Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T19:11:35.746Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computer Assisted Molecular Design: Overview of cModern Techniques in Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships (QSAR)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Roy Vaz
Roy Vaz*
Affiliation:
Hoechst Marion Roussel, 2110 E. Galbraith Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45215
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of computer assisted molecule design using quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR). In deriving a QSAR for a set of compounds, one should be aware of possible properties one can use to correlate with the activity of this set of compounds. The paper describes some of the traditional and also more recently used properties that can be calculated. The traditionally used properties have been those calculated for the substituent groups that were varied on a particular scaffold, whereas the more recently used properties are those calculated on the molecule as a whole. One of the most recently used properties for comparative purposes are fields around the molecules. The technique is termed comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). The statistical techniques used to correlate the properties with the activity are also described and, finally, a case study is described. The case study shows the application of traditional and 3D QSAR (CoMFA) techniques on some photosystem II inhibitors.

Keywords

2,4-D, (2,4 dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid2,4,5-T, (2,4,5 trichlorophenoxy)acetic acid3D-QSARCoMFAmetricsdescriptorsPLSPLSRPhotosystem II inhibitors
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 3 , September 1996 , pp. 718 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Burkert, U. and Allinger, N. L. 1972. Pages 1–78 in Molecular mechanics, Amer. Chem. Soc., Monograph 177, Amer. Chem. Soc., Washinton, D.C. Google Scholar
2. Clark, M. and Cramer, R. D. 1993. The probabiity of chance correlation using partial least squares (PLS), Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 12: 137–145.Google Scholar
3. Clark, M., Cramer, R. D. III, and Van Opdenbosh, N. 1989. Validation of the general purpose Tripos 5.2 force field, J. Comp. Chem. 10: 982–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Craig, P. N. 1972. Comparison of the Hansch and Free-Wilson approaches to structure-activity correlation, Pages 115–129 in Valkenburg, W. V., ed. Biological correlations—The Hansch approach, Adv. in Chem. Series 114, Amer. Chem. Soc., Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
5. Cramer III, R. D., Bunce, J. D., Patterson, D. E., and Frank, I. E. 1988. Crossvalidation, bootstrapping and partial least squares compared with multiple regression in conventional QSAR studies, Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat. 7: 18–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Cramer III, R. D., Patterson, D. E., and Bunce, J. D. 1988. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 110: 5959–5967.Google Scholar
7. Cramer III, R. D., DePriest, S. A., Patterson, D. E., and Hecht, P. 1993. The developing practice of comparative molecular field analysis, Pages 443–485 in Kubinyi, H., ed. 3D QSAR in drug design: Theory and applications, ESCOM science publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
8. Dammkoehler, R. A., Karasek, S. F., Shands, E.F.B., and Marshall, G. R. 1989. Constrained search of conformational hyperspace, J. Comp. Aided Mol. Design 3: 3–21.Google Scholar
9. Draber, W. 1992. Page 278 in Draber, W., Fujita, T., eds. Rational approaches to structure, activity and ecotoxicology of agrochemicals, CRC press, Boca Raton, FL.Google Scholar
10. Goodford, P. J. 1985. A computational procedure for determining energetically favorable binding sites on biologically important macromolecules, J. Med. Chem. 28: 849–857.Google Scholar
11. Hansch., C. and Leo, A. 1995. Ch 1 in Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and applications in chemistry and biology, Vol 1, Amer. Chem. Soc, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
12. Hansch., C. and Leo, A. 1995. Ch 12 in Exploring QSAR: Fundamentals and applications in chemistry and biology, Vol 1, Amer. Chem. Soc, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
13. Hansch, C., Leo, A., and Hoekman, D. 1995. Exploring QSAR: Hydrophobic, electronic and steric constants, Vol 2, Amer. Chem. Soc, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
14. Hansch, C., Kutter, E., and Leo, A. 1969. Homolytic constants in the correlation of chloramphenicol structure with activity, J. Med. Chem. 12: 746–749.Google Scholar
15. Hansch, C. and Muir, R. M. 1950. Ortho effect in plant growth-regulators, Plant Physiol. 25: 389–393.Google Scholar
16. Jackson, J. E. 1992. Ch 2 and 12 in Users guide to principal components, Wiley-Interscience, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Kier, L. B. and Hall, H. 1976. Molecular connectivity in chemistry and drug research, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
18. Kier, L. B. and Hall, H. 1986. Molecular connectivity in structure-activity analysis, John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
19. Klopman, G. 1984. Artificial intelligence approach to structure-activity studies. Computer automated structure evaluation of biological activity of organic molecules, J. Am. Chem. Soc 106: 7315–7321.Google Scholar
20. Klopman, G., Frierson, M. R., and Rosenkranz, H. S. 1990. The Structural basis of the mutageicity of chemicals in Salmonella typhimurium: The Gene-Tox database. Mutat. Res. 228: 1–50.Google Scholar
21. Learch, A. R. 1991. Pages 1–55 in Lipkowitz, K. B. and Boyd, D. B., Reviews in computational chemistry, Vol 2, VCH Publishers, New York, N.Y. Google Scholar
22. March, J. 1992. Ch I in Advanced organic chemistry: Reactions, mechanisms and structure, 4th ed., J. Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y. Google Scholar
23. Martin, Y., Bures, M., Dahaner, E., DeLazzer, J., Lico, I., and Pavlik, P. 1993. A fast new approach to pharmacophore mapping and its application to dopaminergic and benzodiazepine agonists, J. Comp. Aided Mol. Design 7: 83–102.Google Scholar
24. Mayer, D., Naylor, C. B., Motoc, I., and Marshall, G. R. 1987. A unique geometry of the active site of angiotensin-converting enzyme consistent with structure-activity studies, J. Comp. Aided Mol. Design 1: 3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Mitsutake, K., Iwamura, H., Shimiz, R., and Fujita, T. 1986. Quantitative structure-activity relationship of photosystem II. Inhibitors in chloroplasts and its link to herbicidal action, J. Agri. Food. Chem. 34: 725–732.Google Scholar
26. Murray, J. S. and Politzer, P. 1988. Electrostatic potentials of amine nitrogens as a measure of the total electron attracting tendencies of substituents, Chem. Phys. Lett. 152: 364–370.Google Scholar
27. Rekker, R. F. and Mannhold, R. 1992. Calculation of drug lipophilicity: The hydrophobic fragmental constant approach, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, Germany.Google Scholar
28. Sasaki, Y., Kubodera, H., Matuszaki, T., and Umeyama, H. 1991. Prediction of octanol/water partition coefficients using parameters derived from molecular structure, J. Pharmacobio-Dyn. 14: 207–214.Google Scholar
29. Tipker, J. and Verloop, A. 1984. Page 279 in Thomas, J.K., ed. The chemistry of excitation at interfaces, ACS Monograph 255, Amer. Chem. Soc., Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
30. Verloop, A. and Tipker, J. 1977. Page 63 in Buisman, J.A.K., ed. Biological activity and chemical structure, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.Google Scholar
31. Wold, S., Johansson, E., and Cocchi, M. 1993. PLS-Partial least squares projections to latent structures, Pages 523–550 in Kubinyi, H., ed. 3D QSAR in drug design: Theory methods and applications, ESCOM science publishers, The Netherlands.Google Scholar