Debunking the idea that ligand efficiency indices are superior to pIC50 as QSAR activities

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 56, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 2253-2262

  Sheridan, Robert P ^a  

^a MERCK RESEARCH LABORATORIES   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EFFICIENCY;

EFFICIENCY INDEX; NON HYDROGENS; PUBLIC DOMAINS; STATISTICAL ARTIFACTS;

LIGANDS;

LIGAND;

HUMAN; IC50; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

HUMANS; INHIBITORY CONCENTRATION 50; LIGANDS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84999266506     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00431     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Hopkins, A. L.; Groom, C. R.; Alex, A. Ligand Efficiency: A Useful Metric for Lead Selection Drug Discovery Today 2004, 9, 430-431 10.1016/S1359-6446(04)03069-7
2. Abad-Zapatero, C.; Metz, J. T. Ligand Efficiency Indices as Guideposts for Drug Discovery Drug Discovery Today 2005, 10, 464-469 10.1016/S1359-6446(05)03386-6
3. Shultz, M. D. Setting Expectations in Molecular Optimizations: Strengths and Limitations of Commonly Used Composite Parameters Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2013, 23, 5980-5991 10.1016/j.bmcl.2013.08.029
4. Kenny, P. W.; Leitao, A.; Montanari, C. A. Ligand Efficiency Metrics Considered Harmful. J J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2014, 28, 699-710 10.1007/s10822-014-9757-8
5. Sugaya, N. Training Based on Ligand Efficiency Improves Prediction of Bioactivities of Ligands and Drug Target Proteins J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 2525-2537 10.1021/ci400240u
6. Sugaya, N. Ligand Efficiency-Based Support Vector Regression Models for Improvement of Regression Models for Predicting Bioactivities of Ligands to Drug Target Proteins J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2014, 54, 2751-2763 10.1021/ci5003262
7. Li, J.; Bai, F.; Liu, H.; Gramatica, P. Ligand Efficiency Outperforms pIC50 on Both 2D MLR and 3D CoMFA Models: a Case Study on AR Antagonists Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 2015, 86, 1501-1517 10.1111/cbdd.12619
8. Cortes-Ciriano, I. Benchmarking the Predictive Power of Ligand Efficiency Indices In QSAR J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2016, 56, 1576-1587 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00136
9. Sheridan, R. P. Time-Split Cross-Validation as a Method for Estimating the Goodness of Prospective Prediction J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 783-790 10.1021/ci400084k
10. Dassault Systemes Biovia Pipeline Pilot Overview http://accelrys.com/products/collaborative-science/biovia-pipeline-pilot/ (accessed October 19, 2016).
11. Sadowski, J.; Gasteiger, J.; Klebe, G. Comparison of Automatic Three-Dimensional Model Builders Using 639 X-Ray Structures J. Chem. Inf. Model. 1994, 34, 1000-1008 10.1021/ci00020a039
12. Carhart, R. E.; Smith, D. H.; Venkataraghavan, R. Atom Pairs as Molecular Features in Structure-Activity Studies: Definition and Application J. Chem. Inf. Model. 1985, 25, 64-73 10.1021/ci00046a002
13. Kearsley, S. K.; Sallamack, S.; Fluder, E. M.; Andose, J. D.; Mosley, R. T.; Sheridan, R. P. Chemical Similarity Using Physiochemical Property Descriptors J. Chem. Inform. Comp. Sci. 1996, 36, 118-27 10.1021/ci950274j
14. Rogers, D.; Hahn, M. Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 742-754 10.1021/ci100050t
15. Chemical Computing Group QuaSAR descriptors https://www.chemcomp.com/journal/descr.htm (accessed October 19, 2016).
16. Svetnik, V.; Liaw, A.; Tong, C.; Culberson, J. C.; Sheridan, R. P.; Feuston, B. P. Random Forest: A Classification And Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1947-1958 10.1021/ci034160g
17. Breiman, L. Random Forests Machine Learning 2001, 45, 5-32 10.1023/A:1010933404324
18. Mevik, B.-H.; Wehrens, R. The pls Package: Principal Component and Partial Least Squares Regression in R J. Stat. Software 2007, 18, issue2 10.18637/jss.v018.i02
19. Ma, J.; Sheridan, R. P.; Liaw, A.; Dahl, G. E.; Svetnik, V. Deep Neural Networks as a Method for Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2015, 55, 263-274 10.1021/ci500747n