A QSAR study of environmental estrogens based on a novel variable selection method

Molecules

Volumn 17, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 6126-6145

  Yi, Zhongsheng ^a,b   Zhang, Aiqian ^a,c  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b GUILIN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (China)

^c RESEARCH CENTER FOR ECO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES   (China)

Author keywords

Application domain; Estrogen; LogRBA; QSAR; Variable selection method based on variable interaction (VSMVI)

Indexed keywords

ESTROGEN; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CATTLE; CHEMISTRY; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; CATTLE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ESTROGENS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS SIMULATION; PROTEIN BINDING; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; RECEPTORS, ESTROGEN;

EID: 84861488424     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14203049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/molecules17056126     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Wolohan, P.; Reichert, D.E. CoMFA and docking study of novel estrogen receptor subtype selective ligands. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2003, 17, 313-328.
2. Sonnenschein, C.; Soto, A.M. An updated review of environmental estrogen and androgen mimics and antagonists. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 1998, 65, 143-150.
3. Lintelmann, J.; Katayama, A.; Kurihara, N.; Shore, L.; Wenzel, A. Endocrine disruptors in the environment. Pure Appl. Chem 2003, 75, 631-681.
4. Devillers, J. Endocrine Disruption Modeling; CRC Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
5. Bolger, R.; Wiese, T.E.; Ervin, K.; Nestich, S.; Checovich, W. Rapid Screening of environmental chemicals for estrogen receptor binding capacity. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998, 106, 551-557.
6. Devillers, J.; Marchand-Geneste, N.; Carpy, A.; Porcher, J.M. SAR and QSAR modeling of endocrine disruptors. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2006, 17, 393-412.
7. Fang, H.; Tong, W.; Welsh, W.; Sheehan, D. QSAR models in receptor-mediated effects: The nuclear receptor superfamily. J. Mol. Struc. Theochem 2003, 622, 113-125.
8. Schmieder, P.; Ankley, G.; Mekenyan, O.; Walker, J.; Bradbury, S. Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for prediction of estrogen receptor binding affinity of structurally diverse chemicals. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 1844-1854.
9. Wolpert, D. The relationship between Occam's razor and convergent guessing. Complex Syst. 1990, 4, 319-368.
10. Bell, D.; Wang, H. A formalism for relevance and its application in feature subset selection. Mach. Learn. 2000, 41, 175-195.
11. González, M.P.; Terán, C.; Saíz-Urra, L.; Teijeir, M. Variable selection methods in QSAR: An overview. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2008, 8, 1606-1627.
12. Tsygankova, I.G. Variable selection in QSAR models for drug design. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 2008, 4, 132-142.
13. Abraham, B.; Chipman, H.; Vijayan, K. Some risks in the construction and analysis of supersaturated designs. Technometrics 1999, 41, 135-141.
14. Smith, J.S.; Macina, O.T.; Sussman, N.B.; Luster, M.I.; Karol, M.H. A robust structure-activity relationship (SAR) model for esters that cause skin irritation in humans. Toxicol. Sci. 2000, 55, 215-222.
15. Liu, S.; Lu, J.-C.; Kolpin, D.W.; Meeker, W.Q. Analysis of environmental data with censored observations. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1997, 31, 3358-3362.
16. Liu, S.S.; Liu, H.L.; Yin, C.S.; Wang, L.S. VSMP: A novel variable selection and modeling method based on the prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 964-969.
17. Whitley, D.; Ford, M.; Livingstone, D. Unsupervised forward selection: a method for eliminating redundant variables. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 1160-1168.
18. Tibshirani, R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 1996, 58, 267-288.
19. Zheng, W.F.; Tropsha, A. Novel variable selection quantitative structure-property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 185-194.
20. Kubinyi, H. Variable selection in QSAR studies. I. An evolutionary algorithm. QSAR Comb. Sci. 1994, 13, 285-294.
21. Agrafiotis, D.; Cedeno, W. Feature selection for structure-activity correlation using binary particle swarms. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 1098-1107.
22. Shen, Q.; Jiang, J.H.; Tao, J.C.; Shen, G.L.; Yu, R.Q. Modified ant colony optimization algorithm for variable selection in QSAR modeling: QSAR studies of cyclooxygenase inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1024-1029.
23. Martens, H.A.; Dardenne, P. Validation and verification of regression in small data sets. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1998, 44, 99-121.
24. Naes, T. Leverage and influence measures for principal component regression. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1989, 5, 155-168.
