Estimating the octanol/water partition coefficient for aliphatic organic compounds using semi-empirical electrotopological index

International Journal of Molecular Sciences

Volumn 12, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 7250-7264

  Souza, Erica Silva ^a   Zaramello, Laize ^a   Kuhnen, Carlos Alberto ^a   da Silva Junkes, Berenice ^b   Yunes, Rosendo Augusto ^a   Heinzen, Vilma Edite Fonseca ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

^b Science and Technology of Santa Catarina   (Brazil)

Author keywords

N octanol water partition coefficient; Quantitative structure property relationship; Semi empirical electrotopological index

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL DERIVATIVE; ALDEHYDE DERIVATIVE; ALIPHATIC COMPOUND; ESTER DERIVATIVE; HYDROCARBON; KETONE DERIVATIVE; OCTANOL; ORGANIC COMPOUND; WATER;

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; ATOM; CALCULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR STABILITY; PARTITION COEFFICIENT; PHYSICAL MODEL; PREDICTION; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE PROPERTY RELATION; SEMI EMPIRICAL ELECTROTOPOLOGICAL INDEX; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

MODELS, CHEMICAL; OCTANOLS; ORGANIC CHEMICALS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; WATER;

EID: 80055026425     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14220067     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijms12107250     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Sakuratani, Y.; Kasai, K.; Noguchi, Y.; Yamada, Y. Comparison of predictivities of log P calculation models based on experimental data for 134 simple organic compounds. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2007, 26, 109-116.
2. Hughes, L.D.; Palmer, D.S.; Nigsch, F.; Mitchell, J.B.O. Why are some properties more difficult to predict than others? A study of QSPR models of solubility, melting point, and log P. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 220-232.
3. Meylan, W.M.; Howard, P.H. Estimating log P with atom/fragments and water solubility with log P. Perspect. Drug Discov. 2000, 19, 67-84.
4. Mannhold, R.; Rekker, R.F. The hydrophobic fragmental constant approach for calculating log P in octanol/water and aliphatic hydrocarbon/water systems. Perspect. Drug Discov. 2000, 18, 1-18.
5. Mannhold, R.; van de Waterbeemd, H. Substructure and whole molecule approaches for calculating log P. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 337-354.
6. Duchowicz, P.R.; Castro, E.A.; Toropov, A.A.; Nesterova, A.I.; Nabiev, O.M. QSPR Modeling of the octanol/water partition coefficient of alcohols by means of optimization of correlation weights of local graph invariants. J. Argent. Chem. Soc. 2004, 92, 29-42.
7. Spafiu, F.; Mischie, A.; Ionita, P.; Beteringhe, A.; Constantinescu, T.; Balaban, A.T. New alternatives for estimating the octanol/water partition coefficient and water solubility for volatile organic compounds using GLC data (Kovàts retention indices). ARKIVOC 2009, 2009, 174-194.
8. Mannhold, R.; Poda, G.I.; Ostermann, C.; Tetko, I.V. Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: State-of-the-art and comparison of log P methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98, 861-893.
9. Fujita, T.; Iwasa, J.; Hansch, C.J. A new substituent constant, _, derived from partition coefficients. Am. Chem. Soc. 1964, 86, 5175-5180.
10. Hansch, C.; Quinlan, J.E.; Lawrence, G.L. The linear free-energy relationship between partition coefficients and aqueous solubility of organic liquids. Linear Free-Energy Relat. 1968, 33, 347-350.
11. Rekker, R.F.; Kort, H.M.D. Hidrophobic fragmental constant-Extension to a 1000 data point set. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 1979, 14, 479-488.
12. Ghose, A.K.; Crippen, G.M. Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional-structuredirected quantitative structure-activity relationships. 2. Modeling dispersive and hydrophobic interactions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1987, 27, 21-35.
13. Katritzky, A.R.; Petrukhin, R.; Tatham, D. Interpretation of quantitative structure-property and activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 679-685.
14. Devillers, J.; Balaban, A.T. Topological Indices and Related Descriptors in QSAR and QSPR; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999.
