, J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Maggiora, G. M. MIMIC: A Molecular-Field Matching Program Exploting Applicability of Molecular Similarity Approaches. J. Comput. Chem. 1997, 18, 934-954.
36. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational Methods for the Structural Alignment of Molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
37. Thorner, D. A.; Wild, D. J.; Willett, P.; Wright, P. M. Calculation of Structural Similarity by the Alignment of Molecular Electorstatic Potentials. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 9/10/11, 301-320.
38. Klebe, G.; Mietzner, T.; Weber, F. Methodological Developments and Strategies for a Fast Flexible Superposition of Drug-Sized Molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 35-49.
39. Krämer, A.; Horn, H. W.; Rice, J. E. Fast 3D Molecular Superposition and Similarity Search in Databases of Flexible Molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 13-38.
40. Bultinck, P.; Kuppens, T.; Gironés, X.; Carbó-Dorca, R. Quantum Similarity Superposition Algorithm (QSSA): A Consistent Scheme for Molecular Alignment and Molecular Similarity Based on Quantum Chemistry. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1143-1150.
41. 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.
42. Raymond, J. W.; Willett, P. Maximum Common Subgraph Isomorphism Algorithms for the Matching of Chemical Structures. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 521-533.
43. Mills, J. E. J.; de Esch, I. J. P.; Perkins, T. D. J.; Dean, P. M. SLATE: A Method for the Superposition of Flexible Ligands. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 81-96.
44. Perkins, T. D. J.; Mills, J. E. J.; Dean, P. M. Molecular Surface-Volume and Property Matching to Superpose Flexible Dissimilar Molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 479-490.
45. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. FLEXS: A Method for Fast Flexible Ligand Superposition. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 4502-4520.
46. Berglund, A.; De Rosa, M. C.; Wold, S. Aligment of Flexible Molecules at Their Receptor Site Using 3D Descriptors and Hi-PCA. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 601-612.
47. Lemmen, C.; Zimmermann, M.; Lengauer, T. Multiple Molecular Superpositioning As an Effective Tool for Virtual Screening. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 2000, 20, 43-62.
48. Good, A. C.; Richards, W. G. Explicit Calculation of 3D Molecular Similarity. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 9/10/11, 321-338.
49. Gironés, X.; Carbó-Dorca, R. TGSA-Flex: Extending the Capabilities of the Topo-Geometrical Superposition Algorithm to Handle Flexible Molecules. J. Comput. Chem. 2004, 25, 153-159.
50. Putta, S.; Eksterowicz, J.; Lemmen, C.; Stanton, R. A Novel Subshape Molecular Descriptor. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1623-1635.
51. Hofbauer, C.; Lohninger, H.; Aszódi, A. SURFCOMP: A Novel Graph-Based Approach to Molecular Surface Comparison. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 837-847.
52. Broto, P.; Moreau, G.; Vandycke, C. Molecular Structures: Perception, Autocorrelation Descriptor and SAR Studies. Autocorrelation Descriptor. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 1984, 19, 66-70.
53. Wagener, M.; Sadowski, J.; Gasteiger, J. Autocorrelation of Molecular Surface Properties for Modeling Corticosteroid Binding Globulin and Cytosolic Ah Receptor Activity by Neural Networks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 7769-7775.
54. Bravi, G.; Gancia, E.; Mascagni, P.; Pegna, M.; Todeschini, R.; Zaliani, A. MS-WHIM, New 3D Theoretical Descriptors Derived From Molecular Surface Properties: A Comparative 3D QSAR Study in a Series of Steroids. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 79-92.
55. Silverman, B. D. The Thirty-One Benchmark Steroid Revisited: Comparative Molecular Moment Analysis (CoMMA) With Principal Component Regression. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 2000, 19, 237-246.
56. Robert, D.; Amat, L.; Carbó-Dorca, R. Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships From Tuned Molecular Quantum Similarity Measures: Prediction of the Corticosteroid-Binding Globulin Binding Affinity From a Steroid Family. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 333-344.
57. Karelson, M.; Lobanov, V. S.; Katritzky, A. R. Quantum-Chemical Descriptors in QSAR/QSPR Studies. Chem. Rev. 1996, 96, 1027-1044.
58. Turner, D. B.; Willett, P.; Ferguson, A. M.; Heritage, T. Evaluation of Novel Infrared Range Vibration-Based Decriptor (EVA) for QSAR Studies: 1. General Application. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 409-422.
59. Turner, D. B.; Willett, P. The EVA Spectral Descriptor. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 35, 365-375.