25. Höskuldsson, A. Dimension of linear models. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 1996, 32, 37-55.
26. Efron, B. How biased is the apparent error rate of a prediction rule? J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1986, 81, 461-470.
27. Shao, J. Linear model selection by cross-validation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1993, 88, 486-494.
28. Stone, M. An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross-validation and Akaike's criterion. J. Roy. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodological) 1977, 39, 44-47.
29. Zhang, P. Model selection via multifold cross validation. Ann. Stat. 1993, 21, 299-313.
30. Tong, W.D.; Perkins, R.; Strelitz, R.; Collantes, E.R.; Keenan, S.; Welsh, W.J.; Branham, W.S.; Sheehan, D.M. Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) for estrogen binding to the estrogen receptor: Predictions across species. Environ. Health Perspect. 1997, 105, 1116-1124.
31. Brzozowski, A.; Pike, A.; Dauter, Z.; Hubbard, R.; Bonn, T.; Engström, O.; Öhman, L.; Greene, G.; Gustafsson, J.; Carlquist, M. Molecular basis of agonism and antagonism in the oestrogen receptor. Nature 1997, 389, 753-758.
32. Shiau, A.K.; Barstad, D.; Loria, P.M.; Cheng, L.; Kushner, P.J.; Agard, D.A.; Greene, G.L. The structural basis of estrogen receptor/coactivator recognition and the antagonism of this interaction by tamoxifen. Cell 1998, 95, 927-937.
33. Fang, H.; Tong, W.; Shi, L.M.; Blair, R.; Perkins, R.; Branham, W.; Hass, B.S.; Xie, Q.; Dial, S.L.; Moland, C.L.; et al. Structure-activity relationships for a large diverse set of natural, synthetic, and environmental estrogens. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2001, 14, 280-294.
34. Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V. Handbook of Molecular Descriptors; Wiley VCH: New York, NY, USA, 2000.
35. Todeschini, R.; Consonni, V. Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics; Wiley VCH: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
36. Tong, W.; Lowis, D.R.; Perkins, R.; Chen, Y.; Welsh, W.J.; Goddette, D.W.; Heritage, T.W.; Sheehan, D.M. Evaluation of quantitative structure-activity relationship methods for large-scale prediction of chemicals binding to the estrogen receptor. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1998, 38, 669-677.
37. Asikainen, A.H.; Ruuskanen, J.; Tuppurainen, K.A. Consensus kNN QSAR: A versatile method for predicting the estrogenic activity of organic compounds in silico. A comparative study with five estrogen receptors and a large, diverse set of ligands. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 6724-6729.
38. Tetko, I.; Gasteiger, J.; Todeschini, R.; Mauri, A.; Livingstone, D.; Ertl, P.; Palyulin, V.; Radchenko, E.; Zefirov, N.; Makarenko, A.; et al. Virtual computational chemistry laboratory- Design and description. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2005, 19, 453-463.
39. VCCLAB Virtual Computational Chemistry Laboratory Home Page. Available online: http://www.vcclab.org (accessed on 20 November 2011
40. Liu, S.S.; Liu, H.L.; Yin, C.S.; Wang, L.S. VSMP: A novel variable selection and modeling method based on the prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 964-969.
41. Farlow, S.J. The GMDH algorithm of ivakhnenko. Am. Stat. 1981, 35, 210-215.
42. Hawkins, D.; Basak, S.; Mills, D. Assessing model fit by cross-validation. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 579-586.
43. Cruciani, G.; Baroni, M.; Clementi, S.; Costantino, G.; Riganelli, D.; Skagerberg, B. Predictive ability of regression models. Part I: Standard deviation of prediction errors (SDEP). J. Chemom. 1992, 6, 335-346.
44. Baumann, K. Cross-validation as the objective function for variable-selection techniques. Trac-Trends Anal. Chem. 2003, 22, 395-406.
45. Xu, Q.-S.; Liang, Y.-Z. Monte carlo cross validation. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 56, 1-11.
46. Gramatica, P. Principles of QSAR models validation: Internal and external. QSAR Comb. Sci. 2007, 26, 694-701.
47. Netzeva, T.; Worth, A.; Aldenberg, T.; Benigni, R.; Cronin, M.; Gramatica, P.; Jaworska, J.; Kahn, S.; Klopman, G.; Marchant, C. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2005, 33, 1-19.
48. Jaworska, J.; Nikolova-Jeliazkova, N.; Aldenberg, T. QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set in descriptor space: A review. Altern. Lab. Anim. 2005, 33, 445-459.
49. Héberger, K. Quantitative structure-(chromatographic) retention relationships. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1158, 273-305.
50. Wold, S.; Eriksson, L. Statistical Validation of QSAR Results. In Chemometric Methods in Molecular Design; Waterbeemd, H.V.D., Ed.; Wiley VCH Publishers, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1995; Volume 2, pp. 309-318.
51. Mitra, I.; Saha, A.; Roy, K. Exploring quantitative structure-activity relationship studies of antioxidant phenolic compounds obtained from traditional Chinese medicinal plants. Mol. Simul. 2010, 36, 1067-1079.