On the stability of CoMFA models

Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Volumn 44, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 1294-1300

  Melville, James L ^a   Hirst, Jonathan D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BENCHMARKING; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; CRYSTAL LATTICES; DIELECTRIC PROPERTIES; GEOMETRY; MOLECULAR PHYSICS; OPTIMIZATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL SYSTEMS); SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

DATA SETS; ELECTROSTATIC INTERACTIONS; ELECTROSTATIC VARIABLES; LATTICE DISPLACEMENTS;

ELECTRIC FIELDS;

EID: 4043069208     PISSN: 00952338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci049944o     Document Type: Article

References (40)

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.; Sjöström, M.; Eriksson, L. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58, 109-130.
3. Allen, M. S.; LaLoggia, A. J.; Dorn, L. J.; Martin, M. J.; Constantino, G.; Hagen, T. J.; Koehler, K. F.; Skolnick, P.; Cook, J. M. Predictive Binding of β-Carboline Inverse Agonists and Antagonists via the CoMFA/GOLPE Approach. J. Med. Chem. 1992, 35, 4001-4010.
4. Kroemer, R. T.; Hecht, P. Replacement of steric 6-12 potential-derived interaction energies by atom-based indicator variables in CoMFA leads to models of higher consistency. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 205-212.
5. Sulea, T.; Oprea, T. I.; Muresan, S.; Chan, S. L. A Different Method for Steric Field Evaluation in CoMFA Improves Model Robustness. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 1162-1170.
6. Kellogg, G. E. Finding Optimum Field Models for 3D QSAR. Med. Chem. Res. 1997, 7, 417-427.
7. Bucholtz, E. C.; Tropsha, A. The Effect of Region Size on CoMFA Analyses. Med. Chem. Res. 1999, 9, 675-685.
8. 2-Guided Region Selection for Comparative Molecular Field Analysis: A Simple Method To Achieve Consistent Results. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 1060-1066.
9. Brusniak, M.-Y. K.; Pearlman, R. S.; Neve, K. A.; Wilcox, R. E. Comparative Molecular Field Analysis-Based Prediction of Drug Affinities at Recombinant DIA Dopamine Receptors. J. Med. Chem. 1996, 39, 850-859.
10. Kroemer, R. T.; Hecht, P. A new procedure for improving the predictiveness of CoMFA models and its application to a series of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors, J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1995, 9, 396-406.
11. Wang, R. X.; Gao, Y.; Liu, L.; Lai, L. H. All-Orientation Search and All-Placement Search in Comparative Molecular Field Analysis. J. Mol. Model. 1998, 4, 276-283.
12. Cramer, R. D., III; DePriest, S. A.; Patterson, D. E.; Hecht, P. E. The Developing Practice of Comparative Molecular Field Analysis. In 3D QSAR in drug design-theory, methods and applications; Kubinyi, H., Ed.; ESCOM Science Pub.: Leiden, 1993; pp 443-485.
13. Kroemer, R. T.; Ettmayer, P.; Hecht, P. SD-Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type-1 Proteinase Inhibitors: Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of 2-Heterosubstituted Statine Derivatives-Implications for the Design of Novel Inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 4917-4928.
14. Wilcox, R. E.; Huang, W.-H.; Brusniak, M.-Y. K.; Wilcox, D. M.; Pearlman, R. S.; Teeter, M. M.; DuRand, C. J.; Wiens, B. L.; Neve, K. A. CoMFA-Based Prediction of Agonist Affinities at Recombinant Wild-Type versus Serine to Alanine Point Mutated D2 Dopamine Receptors. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3005-3019.
15. Folkers, G.; Merz, A.; Rognan, D. CoMFA: Scope and Limitations. In 3D QSAR in drug design-theory, methods and applications; Kubinyi, H., Ed.; ESCOM Science Pub.: Leiden, 1993; pp 583-618.
16. Kim, K. H.; Greco, G.; Novellino, E. A critical review of recent CoMFA applications. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/ 14, 257-315 and references therein.
17. Cramer, R. D. Topomer CoMFA: A design methodology for rapid lead optimization J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 374-388.
