Improved CoMFA modeling by optimization of settings

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 46, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 355-364

  Peterson, Shane D ^a   Schaal, Wesley ^a   Karlén, Anders ^a  

^a UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; CORRELATION THEORY; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; OPTIMIZATION; RANDOM PROCESSES;

COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS (COMFA); MOLECULAR SIMILARITY; RESPONSE VARIABLE RANDOMIZATION;

MOLECULAR DYNAMICS;

EID: 33344477772     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci049612j     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (49)

1. 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.
2. Wold, S. Validation of QSARs. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1991, 10, 191-193.
3. Sybyl, version 7.0; Tripos Inc.: St. Louis, MO.
4. Kim, K. H.; Greco, G.; Novellino, E. A Critical Review of Recent CoMFA Applications. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/ 14, 257-315.
5. Jewell, N. E.; Turner, D. B.; Willett, P.; Sexton, G. J. Automatic Generation of Alignments for 3D QSAR Analyses. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2001, 20, 111-121.
6. Talele, T. T.; Kulkarni, S. S.; Kulkarni, V. M. Development of Pharmacophore Alignment Models as Input for Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of a Diverse Set of Azole Antifungal Agents. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 958-966.
7. Lemmen, C.; Lengauer, T. Computational Methods for the Structural Alignment of Molecules. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 215-232.
8. Jalaie, M.; Erickson, J. A. Homology Model Directed Alignment Selection for Comparative Molecular Field Analysis: Application to Photosystem II Inhibitors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2000, 14, 181-197.
9. Cho, S. J.; Serrano Garsia, M. L.; Bier, J.; Tropsha, A. Structure-Based Alignment and Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 5064-5071.
10. 2 Guided Region Selection for CoMFA Studies. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 57-69.
11. Wang, R.; Gao, Y.; Liu, L.; Lai, L. All-Orientation Search and All-Placement Search in Comparative Molecular Field Analysis. J. Mol. Model. 1998, 4, 276-283.
12. 2-Guided Region Selection for Comparative Molecular Field Analysis: A Simple Method to Achieve Consistent Results. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 1060-1066.
13. Kellogg, G. E. Finding Optimum Field Models for 3D QSAR. Med. Chem. Res. 1997, 7, 417-427.
14. Melville, J. L.; Hirst, J. D. On the Stability of CoMFA Models. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1294-1300.
15. Bursi, R.; Grootenhuis, P. D. J. Comparative Molecular Field Analysis and Energy Interaction Studies of Thrombin-Inhibitor Complexes. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 221-232.
16. Dinan, L.; Hormann, R. E.; Fujimoto, T. An Extensive Ecdysteroid CoMFA. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 185-207.
17. Schaal, W. Computational Studies of HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors. In Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations From the Faculty of Pharmacy; Uppsala University: Uppsala, Sweden, 2002; p 88.
18. Sutherland, J. J.; O'Brien, L. A.; Weaver, D. F. A Comparison of Methods for Modeling Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 5541-5554.
19. Coats, E. A. The CoMFA Steroids as a Benchmark Dataset for Development of 3D QSAR Methods. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 199-213.
20. Dunn, J. F.; Nisula, B. C.; Rodbard, D. Transport of Steroid Hormones: Binding of 21 Endogenous Steroids to Both Testosterone-Binding Globulin and Corticosteroid-Binding Globulin in Human Plasma. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 1981, 53, 58-68.
21. Gasteiger, J. Dataset of 31 Steroids Binding to the Corticosteroid Binding Globulin (CBG) Receptor; Gasteiger Research Group: Erlangen, Germany, http://www2.chemie.uni-erlangen.de/services/steroids/.
22. Gasteiger, J.; Rudolph, C.; Sadowski, J. Automatic Generation of 3D Atomic Coordinates for Organic Molecules. Tetrahedron Comput. Methodol. 1990, 3, 537-547.
23. 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.
24. Clark, M.; Cramer, R. D., III.; Van Opdenbosch, N. Validation of the General Purpose Tripos 5.2 Force Field. J. Comput. Chem. 1989, 10, 982-1012.
