Descriptors and their selection methods in QSAR analysis: paradigm for drug design

Drug Discovery Today

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2016, Pages 1291-1302

  Danishuddin, ^a   Khan, Asad U ^a  

^a ALIGARH MUSLIM UNIVERSITY   (India)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; MOLECULAR BIOLOGY; MOLECULAR FINGERPRINT; MOLECULAR SELECTION; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; REVIEW;

DRUG DESIGN; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84977621260     PISSN: 13596446     EISSN: 18785832     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.06.013     Document Type: Review

References (79)

1. Danishuddin, M., Khan, A.U., Structure based virtual screening to discover putative drug candidates: necessary considerations and successful case studies. Methods 71 (2015), 135–145.
2. Danishuddin, M., Khan, A.U., Virtual screening strategies: a state of art to combat with multiple drug resistance strains. MOJ. Proteomics Bioinform., 2, 2015, 00042.
3. Shahlaei, M., Descriptor selection methods in quantitative structure-activity relationship studies: a review study. Chem. Rev. 113 (2013), 8093–8103.
4. Murgueitio, M.S., et al. In silico virtual screening approaches for anti-viral drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 9 (2012), 219–225.
5. Cherkasov, A., et al. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?. J Med. Chem. 57 (2014), 4977–5010.
6. Borysov, P., et al. Activity prediction and identification of mis-annotated chemical compounds using extreme descriptors. J. Chemometrics. 30 (2016), 99–108.
7. Luo, M., et al. Comparative analysis of QSAR-based vs. chemical similarity based predictors of GPCR binding affinity. Mol. Inf. 35 (2015), 36–41.
8. Lavecchia, A., Machine-learning approaches in drug discovery: methods and applications. Drug Discov. Today. 3 (2015), 318–331.
9. Shi, P., et al. Top scoring pairs for feature selection in machine learning and applications to cancer outcome prediction. BMC Bioinform., 12, 2011, 375.
10. Goodarzi, M., et al. Feature selection methods in QSAR studies. J. AOAC Int. 95 (2012), 636–651.
11. Harary, F., Graph Theory. 1971, Addison-Wesley.
12. Roy, K., Topological descriptors in drug design and modeling studies. Mol. Diver. 8 (2004), 321–323.
13. Wiener, H., Structural determination of paraffin boiling points. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 69 (1947), 17–20.
14. Randic, M., On characterization of molecular branching. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 97 (1975), 6609–6614.
15. Kier, L.B., Indexes of molecular shape from chemical graphs. Acta Pharm. Jugosl. 36 (1986), 171–188.
16. Balaban, A.T., Highly discriminating distance-based topological index. Chem. Phys. Lett. 89 (1982), 399–404.
17. Gutman, I., Das, K.C., The first Zagreb index 30 years after. MATCH Commun. Math. Comput. Chem. 50 (2004), 83–89.
18. Kier, L.B., Hall, L.H., Molecular Connectivity in Structure Activity Analysis. 1986, Wiley.
19. Randic, M., Generalized molecular descriptors. J. Math. Chem. 7 (1991), 155–168.
20. Melville, J.L., Hirst, J.D., TMACC: interpretable correlation descriptors for quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007), 626–634.
21. Spowage, B.W., Interpretable correlation descriptors for quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Cheminf., 1, 2009, 22.
22. Todeschini, R., Consonni, V., Handbook of Molecular Descriptors. 2000, Wlley-VCH.
23. Ghose, A.K., Crippen, G.M., Atomic physicochemical parameters for three-dimensional structure-directed quantitative structure-activity relationships I. Partition coefficients as a measure of hydrophobicity. J. Comput. Chem. 4 (1986), 565–577.
24. Arnott, J.A., et al. Lipophilicity indices for drug development. J. Appl. Biopharm. Pharmacokinet., 1, 2013, 31.
25. Waterbeemd, H., Testa, B., The parameterization of lipophilicity and other structural properties in drug design. Adv. Drug. Res. 16 (1987), 85–225.
26. Waring, M.J., Lipophilicity in drug discovery. Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 5 (2010), 235–248.