60. Bursi, R.; Dao, T.; van Wijk, T.; de Gooyer, M.; Kellenbach, E.; Verwer, P. Comparative Spectra Analysis (CoSA): Spectra As Three-Dimensional Molecular Descriptors for the Prediction of Biological Activities. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 861-868.
61. Tuppurainen, K.; Ruuskanen, J. Electronic Eigenvalue (EEVA): a New QSAR/QSPR Descriptor for Electronic Substituent Effects Based on Molecular Orbital Energies. A QSAR Approach to Ah Receptor Binding Affinity of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDDs) and Dibenzofurans (PCDFs). Chemosphere 2000, 41, 843-848.
62. Tuppurainen, K. EEVA (Electronic Eigenvalue): A New QSAR/QSPR Descriptor Based on Molecular Orbital Energies. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 1999, 10, 39-46.
63. Tuppurainen, K.; Viisas, M.; Laatikainen, R.; Peräkylä, M. Evaluation of Novel Electronic Eigenvalue (EEVA) Molecular Descriptor for QSAR/QSPR Studies: Validation Using a Benchmar Steroid Data Set. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 607-613.
64. Asikainen, A. H.; Ruuskanen, J.; Tuppurainen, K. Performance of (Consensus) KNN QSAR for Predicting Estrogenic Activity in Large Diverse Set of Organic Compounds. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2004, 15, 19-32.
65. Fontaine, F.; Pastor, M.; Sanz, F. Incorporating Molecular Shape into the Alignment-Free GRid-INdependent Descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 2805-2815.
66. Korhonen, S.-P.; Tuppurainen, K.; Laatikainen, R.; Peräkylä, M. FLUFF-BALL, A Template-Based Grid-Independent Superposition and QSAR Technique: Validation Using a Benchmark Steroid Data Set. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1780-1793.
67. Asikainen, A. H.; Ruuskanen, J.; Tuppurainen, K. Consensus KNN QSAR: A Versatile Method for Predicting the Estrogenic Activity of Organic Compounds In Silico. A Comparative Study With Five Estrogen Receptors and a Large, Diverse Set of Ligands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6730-6740.
68. Halgren, T. A. Merck Molecular Force Field. I. Basis, Form, Scope, Parametrization, and Performance of MMFF94. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 490-519.
69. Halgren, T. A. Merck Molecular Force Field. II. MMFF94 van der Waals and Electrostatic Parameters for Intermolecular Interactions. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 520-552.
70. Halgren, T. A. Merck Molecular Force Field. III. Molecular Geometries and Vibrational Frequencies for MMFF94. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 553-586.
71. Halgren, T. A. Merck Molecular Force Field. IV. Conformational Energies and Geometries for MMFF94. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 587-615.
72. Halgren, T. A. Merck Molecular Force Field. V. Extension of MMFF94 Using Experimental Data, Additional Computational Data, and Empirical Rules. J. Comput. Chem. 1996, 17, 616-641.
73. Sippl, W. Receptor-Based 3D QSAR Analysis of Estrogen Receptor Ligands - Merging the Accuracy of Receptor-Based Augment With Computational Efficiency of Ligand-Based Methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 559-572.
74. Tong, W.; Perkins, R. QSAR Models for Binding of Estrogenic Compounds to Estrogen Receptor α and β Subtypes. Endocrinology 1997, 138, 4022-4025.
75. Tong, W.; Perkins, R.; Strelitz, R.; Collantes, E. R.; Keenan, S.; Welsh, W. J.; Branham, W. S.; Sheehan, D. M. Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs) for Estrogen Binding to the Estrogen Receptor: Predictions Across Species. Environ. Health Perspect. 1997, 105, 1116-1124.
76. Waller, C. L.; Oprea, T. I.; Chae, K.; Park, H.-K.; Korach, K. S.; Laws, S. C.; Wiese, T. E.; Kelce, W. R.; Grey, L. E. J. Ligand-Based Indentification of Environmental Estrogens. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 1996, 9, 1240-1248.
77. Wolohan, P.; Reichert, D. E. CoMFA and Docking Study of Novel Estrogen Subtype Selective Ligands. J. Comput.,-Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 313-328.
78. Kubinyi, H. Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA). In Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry; Wiley & Sons: 1998; pp 3001-3012.
79. Tropsha, A.; Gramatica, P.; Gombar, V. K. The Importance on Being Earnest: Validation Is the Absolute Essential for Successful Application and Interpretation of QSPR Models. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 2003, 22, 69-76.
80. Cho, S. J.; Tropsha, A. Cross-Validated R2-Guided Region Selection for Comparative Molecular Field Analysis: A Simple Method to Achieve Consistent Results. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 1060-1066.