15. Karelson, M. Molecular descriptors in QSAR/QSPR; Wiley-Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
16. Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V. Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics, 2nd ed.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2009.
17. Héberger, K. Quantitative structure-(chromatographic) retention relationships. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1158, 273-305.
18. Kier, L.B.; Hall, L.H. Molecular Connectivity and Structure-Activity Analysis; Wiley-VCH: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
19. Mihalic, M.; Trinajstic, N. A graph-theoretical approach to structure-property relationships. J. Chem. Educ. 1992, 69, 701-712.
20. Ren, B. Novel atomic-level-based AI topological descriptors: Application to QSPR/QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 858-868.
21. Randic, M. On interpretation of well-known topological indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 550-560.
22. Randic, M. On history of the Randic index and emerging hostility toward chemical graph theory. Match Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 2008, 59, 5-124.
23. Souza, E.S.; Junkes, B.S.; Kuhnen, C.A.; Yunes, R.A.; Heinzen, V.E.F. On a new semi-empirical electrotopological index for QSRR models. J. Chemom. 2008, 22, 378-384.
24. Souza, E.S.; Kuhnen, C.A.; Junkes, B.S.; Yunes, R.A.; Heinzen, V.E.F. Modelling the semi-empirical electrotopological index in QSPR studies for aldehydes and ketones. J. Chemom. 2009, 23, 229-235.
25. Souza, E.S.; Kuhnen, C.A.; Junkes, B.S.; Yunes, R.A.; Heinzen, V.E.F. Quantitative structure-retention relationship modelling of esters on stationary phases of different polarity. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2009, 28, 20-27.
26. Souza, E.S.; Kuhnen, C.A.; Junkes, B.S.; Yunes, R.A.; Heinzen, V.E.F. Development of semi-empirical electrotopological index using the atomic charge in QSPR/QSRR models for alcohols. J. Chemom. 2010, 24, 149-157.
27. MicroCal Origin, version 5.0; Microcal Software: Northampton, MA, USA, 1997.
28. TsarTM 3.3 for windows; Oxford Molecular: Cambrige, UK, 2000.
29. HyperChem for Windows, Release 7.01; serial number 12-701-150170036; Hypercube: Gainesvile, FL, USA, 2002.
30. Ghose, A.K.; Viswanadhan, V.N.; Wendoloski, J.J. Prediction of hydrophobic (lipophilic) properties of small organic molecules using fragmental methods: An analysis of ALOGP and CLOGP methods. J. Phys. Chem. A 1998, 102, 3762-3772.
31. Wildman, S.A.; Crippen, G.M. Prediction of physicochemical properties by atomic contributions. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 868-873.
32. Leo, A.; Jow, P.Y.C.; Silipo, C.; Hansch, C. Calculation of hydrophobic constant (log P) from _ and _ constants. J. Med. Chem. 1975, 18, 865-868.
33. Organic Chemistry Portal, ClogP calculation. Available online: http://www.organic chemistry.org/prog/peo (accessed on 14 August 2011).
34. Virtual Computational Chemistry Laboratory, ALOGPS 2.1 program. Available online: http://www.vcclab.org/lab/alogps/start.html (accessed on 14 August 2011).
35. Moriguchi, L.; Hirono, S.; Liu, Q.; Nakagome, I.; Matsushita, Y. Simple method of calculating octanol/water partition coefficient. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 1992, 40, 127-130.
36. Bredow, T.; Jug, K. Theory and range of modern semiempirical molecular orbital methods. Theor. Chem. Acc. 2005, 113, 1-14.
37. Kikuchi, O. Systematic QSAR procedures with quantum chemical descriptors. Quant. Struct. Act. Relat. 1987, 6, 179-184.
38. Smith, W.B. Introduction to Theoretical Organic Chemistry and Molecular Modeling; Wiley-VCH: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
39. Liu, F.; Cao, C.; Cheng, B. A quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) study of aliphatic alcohols by the method od dividing the molecular structure into substructure. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011, 12, 2448-2462.
40. Golbraikh, A; Tropsha, A. Beware of q2! J. Mol. Graph. Model. 2002, 20, 269-276.
41. Golbraikh, A; Shen, M.; Xiao, Z.; Xiao, Y.D.; Lee, K.H.; Tropsha, A. Rational selection of training and test sets for the development of validated QSAR models. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 241-253.