On a simple approach for determining applicability domain of QSAR models

Abstract Quantitative structure–activity/property/toxicity relationship (QSAR/QSPR/QSTR) modeling has been used in medicinal chemistry, material sciences, environmental fate modeling, risk assessment and computational toxicology for a long time. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has recommended that for application of validated QSAR models for prediction of new data points, there is a strict requirement of defining the applicability domain (AD) according to the Principle 3 . The AD is a theoretical region in chemical space encompassing both the model descriptors and modeled response which allows one to estimate the uncertainty in the prediction of a particular compound based on how similar it is to the training compounds employed in the model development. The AD is an important tool for reliable application of QSAR models, while characterization of interpolation space is significant in defining the AD. An attempt is made here to suggest a simple method for defining the X-outliers (in the case of the training set) and identifying the compounds that reside outside the AD (in the case of the test set) employing the basic theory of the standardization approach. Further, a standalone application named “Applicability domain using standardization approach” (available at http://dtclab.webs.com/software-tools and http://teqip.jdvu.ac.in/QSAR_Tools/ ) has been developed. The present study reports that the web application can be easily used for identification of the X-outliers for training set compounds and detection of the test compounds residing outside the AD using the descriptor pool of the training and test sets.

[1]  Paola Gramatica,et al.  Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external , 2007 .

[2]  Kunal Roy,et al.  Importance of Applicability Domain of QSAR Models , 2015 .

[3]  Kunal Roy,et al.  Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships in Drug Design, Predictive Toxicology, and Risk Assessment , 2015 .

[4]  Scott D. Kahn,et al.  Current Status of Methods for Defining the Applicability Domain of (Quantitative) Structure-Activity Relationships , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[5]  Georgia Melagraki,et al.  Enalos InSilicoNano platform: an online decision support tool for the design and virtual screening of nanoparticles , 2014 .

[6]  Frank R Burden,et al.  Quantitative structure-property relationship modeling of diverse materials properties. , 2012, Chemical reviews.

[7]  G. Melagraki,et al.  Enalos KNIME nodes: Exploring corrosion inhibition of steel in acidic medium , 2013 .

[8]  Anne Cooper,et al.  Prediction of Efficacious Inhalation Lung Doses via the Use of In Silico Lung Retention Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models and In Vitro Potency Screens , 2010, Drug Metabolism and Disposition.

[9]  G. W. Snedecor Statistical Methods , 1964 .

[10]  Kunal Roy,et al.  Development of classification and regression based QSAR models to predict rodent carcinogenic potency using oral slope factor. , 2012, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[11]  P. Popelier,et al.  Exploring simple, transparent, interpretable and predictive QSAR models for classification and quantitative prediction of rat toxicity of ionic liquids using OECD recommended guidelines. , 2015, Chemosphere.

[12]  Kunal Roy,et al.  QSTR with extended topochemical atom (ETA) indices. 16. Development of predictive classification and regression models for toxicity of ionic liquids towards Daphnia magna. , 2013, Journal of hazardous materials.

[13]  Nina Nikolova-Jeliazkova,et al.  QSAR Applicability Domain Estimation by Projection of the Training Set in Descriptor Space: A Review , 2005, Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA.

[14]  Kunal Roy,et al.  Predictive toxicology using QSAR: A perspective , 2010 .

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

[16]  John C Dearden,et al.  Guidelines for developing and using quantitative structure‐activity relationships , 2003, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[17]  Márcia M. C. Ferreira,et al.  Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: a QSPR study. Quantitative structure-property relationships. , 2001, Chemosphere.

[18]  Alessandro Giuliani,et al.  Putting the Predictive Toxicology Challenge Into Perspective: Reflections on the Results , 2003, Bioinform..

[19]  J. Dearden,et al.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? , 2014, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[20]  Igor V. Tetko,et al.  The perspectives of computational chemistry modeling , 2011, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[21]  Lars Carlsen,et al.  A QSAR/QSTR study on the human health impact of the rocket fuel 1,1-dimethyl hydrazine and its transformation products Multicriteria hazard ranking based on partial order methodologies. , 2009, Environmental toxicology and pharmacology.

[22]  Kunal Roy,et al.  QSAR modeling of toxicity of diverse organic chemicals to Daphnia magna using 2D and 3D descriptors. , 2010, Journal of hazardous materials.

[23]  Kunal Roy,et al.  First report on development of quantitative interspecies structure-carcinogenicity relationship models and exploring discriminatory features for rodent carcinogenicity of diverse organic chemicals using OECD guidelines. , 2012, Chemosphere.