Recent advances in fragment-based QSAR and multi-dimensional QSAR methods

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Volumn 11, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 3846-3866

  Myint, Kyaw Zeyar ^a   Xie, Xiang Qun ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

2d QSAR; 3d QSAR; Fragment similarity based; Fragment based; Nd QSAR; QSAR

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; AUTOCORRELATION OF MOLECULAR SURFACE PROPERTY; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR MOMENT ANALYSIS; COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR SIMILARITY INDICES ANALYSIS; CONFORMATION; FRAGMENT BASED QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; FRAGMENT SIMILARITY BASED QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; GRID INDEPENDENT DESCRIPTOR BASED QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; HOLOGRAM QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PARTIAL LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PREDICTION; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; PROCESS MODEL; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; SELF ORGANIZING MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; SEQUENCE ALIGNMENT; STATISTICAL MODEL; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOP PRIORITY FRAGMENT QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TOPOMER COMPARATIVE MOLECULAR FIELD ANALYSIS; VALIDATION PROCESS; WEIGHTED HOLISTIC INVARIANT MOLECULAR DESCRIPTOR BASED QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

2D-QSAR; 3D-QSAR; FRAGMENT SIMILARITY BASED; FRAGMENT-BASED; ND-QSAR; QSAR;

QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 77958126601     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14220067     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijms11103846     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Esposito, E.X.; Hopfinger, A.J.; Madura, J.D. Methods for applying the quantitative structure-activity relationship paradigm. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 275, 131-213.
2. Bradbury, S.P. Quantitative structure-activity relationships and ecological risk assessment: an overview of predictive aquatic toxicology research. Toxicol. Lett. 1995, 79, 229-237.
3. Hansch, C.; Leo, A. Exploring QSAR-Fundamentals and Applications in Chemistry and Biology; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC., USA, 1995.
4. Hansch, C.; Telzer, B.R.; Zhang, L. Comparative QSAR in toxicology: Examples from teratology and cancer chemotherapy of aniline mustards. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 1995, 25, 67-89.
5. Perkins, R.; Fang, H.; Tong, W.; Welsh, W. Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 1666-1679.
6. Chen, J.-Z.; Han, X.-W.; Liu, Q.; Makriyannis, A.; Wang, J.; Xie, X.-Q. 3D-QSAR studies of arylpyrazole antagonists of cannabinoid receptor subtypes CB1 and CB2. A combined NMR and CoMFA approach. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 625-636.
7. Salum, L.; Andricopulo, A. Fragment-based QSAR: Perspectives in drug design. Mol. Divers. 2009, 13, 277-285.
8. Free, S.J.; Wilson, J. A mathematical contribution to structure-activity studies. J. Med. Chem. 1964, 7, 395-399.
9. Hansch, C.J.; Fujita, T. ρ-σ-π Analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1964, 86, 1616-1626.
10. SYBYL8.0. In Discovery Software for Computational Chemistry and Molecular Modeling; Tripos: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2008.
11. Lowis, D. HQSAR: A New, Highly Predictive QSAR Technique, Tripos Technique Notes; Tripos: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1997.
12. Castilho, M.S.; Postigo, M.P.; de Paula, C.B.V.; Montanari, C.A.; Oliva, G.; Andricopulo, A.D. Two- and three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships for a series of purine nucleoside phosphorylase inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2006, 14, 516-527.
13. Salum, L.B.; Polikarpov, I.; Andricopulo, A.D. Structural and chemical basis for enhanced affinity and potency for a large series of estrogen receptor ligands: 2D and 3D QSAR studies. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2007, 26, 434-442.
14. Honorio, K.M.; Garratt, R.C.; Andricopulo, A.D. Hologram quantitative structure-activity relationships for a series of farnesoid X receptor activators. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2005, 15, 3119-3125.
15. Castilho, M.S.; Guido, R.V.C.; Andricopulo, A.D. 2D Quantitative structure-activity relationship studies on a series of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2007, 15, 6242-6252.
16. Lo Piparo, E.; Koehler, K.; Chana, A.; Benfenati, E. Virtual Screening for aryl hydrocarbon receptor binding prediction. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5702-5709.
17. Tropsha, A.; Golbraikh, A. Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. Curr. Pharm. Design 2007, 13, 3494-3504.
18. Prakash, O.; Ghosh, I. Developing an antituberculosis compounds database and data mining in the search of a motif responsible for the activity of a diverse class of antituberculosis agents. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 46, 17-23.
19. Du, Q.-S.; Huang, R.-B.; Wei, Y.T.; Pang, Z.-W.; Du, L.-Q.; Chou, K.-C. Fragment-based quantitative structure-activity relationship (FB-QSAR) for fragment-based drug design. J. Comput. Chem. 2009, 30, 295-304.
20. Myint, K.Z.; Ma, C.; Wang, L.; Xie, X.Q. The Fragment-similarity-based QSAR (FS-QSAR): A Novel 2D-QSAR method to predict biological activities of triaryl Bis-sulfone and COX2 analogs. 2010, submitted
21. Burden, F. Molecular identification number for substructure searches. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1989, 29, 225-227.
22. Xie, X.Q.; Chen, J. Data-mining a small molecule drug screening representative subset from NIH PubChem database. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 465-475.
23. Casalegno M.; Sello G. Benfenati E: Top-Priority Fragment QSAR Approach in Predicting Pesticide Aquatic Toxicity. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2006, 19, 1533-1539.
24. Zhokhova, N.; Baskin, I.; Palyulin, V.; Zefirov, A.; Zefirov, N. Fragmental descriptors with labeled atoms and their application in QSAR/QSPR studies. Doklady Chem. 2007, 417, 282-284.
25. Ford, M.G. Euroqsar 2002 Designing Drugs and Crop Protectants: Processes, Problems, and Solutions; Blackwell: Melbourne, Australia, 2003.
26. Andrade, C.; Salum, L.B.; Castilho, M.; Pasqualoto, K.; Ferreira, E.; Andricopulo, A. Fragment-based and classical quantitative structure-activity relationships for a series of hydrazides as antituberculosis agents. Mol. Divers. 2008, 12, 47-59.
27. Dragon, v5.4; Talete_Srl: Milan, Italy, 2008.
28. Oliveira, D.B.D.; Gaudio, A.C. BuildQSAR: A new computer program for QSAR analysis. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relation. 2000, 19, 599-601.
29. Pirouette Multivariate Data Analysis for IBM PC Systems; Infometrix: Seattle, WA, USA, 2001.
30. Tsygankova, I.; Zhenodarova, S. Quantitative structure-activity relationship for barbituric acid derivatives: Potential of the fragment approach. Russ. J. Gene. Chem. 2007, 77, 940-928.
31. Cramer, R.; Patterson, D.; Bunce, J. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959-5967.
