A comparative study of quantitative structure–activity relationship methods based on gallic acid derivatives

By using hologram quantitative structure–activity relationship (HQSAR) and comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) methods, the relationships between the structures of 49 gallic acid derivatives and their analgesic activity have been investigated to yield statistically reliable models with considerable predictive power. The best HQSAR model was generated using atoms, bond and connectivity as fragment distinction parameters and fragment size 5–7 from a hologram length of 307 with 3 components. High conventional r 2 and cross-validation r 2 values were obtained. CoMFA analyses varying lattice size and location, grid spacing, probe charges and using, Tripos standard and Indicator force field were performed. The best model was developed with 4 components using sp3-hybridized carbon atom with +1.0 charge as probe, grid spacing (2 Å), lattice offset (1.0, 3.0, -2.5). The CoMFA model showed a conventional correlation coefficient r 2 of 0.889 and a cross-validation equals to 0.633. The robustness and predictive ability of the HQSAR and CoMFA models have been validated by means of an external test set. The results indicate that both models possess high statistical quality in the prediction of analgesic potency of novel gallic acid analogs.

[1]  H. Park Choo,et al.  A comparative study of quantitative structure activity relationship methods based on antitumor diarylsulfonylureas. , 2001, European journal of medicinal chemistry.

[2]  Comparative molecular field analysis as a tool to evaluate mode of action of chemical hybridization agents. , 1999, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[3]  Richard E. Speece,et al.  Determining chemical toxicity to aquatic species , 1990 .

[4]  Clayton Springer,et al.  CoMFA and HQSAR of acylhydrazide cruzain inhibitors. , 2002, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[5]  R. Webster Homer,et al.  SYBYL Line Notation (SLN): A Versatile Language for Chemical Structure Representation , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[6]  Yu Chen,et al.  Evaluation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Methods for Large-Scale Prediction of Chemicals Binding to the Estrogen Receptor , 1998, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[7]  Kimito Funatsu,et al.  Rational choice of bioactive conformations through use of conformation analysis and 3-way partial least squares modeling , 2000 .

[8]  R. Ji,et al.  A 3D-QSAR study on ginkgolides and their analogues with comparative molecular field analysis. , 1998, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[9]  Weida Tong,et al.  QSAR Models Using a Large Diverse Set of Estrogens , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[10]  A. Zhang,et al.  Studies of 3D-quantitative structure-activity relationships on a set of nitroaromatic compounds: CoMFA, advanced CoMFA and CoMSIA. , 2002, Chemosphere.

[11]  G R Marshall,et al.  3D-QSAR: a current perspective. , 1995, Trends in pharmacological sciences.

[12]  L. Wang,et al.  Predicting toxicity of benzene derivatives by molecular hologram derived quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARS) , 2003, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[13]  A. Debnath,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study on cyclic urea derivatives as HIV-1 protease inhibitors: application of comparative molecular field analysis. , 1999, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  M. Jung,et al.  CoMFA of artemisinin derivatives: effect of location and size of lattice. , 2001, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[15]  S. Rault,et al.  Comparative Molecular Field Analysis of Chlorophenols. application in Ecotoxicology , 1994 .

[16]  H. Kubinyi Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) , 2002 .

[17]  J. McFarland,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis of anticoccidial triazines. , 1992, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  S. Rault,et al.  Applicability of CoMFA in ecotoxicology: a critical study on chlorophenols. , 1995, Ecotoxicology and environmental safety.

[19]  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.

[20]  A. Debnath,et al.  Mechanistic interpretation of the genotoxicity of nitrofurans (antibacterial agents) using quantitative structure-activity relationships and comparative molecular field analysis. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[21]  R. Ji,et al.  Computer-aided design, synthesis and biological assay of p-methylsulfonamido phenylethylamine analogues. , 2000, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry letters.

[22]  Atul Agarwal,et al.  3‐D QSAR for intrinsic activity of 5‐HT1A receptor ligands by the method of comparative molecular field analysis , 1993, J. Comput. Chem..

[23]  R. Yunes,et al.  Structure-activity relationships for the analgesic activity of gallic acid derivatives. , 2000, Farmaco.