CAUTION: Popular "benchmark" data sets do not distinguish the merits of 3D QSAR methods

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1449-1454

  Manchester, John ^a   Czermiński, Ryszard ^a  

^a ASTRAZENECA   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; BENCHMARKING; BINDING ENERGY; LIPIDS; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS;

ATOMIC NUMBERS; ATOMIC POSITIONS; BINDING INTERACTION; CHEMICAL INFORMATION; DESCRIPTORS; INACTIVE COMPOUNDS; MODEL PERFORMANCE; YIELD MODELS;

COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY;

PROTEIN; STEROID;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; CONFORMATION; HUMAN; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; MOUSE; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ANIMALS; BENCHMARKING; HUMANS; MICE; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; PROTEINS; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; STEROIDS;

EID: 67650046977     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci9000508     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Manchester, J.; Czerminski, R. SAMFA: Simplifying Molecular Description for 3D-QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1167-1173.
2. Fischer, E. Einfluss der Configuration auf die Wirkung der Enzyme. Ber. Dt. Chem. Ges. 1894, 27, 2985-2993.
3. Simon, Z.; Szabadai, Z. Minimal steric difference parameter and the importance of steric fit for structure-biological activity correlations. Stud. Biophys. 1973, 39, 123-132.
4. Coats, A. E. The CoMFA Steroids as a Benchmark Dataset for Development of 3D QSAR Methods. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12-14, 199-213.
5. 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.
6. Chiriac, Z. S. A.; Motoc, I.; Holban, S.; Ciubotariu, D.; Szabadai, Z. Receptor site mapping. Search strategy of standard for correlations with minimal steric differences. Stud. Biophys. 1976, 55, 217-226.
7. Simon, Z.; Chiriac, A.; Holban, S.; Ciubotariu, D.; Mihalas, G. Minimum Steric Difference. The MTD method for QSAR studies; Chemometrics Research Studies Series; Research Studies Press Ltd.: Letchworth, 1984.
8. 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 Steroids to Carrier Proteins. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1993, 12, 21-26.
9. Muresan, S.; Bologa, C.; Chiriac, A.; Jastorff, B.; Kurunczi, L.; Simon, Z. Comparative structure-affinity relations by MTD for binding of cycloadenosine monophosphate derivatives to protein kinase receptors. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 1994, 13, 242-248.
10. OpenEye Inc. OEChem Python Library 1.5.1; VIDA 2.1, 2007. http://www.eyesopen.com (accessed Feb 11, 2008).
11. Picard, R. R.; Cook, R. D. Cross-Validation of Regression Models. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1984, 79, 575-583.
12. Shao, J. Linear Model Selection by Cross-Validation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1993, 88, 486-494.
13. Xu, Q.-S.; Liang, Y.-Z.; Du, Y.-P. Monte Carlo cross-validation for selecting a model and estimating the prediction error in multivariate calibration. J. Chemom. 2004, 18, 112-120.
14. Klieber, M. A.; Underhill, C.; Hammond, G. L.; Muller, Y. A. Corticosteroid-binding Globulin, a Structural Basis for Steroid Transport and Proteinase-triggered Release. J. Biol. Chem. 2007, 282, 29594-29603.
15. DeLano Scientific LLC. Palo Alto, CA, U.S.A., PyMOL 1.0, 2008. http://pymol.sourceforge.net (accessed Feb 15, 2008).
16. 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.
17. Hastie, T.; Tibshirani, R.; Friedman, J. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction; Springer: New York, NY, U.S.A., 2001.
18. Martin, Y. C. 3D QSAR: Current State, Scope and Limitations. Perspect. Drug Discovery Des. 1998, 12/13/14, 3-23.
19. Oprea, T. I. 3D QSAR modeling in drug design. Comput. Med. Chem. Drug Discovery 2004, 571, 571-616.
20. Chemoinformatics Approaches to Virtual Screening; Varnek, A., Tropsha, A., Eds.; Royal Society of Chemistry: 2008.
21. Linusson, A.; Gottfries, J.; Olsson, T.; Ornskov, E.; Folestad, S.; Norden, B.; Wold, S. Statistal Molecular Design, Parallel Synthesis and Biological Evaluation of a Library of Thrombin Inhibitors. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 3424-3439.
22. Olsson, I.-M.; Gottfries, J.; Wold, S. D-optimal onion designs in statistical molecular design. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2004, 73, 37-46.
23. Norinder, U.; Hogberg, T. Quantitative structure-activity relationships and experimental design. In Textbook of Drug Design and Discovery, 3rd ed.; Krogsgaard-Larsen, P., Liliefors, T., Madsen, U., Eds.; 2002; pp 127-170.
24. Bichard, C. J. F.; Mitchell, E. P.; Wormald, M. R.; Watson, K. A.; Johnson, L. N.; Zographos, S. E.; Koutra, D. D.; Oikonomakos, N. G.; Fleet, G. W. J. Potent inhibition of glyocgen phosphorylase by a spirohydantoin of glucopyranose: First pyranose analogues of hydantocidin. Tetrahedron Lett. 1995, 36, 2145-2148.
25. Martin, J. L.; Johnson, L. N.; Withers, S. G. Comparison of the binding of glucose and glucose 1-phosphate derivatives to T-state glycogen phosphorylase b. Biochemistry 1990, 29 10745-10757.
26. Melville, J. L.; Hirst, J. D. TMACC: Interpretable correlation descriptors for quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 626-634.