27. Leo, A., et al. Calculation of hydrophobic constant (log P) from pi. and f constants. J. Med. Chem. 18 (1975), 865–868.
28. Winiwarter, S., et al. Hydrogen bonding descriptors in the prediction of human in vivo intestinal permeability. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 21 (2003), 273–287.
29. Alex, A., et al. Intramolecular hydrogen bonding to improve membrane permeability and absorption in beyond rule of five chemical space. Med. Chem. Commun. 2 (2011), 669–674.
30. Matsson, P., Cell permeability beyond the rule-of-5. Adv. Drug Deliv. 101 (2015), 42–61.
31. Bergströma, A.S., et al. Computational prediction of formulation strategies for beyond-rule-of-5 compounds. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 101 (2016), 6–21.
32. Huuskonen, J., et al. Prediction of drug solubility from molecular structure using a drug-like training set. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 19 (2008), 191–212.
33. Hou, T.J., ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 4. Prediction of aqueous solubility based on atom contribution approach. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), 266–275.
34. Skyner, R.E., et al. A review of methods for the calculation of solution free energies and the modelling of systems in solution. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17 (2015), 6174–6191.
35. Palmer, D.S., et al. Random forest models to predict aqueous solubility. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 47 (2007), 150–158.
36. Johnson, S.R., Zheng, W., Recent progress in the computational prediction of aqueous solubility and absorption. AAPS J. 8 (2006), 27–40.
37. Martínez, M.J., et al. Visual analytics in cheminformatics: user-supervised descriptor selection for QSAR methods. J. Cheminform., 7, 2015, 39.
38. Hggarty, S.J., et al. Mapping chemical space using molecular descriptors and chemical genetics: deacetylase inhibitors. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 7 (2004), 669–676.
39. Saeys, Y., et al. A review of feature selection techniques in bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 23 (2007), 2507–2517.
40. Venkatraman, V., et al. Evaluation of mutual information and genetic programming for feature selection in QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), 1686–1692.
41. Vogt, M., et al. Application of information: theoretic concepts in chemoinformatics. Information 1 (2010), 60–73.
42. Chrysostomou, K.A., et al. Combining multiple classifiers for wrapper feature selection. Int. J. Data Manage. Mining Model. 1 (2009), 91–102.
43. Xu, L., Zhang, W.J., Comparison of different methods for variable selection. Anal. Chim. Acta 446 (2001), 477–483.
44. Maldonado, S., Weber, R., A wrapper method for feature selection using support vector machines. Inf. Sci. 179 (2009), 2208–2217.
45. Soufan, O., et al. DWFS: a wrapper feature selection tool based on a parallel genetic algorithm. PLoS ONE, 10, 2015, e0117988.
46. Huang, C.L., Wang, C.J., A GA-based feature selection and parameters optimization for support vector machines. Expert Syst. Appl. 31 (2006), 231–240.
47. Klepsch, F., et al. Ligand and structure-based classification models for prediction of P-glycoprotein inhibitors. J. Chem. Inform. Model. 54 (2014), 218–229.
48. Guyon, I., et al. Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines. Mach. Learn. 46 (2002), 389–422.
49. Xie, Z., et al. Improved feature selection algorithm based on SVM and correlation. Adv. Neural Netw. 3971 (2006), 1373–1380.
50. Li, H., et al. Effect of selection of molecular descriptors on the prediction of blood-brain barrier penetrating and nonpenetrating agents by statistical learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 45 (2005), 1376–1384.
51. Rinaldi, F., Sciandrone, M., Feature selection combining linear support vector machines and concave optimization. Optim. Methods Softw. 25 (2010), 117–128.
52. Zhang, H., et al. Improving accuracy for cancer classification with a new algorithm for genes selection. BMC Bioinform., 13, 2012, 298.
53. Reddy, A.S., et al. Hybrid-genetic algorithm based descriptor optimization and QSAR models for predicting the biological activity of Tipranavir analogs for HIV protease inhibition. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 28 (2010), 852–862.
