On the Stability of CoMFA Models

Abrupt, smooth, and box methods for the calculation of electrostatic and steric field values in the comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) 3D QSAR technique are assessed on three diverse data sets of medicinal chemistry interest. While the standard CoMFA settings are robust to small changes in the position of the lattice, superior results may sometimes be obtained by use of only one field. However, if only the electrostatic field is used, then sometimes large differences between models are apparent. This appears to be due to a lack of column dropping, and these difficulties can be remedied by use of the box method.

[1]  P. Ettmayer,et al.  3D-quantitative structure-activity relationships of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 proteinase inhibitors: comparative molecular field analysis of 2-heterosubstituted statine derivatives-implications for the design of novel inhibitors. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  H. Broughton,et al.  Modified CoMFA methods for the analysis of antineoplastic effects of lignan analogues , 2000 .

[3]  Viera Lukacova,et al.  Multimode Ligand Binding in Receptor Site Modeling: Implementation in CoMFA , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[4]  Alexander Tropsha,et al.  The effect of region size on CoMFA analyses , 1999 .

[5]  A. Tropsha,et al.  Beware of q2! , 2002, Journal of molecular graphics & modelling.

[6]  M Pastor,et al.  Reliability of comparative molecular field analysis models: effects of data scaling and variable selection using a set of human synovial fluid phospholipase A2 inhibitors. , 1997, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  H. Kubinyi,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative similarity-activity relationships (3D QSiAR) from SEAL similarity matrices. , 1998, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  S. Wold,et al.  PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics , 2001 .

[9]  Renxiao Wang,et al.  All-Orientation Search and All-Placement Search in Comparative Molecular Field Analysis , 1998 .

[10]  G. Klebe,et al.  Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[11]  R. Cramer,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. , 1988, Journal of the American Chemical Society.

[12]  Weimin Zhang,et al.  Q-Chem 2.0: a high-performance ab initio electronic structure program package , 2000, J. Comput. Chem..

[13]  K. Neve,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis-based prediction of drug affinities at recombinant D1A dopamine receptors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.  Assessing Model Fit by Cross-Validation , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[15]  R. Cramer,et al.  Topomer CoMFA: a design methodology for rapid lead optimization. , 2003, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  R. Cramer,et al.  Validation of the general purpose tripos 5.2 force field , 1989 .

[17]  Eamonn F. Healy,et al.  Development and use of quantum mechanical molecular models. 76. AM1: a new general purpose quantum mechanical molecular model , 1985 .

[18]  Xiaojie Xu,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship analyses of a series of cinnamamides , 2001 .

[19]  K Schulten,et al.  VMD: visual molecular dynamics. , 1996, Journal of molecular graphics.

[20]  Matthew Clark,et al.  The Probability of Chance Correlation Using Partial Least Squares (PLS) , 1993 .

[21]  A Tropsha,et al.  Cross-validated R2-guided region selection for comparative molecular field analysis: a simple method to achieve consistent results. , 1995, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[22]  Douglas M. Hawkins,et al.  The Problem of Overfitting , 2004, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  K. Neve,et al.  CoMFA-based prediction of agonist affinities at recombinant wild type versus serine to alanine point mutated D2 dopamine receptors. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[24]  K F Koehler,et al.  Predictive binding of beta-carboline inverse agonists and antagonists via the CoMFA/GOLPE approach. , 1992, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  George W. A. Milne,et al.  QSAR of conformationally flexible molecules: Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of protein-tyrosine kinase inhibitors , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[26]  S. D. Jong.  SIMPLS: an alternative approach to partial least squares regression , 1993 .

[27]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  A Different Method for Steric Field Evaluation in CoMFA Improves Model Robustness , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[28]  Eugene A. Coats,et al.  The CoMFA Steroids as a Benchmark Dataset for Development of 3D QSAR Methods , 1998 .

[29]  J. Gasteiger,et al.  ITERATIVE PARTIAL EQUALIZATION OF ORBITAL ELECTRONEGATIVITY – A RAPID ACCESS TO ATOMIC CHARGES , 1980 .

[30]  Romano T. Kroemer,et al.  Replacement of steric 6–12 potential-derived interaction energies by atom-based indicator variables in CoMFA leads to models of higher consistency , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[31]  Ettore Novellino,et al.  A Critical Review of Recent CoMFA Applications , 1998 .

[32]  A. Tropsha,et al.  Beware of q 2 , 2002 .

[33]  Gerhard Klebe,et al.  A 3D QSAR Study on a Set of Dopamine D4 Receptor Antagonists , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[34]  Romano T. Kroemer,et al.  A new procedure for improving the predictiveness of CoMFA models and its application to a set of dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors , 1995, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[35]  J. Shao.  Linear Model Selection by Cross-validation , 1993 .