32. 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.
33. Dudek, A.Z.; Arodz, O.; Galvez, J. Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): A review. Comb. Chem. High T. Scr. 2006, 9, 213-228.
34. Cramer, R.D.; Cruz, P.; Stahl, G.; Curtiss, W.C.; Campbell, B.; Masek, B.B.; Soltanshahi, F. Virtual screening for r-groups, including predicted pIC50 contributions, within large structural databases, using topomer CoMFA. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 2180-2195.
35. Avram, S.; Milac, A.L.; Flonta, M.L. Computer-aided drug design for typical and atypical antipsychotic drugs: A review of application of QSAR and combinatorial chemistry methods - tools for new antipsychotics design. Curr. Comput.-Aided Drug Design 2005, 1, 347-364.
36. Patcharawee, N.; Nahoum, G.A.; Blair, F.J.; Simon, P.M.; Jiraporn, U. 3D-QSAR studies on chromone derivatives as HIV-1 protease inhibitors: Application of molecular field analysis. Arch. Pharm. 2008, 341, 357-364.
37. Labrie, P.; Maddaford, S.P.; Fortin, S.; Rakhit, S.; Kotra, L.P.; Gaudreault, R.C. A comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA) of anthranilamide derivatives that are multidrug resistance modulators. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 7646-7660.
38. Jeong, J.A.; Cho, H.; Jung, S.Y.; Kang, H.B.; Park, J.Y.; Kim, J.; Choo, D.J.; Lee, J.Y. 3D QSAR studies on 3,4-dihydroquinazolines as T-type calcium channel blocker by comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA). Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2010, 20, 38-41.
39. Dayan, F.E.; Singh, N.; McCurdy, C.R.; Godfrey, C.A.; Larsen, L.; Weavers, R.T.; van Klink, J.W. Perry NB: β-triketone inhibitors of plant p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase: Modeling and comparative molecular field analysis of their interactions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 5194-5200.
40. Cramer, R.D. Topomer CoMFA: A design methodology for rapid lead optimization. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 374-388.
41. Robinson, D.D.; Winn, P.J.; Lyne, P.D.; Richards, W.G. Self-organizing molecular field analysis: A tool for structure-activity studies. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 573-583.
42. 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. Design 1997, 11, 79-92.
43. 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.
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. Todeschini, R.; Gramatica, P. New 3D molecular descriptors: the WHIM theory and QSAR applications. In 3D QSAR in Drug Design; Kubinyi, H., Folkers, G., Martin, Y.C., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers/Escom: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1998; Volume 2, pp. 355-380.
46. Todeschini, R.; Lasagni, M. Marengo E: New molecular descriptors for 2D and 3D structures. J. Chemometrics 1994, 8, 263-272.
47. 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.
48. Connolly, M. Analytical molecular surface calculation. J. Appl. Crystallogr. 1983, 16, 548-558.
49. Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Watson, K.A. A strategy for the incorporation of water molecules present in a ligand binding site into a three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship analysis. J. Med. Chem. 1997, 40, 4089-4102.
50. ALMOND: Molecular Discovery Ltd.: Perugia, Italy, Available at: http://www.moldiscovery.com/soft_almond.php (accessed on 25 September 2010).
51. Hopfinger, A.J.; Wang, S.; Tokarski, J.S.; Jin, B.; 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.
52. Scheiber, J.; Enzensperger, C.; Lehmann, J.; Stiefl, N.; Baumann, K. Alignment-free 4D-QSAR: Applying the XMAP technique in prospective analyses. In QSAR & Molecular Modeling in Rational Design of Bioactive Molecules; Aki-Sener, E., Yalcin, I., Eds.; CADDD Society: Ankara, Turkey, 2006.
53. Fischer, P.M. Computational chemistry approaches to drug discovery in signal transduction. Biotechnol. J. 2008, 3, 452-470.
54. Vedani, A.; Dobler, M. 5D-QSAR: The key for simulating induced fit? J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 2139-2149.
55. Vedani, A.; Dobler, M.; Lill, M.A. Combining protein modeling and 6D-QSAR. Simulating the binding of structurally diverse ligands to the estrogen receptor. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 3700-3703.
56. Vedani, A.; Dobler, M.; Zbinden, P. Quasi-atomistic receptor surface models: A bridge between 3-D QSAR and receptor modeling. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1998, 120, 4471-4477.
57. Biograf: VirtualToxLab; Basel, Switzerland, 2009. Available at: http://www.biograf.ch/ downloads/VirtualToxLab.pdf (accessed on 25 September 2010).
58. Hillebrecht, A.; Klebe, G. Use of 3D QSAR models for database screening: A feasibility study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 384-396.
59. Matter, H.; Potter, T. Comparing 3D pharmacophore triplets and 2D fingerprints for selecting diverse compound subsets. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 1211-1225.
60. Khedkar, V.; Ambre, P.; Verma, J.; Shaikh, M.; Pissurlenkar, R.; Coutinho, E. Molecular docking and 3D-QSAR studies of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J. Mol. Model. 2010, 16, 1251-1268.
61. Li, Q.; Jørgensen, F.S.; Oprea, T.; Brunak, S.; Taboureau, O. hERG classification model based on a combination of support vector machine method and GRIND descriptors. Mol. Pharm. 2008, 5, 117-127.
62. Romeiro, N.; Albuquerque, M.; Alencastro, R.; Ravi, M.; Hopfinger, A. Construction of 4D-QSAR models for use in the design of novel p38-MAPK inhibitors. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design 2005, 19, 385-400.