Decision trees versus support vector machine for classification of androgen receptor ligands

With the current concern of limiting experimental assays, increased interest now focuses on in silico models able to predict toxicity of chemicals. Endocrine disruptors cover a large number of environmental and industrial chemicals which may affect the functions of natural hormones in humans and wildlife. Structure-activity models are now increasingly used for predicting the endocrine disruption potential of chemicals. In this study, a large set of about 200 chemicals covering a broad range of structural classes was considered in order to categorize their relative binding affinity (RBA) to the androgen receptor. Classification of chemicals into four activity groups, with respect to their log RBA value, was carried out in a cascade of recursive partitioning trees, with descriptors calculated from CODESSA software and encoding topological, geometrical and quantum chemical properties. The hydrophobicity parameter (log P), Balaban index, and descriptors relying on charge distribution (maximum partial charge, nucleophilic index on oxygen atoms, charged surface area, etc.) appear to play a major role in the chemical partitioning. Separation of strongly active compounds was rather straightforward. Similarly, about 90% of the inactive compounds were identified. More intricate was the separation of active compounds into subsets of moderate and weak binders, the task requiring a more complex tree. A comparison was made with support vector machine yielding similar results. 1Presented at CMTPI 2007: Computational Methods in Toxicology and Pharmacology Integrating Internet Resources (Moscow, Russia, September 1–5, 2007).

[1]  Tena I. Katsaounis,et al.  Analyzing Multivariate Data , 2004, Technometrics.

[2]  Deborah A. Loughney,et al.  A comparison of progestin and androgen receptor binding using the CoMFA technique , 1992, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des..

[3]  Duane D. Miller,et al.  A ligand-based approach to identify quantitative structure-activity relationships for the androgen receptor. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[4]  L. Gray,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative structure--activity relationships for androgen receptor ligands. , 1996, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[5]  Markus A Lill,et al.  Impact of induced fit on ligand binding to the androgen receptor: a multidimensional QSAR study to predict endocrine-disrupting effects of environmental chemicals. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[6]  T. Bishop,et al.  Homology modeling using multiple molecular dynamics simulations and docking studies of the human androgen receptor ligand binding domain bound to testosterone and nonsteroidal ligands. , 2001, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[7]  R Serafimova,et al.  Androgen receptor binding affinity of pesticide "active" formulation ingredients. QSAR evaluation by COREPA method , 2002, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[8]  Vladimir N. Vapnik,et al.  The Nature of Statistical Learning Theory , 2000, Statistics for Engineering and Information Science.

[9]  B. Fan,et al.  QSAR study of natural, synthetic and environmental endocrine disrupting compounds for binding to the androgen receptor , 2005, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[10]  James Devillers,et al.  Neural Networks in QSAR and Drug Design , 1996 .

[11]  J. Devillers,et al.  Strengths and Weaknesses of the Backpropagation Neural Network in QSAR and QSPR Studies , 1996 .

[12]  H. Fang,et al.  Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) model using a large diverse set of natural, synthetic and environmental chemicals for binding to the androgen receptor , 2003, SAR and QSAR in environmental research.

[13]  N. Nikolova,et al.  Rule interpreter: a chemical language for structure-based screening , 2003 .

[14]  Jean-Pierre Doucet,et al.  Nonlinear SVM Approaches to QSPR/QSAR Studies and Drug Design , 2007 .

[15]  T. Nyrönen,et al.  Three-dimensional structure-activity relationships of nonsteroidal ligands in complex with androgen receptor ligand-binding domain. , 2005, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[16]  Hiromichi Yoshikawa,et al.  Structural basis for androgen receptor agonists and antagonists: interaction of SPEED 98-listed chemicals and related compounds with the androgen receptor based on an in vitro reporter gene assay and 3D-QSAR. , 2006, Bioorganic & medicinal chemistry.

[17]  G. Johnston,et al.  Chiral derivatives of 2-cyclohexylideneperhydro-4,7-methanoindenes, a novel class of nonsteroidal androgen receptor ligand: synthesis, X-ray analysis, and biological activity. , 2000, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[18]  Corinna Cortes,et al.  Support-Vector Networks , 1995, Machine Learning.

[19]  Weida Tong,et al.  Study of 202 natural, synthetic, and environmental chemicals for binding to the androgen receptor. , 2003, Chemical research in toxicology.