54. Zeng, Z., et al. A hybrid feature selection method based on rough conditional mutual information and Naive Bayesian classifier. ISRN Appl. Math., 2014, 1–11.
55. Rao, H.B., et al. Prediction of HIV-1 protease inhibitors using machine learning approaches. QSAR Comb. Sci. 28 (2009), 1346–1357.
56. Liu, Y.X., Prediction of core cancer genes using a hybrid of feature selection and machine learning methods. Genet. Mol. Res. 14 (2015), 8871–8882.
57. Willett, P., Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discov. Today. 11 (2006), 1046–1053.
58. Patterson, D.E., et al. Neighborhood behavior: a useful concept for validation of molecular diversity descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 39 (1996), 3049–3059.
59. Helal, K.Y., Public domain HTS fingerprints: design and evaluation of compound bioactivity profiles from PubChem's Bioassay Repository. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56 (2016), 390–398.
60. Rogers, D., Hahn, M., Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50 (2010), 724–754.
61. Duan, J., et al. Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 29 (2010), 157–170.
62. Bender, A., et al. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOLPRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), 1708–1718.
63. Geppert, H., et al. Support vector machine-based ranking significantly improves the effectiveness of similarity searching using 2D fingerprints and multiple reference compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), 742–746.
64. Nisius, B., et al. Development of a fingerprint reduction approach for bayesian similarity searching based on Kullback Leibler divergence analysis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49 (2009), 1347–1358.
65. Heikamp, K., Bajorath, J., How do 2D fingerprints detect structurally diverse active compounds? Revealing compound subset-specific fingerprint features through systematic selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51 (2011), 2254–2265.
66. Nisius, B., Bajorath, J., Fingerprints recombination-generating hybrid fingerprints for similarity searching from different fingerprints types. ChemMedChem. 4 (2009), 1859–1863.
67. Hosoya, H., Topological index. A newly proposal quantity characterizing the topological nature of structural isomers of saturated hydrocarbons. Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 44 (1971), 2332–2339.
68. Randic, M., The connectivity index 25 years after. J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20 (2001), 19–35.
69. Moreau, G., Broto, P., The autocorrelation of a topological structure: a new molecular descriptor. Nouv. J. Chim. 4 (1980), 359–360.
70. Kier, L.B., Shape indexes of orders one and three from molecular graphs. Quant. Struct-Act. Relat. 5 (1985), 1–7.
71. Randic, M., Novel molecular description for structure-property studies. Chem. Phys. Lett. 211 (1993), 478–483.
72. Gutman, I., A formula for the Wiener number of trees and its extension to graph containing cycles. Graph Theory Notes 27 (1994), 9–15.
73. Randić, M., Zupan, J., On interpretation of well-known topological indices. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001), 550–560.
74. Nikolic, S., et al. Wiener index revisited. Chem. Phys. Lett. 333 (2001), 319–321.
75. Li, X., et al. A novel set of Wiener indices. J. Mol. Graph Model 22 (2003), 161–172.
76. Furtula, B., et al. Augmented Zagreb index. J. Math. Chem. 48 (2010), 370–380.
77. Gupta, M., et al. Superaugmented eccentric distance sum connectivity indices: novel highly discriminating topological descriptors for QSAR/QSPR. Chem. Biol. Drug. Des. 79 (2012), 38–52.
78. Soltzberg, L.J., et al. Molecular transforms: a potential tool for structure-activity studies. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 99 (1977), 439–443.
79. Wagener, M., et al. Autocorrelation of molecular surface properties for modeling corticosteroid binding globulin and cytosolic Ah receptor activity by neural networks. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 117 (1995), 7769–7775.