Cross-Validated R2 Guided Region Selection for CoMFA Studies

The Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) [ 1 ] approach was introduced in 1988. Since then, it has rapidly become one of the most widely used tools for threedimensional quantitative structure–activity relationship (3D QSAR) studies. Over the years, this approach has been applied to a wide variety of receptor and enzyme ligands (recently reviewed by Cramer et a l . [2] and Thibaut [3]). Undoubtedly, the further development of this method is of great importance and interest to many scientists working in the area of rational drug design. CoMFA methodology is based on the assumption that since, in most cases, the drug-receptor interactions are noncovalent, the changes in the biological activities or binding affinities of sample compounds correlate with changes in the steric and electrostatic fields of these molecules. In a standard CoMFA procedure, all molecules under investigation are structurally aligned first, and the steric and electrostatic fields around them are then sampled with probe atoms, usually sp carbon with +1 charge, on a rectangular grid that encompasses aligned molecules. The results of the field evaluation in every grid-point for every molecule in the dataset are placed in the CoMFA QSAR table which, therefore, contains thousands of columns. The analysis of this table by the means of standard multiple regression is practically impossible; however, the application of special multivariate statistical analysis routines, such as partial least squares (PLS) analysis and cross-validation ensures the statistical significance of the final CoMFA equation [ 1 ] . A cross-validated R (q) which is obtained as a result of this analysis serves as a quantitative measure of the predictability of the final CoMFA model. The statistical meaning of the q is different from that of the conventional R: the q value greater than 0.3 is considered significant [4]. Despite obviously successful and growing application of CoMFA in molecular design, several problems intrinsic to this methodology have persisted. Studies done by us [5] and others [1,6–9] revealed that CoMFA results can be extremely sensitive to a number of factors such as alignment rules, overall orientation of aligned compounds, lattice shifting, step size and the probe atom type. The problem of three-dimensional alignment has been the most notorious among others. Even with the development of automated and semiautomated alignment protocols, such as Active Analog Approach [10,11] and DISCO [12], and the opportunity to use, in some cases, the structural information about the target receptor [6,13], there is generally no standard recipe to align all molecules under consideration in a unique and unambiguous fashion. Our recent QSAR analysis of 60 acetylcholinesterase inhibitors is particularly illustrative with respect to

[1]  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.

[2]  A. Hopfinger Computer-assisted drug design. , 1985, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[3]  M. Miyamoto,et al.  Central Cholinergic Agents. Part 6. Synthesis and Evaluation of 3‐(1‐( Phenylmethyl)‐4‐piperidinyl)‐1‐(2,3,4,5‐tetrahydro‐1H‐1‐benzazepin‐8‐ yl)‐1‐propanones and Their Analogues as Central Selective Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors. , 1994 .

[4]  Tudor I. Oprea,et al.  Three-dimensional QSAR of human immunodeficiency virus (I) protease inhibitors. 1. A CoMFA study employing experimentally-determined alignment rules. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[5]  A Tropsha,et al.  Structure-based alignment and comparative molecular field analysis of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  G. Cruciani,et al.  Generating Optimal Linear PLS Estimations (GOLPE): An Advanced Chemometric Tool for Handling 3D‐QSAR Problems , 1993 .

[7]  Garland R. Marshall,et al.  The Conformational Parameter in Drug Design: The Active Analog Approach , 1979 .

[8]  Peter Willett,et al.  Similarity Searching in Files of Three-Dimensional Chemical Structures: Evaluation of the EVA Descriptor and Combination of Rankings Using Data Fusion , 1997, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[9]  Y. Martin Computer-assisted rational drug design. , 1991, Methods in enzymology.

[10]  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..

[11]  Yvonne C. Martin,et al.  A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists , 1993, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[12]  J. Regan,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships of 5-HT receptor binding data for tetrahydropyridinylindole derivatives: a comparison of the Hansch and CoMFA methods. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[13]  J. Blake,et al.  Novel benzisoxazole derivatives as potent and selective inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[14]  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.

[15]  T. Kitazawa,et al.  Synthesis of 2-imidazolidinylidenepropanedinitrile derivatives as stimulators of gastrointestinal motility. , 1993, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  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.

[17]  S. Cho,et al.  Antitumor agents. 163. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship study of 4'-O-demethylepipodophyllotoxin analogs using the modified CoMFA/q2-GRS approach. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  M. Huang,et al.  Harringtonine, an inhibitor of initiation of protein biosynthesis. , 1975, Molecular pharmacology.

[19]  A. Goldman,et al.  Atomic structure of acetylcholinesterase from Torpedo californica: a prototypic acetylcholine-binding protein , 1991, Science.

[20]  M Briley,et al.  Novel [2-(4-piperidinyl)ethyl](thio)ureas: synthesis and antiacetylcholinesterase activity. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

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

[22]  J. Sussman,et al.  Quaternary ligand binding to aromatic residues in the active-site gorge of acetylcholinesterase. , 1994, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[23]  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.

[24]  B D Silverman,et al.  Comparative molecular moment analysis (CoMMA): 3D-QSAR without molecular superposition. , 1996, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[25]  Jeffrey P. Jones,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship for inhibitors of cytochrome P4502C9. , 1996, Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals.

[26]  M. Miyamoto,et al.  Central cholinergic agents. 6. Synthesis and evaluation of 3-[1-(phenylmethyl)-4-piperidinyl]-1-(2,3,4,5-tetrahydro-1H-1-benzazepi n-8-yl)-1-propanones and their analogs as central selective acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. , 1994, Journal of medicinal chemistry.