Fragment-similarity-based QSAR (FS-QSAR) algorithm for ligand biological activity predictions

SAR and QSAR in Environmental Research

Volumn 22, Issue 3-4, 2011, Pages 385-410

  Myint, K Z ^a   Ma, C ^a   Wang, L ^b   Xie, X Q ^a,b  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Bcut descriptor; Biological activity prediction; Cannabinoid; Cox2; Fingerprint; Fragment similarity; Multiple linear regression; Quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR); Triaryl bis sulfones

Indexed keywords

BIOACTIVITY; BIOINFORMATICS; COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; FORECASTING; LIGANDS; MOLECULAR GRAPHICS;

ACTIVITY PREDICTIONS; BCUT DESCRIPTOR; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY PREDICTION; CANNABINOIDS; COX2; DESCRIPTORS; FINGERPRINT; FRAGMENT-SIMILARITY; MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSIONS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TRIARYL BIS-SULPHONE;

MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION;

EID: 79957864253     PISSN: 1062936X     EISSN: 1029046X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/1062936X.2011.569943     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. H. Kubinyi, QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design Part 1: Methodology, Drug Discov. Today 2 (1997), pp. 457-467.
2. L. Salum and A. Andricopulo, Fragment-based QSAR: Perspectives in drug design, Mol. Diversity 13 (2009), pp. 277-285.
3. J.-Z. Chen, X.-W. Han, Q. Liu, A. Makriyannis, J. Wang, and X.-Q. Xie, 3D-QSAR studies of arylpyrazole antagonists of cannabinoid receptor subtypes CB1 and CB2. A combined NMR and CoMFA approach, J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006), pp. 625-636.
4. C.M. Ellison, S.J. Enoch, M.T.D. Cronin, J.C. Madden, and P. Judson, Definition of the applicability domains of knowledge-based predictive toxicology expert systems by using a structural fragment-based approach, ATLA 37 (2009), pp. 533-545
5. M. Casalegno, G. Sello, and E. Benfenati, Top-priority fragment QSAR approach in predicting pesticide aquatic toxicity, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 19 (2006), pp. 1533-1539.
6. A.Z. Dudek, O. Arodz, and J. Galvez, Computational methods in developing quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR): A review, Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 9 (2006), pp. 213-228.
7. K.Z. Myint and X.-Q. Xie, Recent advances in fragment-based QSAR and multi-dimensional QSAR methods, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11 (2010), pp. 3846-3866.
8. S.J. Free and J. Wilson, A mathematical contribution to structure-activity studies, J. Med. Chem.7 (1964), pp. 395-399.
9. C. Hansch and T. Fujita, R-S-P analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 86 (1964), pp. 1616-1626.
10. J.J. Sutherland, L.A. O'Brien, and D.F. Weaver, Spline-fitting with a genetic algorithm: A method for developing classification structure-activity relationships, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003), pp. 1906-1915.
11. B. Lavey, J.A. Kozlowski, R.W. Hipkin, W. Gonsiorek, D.J. Lundell, J. Piwinski, S.K. Narula, and C.A. Lunn, Triaryl bis-sulfones as a new class of cannabinoid CB2 receptor inhibitors: Identification of a lead and initial SAR studies, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005), pp. 783-786.
12. B. Lavey, J.A. Kozlowski, B. Shankar, J. Spitler, G. Zhou, D.-Y. Yang, Y. Shu, M. Wong, S.-C. Wong, and N.-Y. Shin, Optimization of triaryl bis-sulfones as cannabinoid-2 receptor ligands, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 17 (2007), pp. 3760-3764.
13. B. Shankar, B. Lavey, G. Zhou, J. Spitler, L. Tong, R. Rizvi, D.-P. Yang, R. Wolin, J.A. Kozlowski, and N.-Y. Shih, Triaryl bis-sulfones as cannabinioid-2 receptor ligands: SAR studies, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 15 (2005), pp. 4417-4420.
14. S. Neelam, B. Sonu, and S. Bhupinder, Quantitative correlation between theoretical molecular descriptors and drug-HSA binding affinities for various cox-2 inhibitors, Chem. Biol. Drug Design 72 (2008), pp. 297-302.
15. J.K.O. Alvesalo, A. Siiskonen, M.J. Vainio, P.S.M. Tammela, and P.M. Vuorela, Similarity based virtual screening: A tool for targeted library design, J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006), pp. 2353-2356.
16. J. Bostrom, A. Hogner, and S. Schmitt, Do structurally similar ligands bind in a similar fashion?, J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006), pp. 6716-6725.
17. M. Johnson and G. Maggiora, Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity, John Wiley, New York, 1990.
18. M. Johnson, G. Maggiora, M. Lajiness, J.B. Moon, J.D. Petke, and D.C. Rohrer, Molecular similarity analysis: Applications in drug discovery, Methods Princ. Med. Chem. 3 (1995), pp. 89-110.
19. M. Lajiness, M. Johnson, and G. Maggiora, Molecular similarity: A basis for designing drug screening programs, Prog. Clin. Biol. Res. 291 (1989), pp. 167-171.
20. R.A. Lewis, S.D. Pickett, and D.E. Clark, Computer-aided molecular diversity analysis and combinatorial library design, in Reviews in Computational Chemistry, Vol. 16, K.B. Lipkowitz and D.B. Boyd, eds., Wiley-VCH, New York, 2007, pp. 1-51.
21. Pozzan, Molecular descriptors and methods for ligand based virtual high throughput screening in drug discovery, Curr. Pharm. Des. 12 (2006), pp. 2099-2110.
22. Willett, Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints, Drug Discov. Today 11 (2006), pp. 1046-1053.
23. Matlab. Natick, MA, USA, 2006; software available at http://www.mathworks.com/products/matlab/
24. F. Burden, Molecular identification number for substructure searches, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci.29 (1989), pp. 225-227.
25. Tanimoto, Tanimoto coefficient, IBM internal report, 17 November 1957
26. Tripos SYBYL 8.0. Tripos International, 1699 South Hanley Road, St Louis, MO, 63144, USA; software available at http://www.tripos.com
27. Tripos Bookshelf 8.0, Tripos International, 1699 South Hanley Road, St Louis, MO, 63144, USA.
28. Pozo, Template Numerical Toolkit: An interface for scientific computing in C++, (2004), software available at http://math.nist.gov/tnt/index.html