18. Nicklaus, M. C.; Milne, G. W. A.; Burke, T. R., Jr. QSAR of conformationally flexible molecules: Comparative molecular field analysis of protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1992, 6, 487-504.
19. Broughton, H. B.; Gordaliza, M.; Castro, M.-A.; Miguel del Corral, J. M.; San Feliciano, A. Modified CoMFA methods for the analysis of antineoplastic effects of lignan analogues. J. Mol. Struct. (THEOCHEM) 2000, 504, 287-294.
20. Lukacova, V.; Balaz, S. Multimode Ligand Binding in Receptor Site Modeling: Implementation in CoMFA. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 2093-2105.
21. Coats, E. A. The CoMFA Steroids as a Benchmark Dataset for Development of 3D QSAR Methods. Perspect. Drug Discuss. Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 199-213.
22. http://www2.chemie.uni-erlangen.de/services/steroids/index.html.
23. Boström, J.; Böhm, M.; Gundertofte, K.; Klebe, G. A 3D QSAR Study on a Set of Dopamine D4 Receptor Antagonists. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1020-1027.
24. Bradley, M.; Waller, C. L. Polarizability Fields for Use in Three-Dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (3D-QSAR). J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1301-1307.
25. 2! J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2002, 20, 269-276.
26. Hawkins, D. M.; Basak, S. C.; Mills, D. Assessing Model Fit by Cross-Validation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 579-586.
27. Hawkins, D. M. The Problem of Overfitting. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1-12.
28. Kong J.; White, C. A.; Krylov, A. L; Sherrill, D.; Adamson, R. D.; Furlani, T. R.; Lee, M. S.; Gwaltney, S. R.; Adams, T. R.; Ochsenfeld, C.; Gilbert, A. T. B.; Kedziora, G. S.; Rassolov, V. A.; Maurice, D. R.; Nair, N.; Shao, Y.; Besley, N. A.; Maslen, P. E.; Dombroski, J. P.; Daschel, H.; Zhang, W.; Korambath, P. P.; Baker, J.; Byrd, E. F. C.; Van Voorhis, T.; Oumi, M.; Hirata, S.; Hsu, C.-P.; Ishikawa, N.; Florian, J.; Warshel, A.; Johnson, B. G.; Gill, P. M. W.; Head-Gordon, M.; Pople, J. A. Q-Chem 2.0: A high-performance ab initio electronic structure program package. J. Comput. Chem. 2000, 21, 1532-1548.
29. 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.
30. Dewar, M. J. S.; Zoebisch, E. G.; Healy, E. F.; Stewart, J. J. P. AMI: A New General Purpose Quantum Mechanical Molecular Model. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1985, 107, 3902-3909.
31. de Jong, S. SIMPLS: an alternative approach to partial least squares regression. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1993, 18, 251-263.
32. Shao, J. Linear Model Selection by Cross-Validation. J. Am. Stat. Ass. 1993, 88, 486-494.
33. Kubinyi, H.; Abraham, U. Practical Problems in PLS Analyses. In 3D QSAR in drug design-theory, methods and applications; Kubinyi, H., Ed.; ESCOM Science Pub.: Leiden, 1993; pp 717-728.
34. Humphrey, W.; Dalke, A.; Schulten, K. VMD-Visual Molecular Dynamics. J. Mol. Graph. 1996, 14, 33-38.
35. 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.
36. Kubinyi, H.; Hamprecht, F. A.; Mietzner, T. Three-Dimensional Quantitative Similarity-Activity Relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL Similarity Matrices. J. Med. Chem. 1998, 41, 2553-2564.
37. Hou, T. J.; Xu, X. J. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analyses of a series of cinnamamides. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 56, 123-132.
38. Gasteiger, J.; Marsili, M. Iterative Partial Equalization of Orbital Electronegativity - A Rapid Access to Atomic Charges. Tetrahedron 1980, 36, 3219-3228.
39. Clark, M.; Cramer, R. D. The probability of chance correlation using Partial Least Squares (PLS). Quant. Struct. - Act. Relat. 1993, 12, 137-145.
40. Ortiz, A. R.; Pastor, M.; Palomer, A.; Cruciani, G.; Gago, F.; Wade, R. C.; Reliability of comparative molecular field analysis models: Effects of data scaling and variable selection using a set of human synovial fluid phospholipase A(2) inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 1136-1148.