25. Gasteiger, J.; Marsili, M. Iterative Partial Equalization of Orbital Electronegativity: A Rapid Access to Atomic Charges. Tetrahedron 1980, 36, 3219-3222.
26. Hinze, J.; Jaffe, H. H. Electronegativity. I. Orbital Electronegativity of Neutral Atoms. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1962, 84, 540-546.
27. Shao, J. Linear Model Selection by Cross-Validation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1993, 88, 486-494.
28. Baroni, M.; Clementi, S.; Cruciani, G.; Costantino, G.; Riganelli, D.; Oberrauch, E. Predictive Ability of Regression Models. Part II. Selection of the Best Predictive PLS Model. J. Chemom. 1992, 6, 347-356.
29. Cruciani, G.; Baroni, M.; Clementi, S.; Costantino, G.; Riganelli, D.; Skagerberg, B. Predictive Ability of Regression Models. Part I. Standard Deviation of Prediction Errors (SDEP). J. Chemom. 1992, 6, 335-346.
30. Bush, B. L.; Nachbar, R. B., Jr. Sample-Distance Partial Least Squares: PLS Optimized for Many Variables, with Application to CoMFA. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1993, 7, 587-619.
31. Hawkins, D. M.; Basak, S. C.; Mills, D. Assessing Model Pit by Cross-Validation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 579-586.
32. 2. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2002, 20, 269-276.
33. Clark, M.; Cramer, R. D., III. The Probability of Chance Correlation Using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1993, 12, 137-145.
34. Gokhale, V. M.; Kulkarni, V. M. Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of Fungal Squalene Epoxidase Inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5348-5358.
35. DePriest, S. A.; Mayer, D.; Naylor, C. B.; Marshall, G. R. 3D-QSAR of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme and Thermolysin Inhibitors: A Comparison of CoMFA Models Based on Deduced and Experimentally Determined Active Site Geometries. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 5372-5384.
36. Sulea, T.; Purisima, E. O. Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of Protein Tyrosine Phosphatase Low-Molecular-Weight Substrates. THEOCHEM 1998, 434, 139-153.
37. Waller, C. L.; Marshall, G. R. 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. 1993, 36, 2390-2403.
38. Wold, S.; Eriksson, L. Statistical Validation of QSAR Results. Validation Tools. Methods Princ. Med. Chem. 1995, 2, 309-318.
39. van der Voet, H. Comparing the Predictive Accuracy of Models Using a Simple Randomization Test. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1994, 25, 313-323.
40. Norinder, U. 3D-QSAR Investigation of the Tripos Benchmark Steroids and Some Protein-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors of Styrene Type Using the TDQ Approach. J. Chemom. 1996, 10, 533-545.
41. Oprea, T. I.; Ciubotariu, D.; Sulea, T. I.; Simon, Z. Comparison of the Minimal Steric Difference (MTD) and Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) Methods for Analysis of Binding of Steroids to Carrier Proteins. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1993, 12, 21-26.
42. Silverman, B. D. The Thirty-One Benchmark Steroids Revisited: Comparative Molecular Moment Analysis (CoMMA) with Principal Component Regression. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 2000, 19, 237-246.
43. Tuppurainen, K.; Viisas, M.; Laatikainen, R.; Peraekylae, M. Evaluation of a Novel Electronic Eigenvalue (EEVA) Molecular Descriptor for QSAR/QSPR Studies: Validation Using a Benchmark Steroid Data Set. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 607-613.
44. Silverman, B. D.; Platt, D. E. Comparative Molecular Moment Analysis (CoMMA): 3D-QSAR without Molecular Superposition. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 2129-2140.
45. Maw, H. H.; Hall, L. H. E-State Modeling of Corticosteroids Binding Affinity: Validation of Model for Small Data Set. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1248-1254.
46. Jain, A. N.; Koile, K.; Chapman, D. Compass: Predicting Biological Activities from Molecular Surface Properties. Performance Comparisons on a Steroid Benchmark. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 37, 2315-2327.
47. Klebe, G.; Abraham, U.; Mietzner, T. Molecular Similarity Indices in a Comparative Analysis (CoMSIA) of Drug Molecules to Correlate and Predict Their Biological Activity. J. Med. Chem. 1994, 37, 4130-4146.
48. QSAR and Advanced CoMFA, Sybyl 7.0 Manual (for Linux); Tripos Inc.: St. Louis, MO, 2004.
49. HQSAR, Sybyl 7.0 Manual (for Linux); Tripos Inc.: St. Louis, MO, 2004.