Advertisement

Application of Quantum Similarity to QSAR

Chapter
  • 160 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Chemistry book series (LNC, volume 73)

Abstract

One of the most progressing subjects in present-day chemistry is the establishment of quantitative relationships between biological or pharmacological properties and molecular structure. This topic has become a solid subject matter, usually known as quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). Since Hansch and Fujita [142] performed the pioneering studies on QSAR, the advances in this matter have not ceased. The predictive capabilities of the earliest models were substantially improved when 3D structural descriptors were introduced, providing a powerful alternative to the use of extra-thermodynamical parameters in QSAR studies [143]. In addition, the definition of different quantitative similarity measures between two molecules proved a great aid in order to a source of 3D QSAR parameters acting as molecular descriptors.

Keywords

Partial Little Square Molecular Descriptor QSAR Model Molecular Alignment Quantum Similarity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 142.
    Hansch C, Fujita T (1964) ρ-σ-π Analysis. A method for correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc 86:1616–1626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 143.
    Martin YC (1978) Quantitative Drug Design. A Critical Introduction. Marcel Dekker, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 144.
    Cramer III RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD (1988) Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of Shape on Binding of Steroids to Carrier Proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959–5967CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 145.
    Good AC, So S-S, Richards WG (1993) Structure-Activity Relationships from Molecular Similarity Matrices. J Med Chem 36:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 146.
    Jain AN, Koile K, Chapman D (1994) Compass: Predicting Biological Activities from Molecular Surface Properties. Performance Comparisons on a Steroid Benchmark. J Med Chem 37:2315–2327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 147.
    Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T (1994) Molecular similarity indices in a comparative analysis (CoMSIA) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological activity. J Med Chem 37:4130–4146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 148.
    Silverman BD, Platt DE (1996) Comparative molecular moment analysis (CoMMA): 3D-QSAR without molecular superposition. J Med Chem 39:2129–2140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 149.
    Wold S, Johansson E, Cocchi M. (1993) PLS-Partial Least-Squares Projections to Latent Structures. In: Kubinyi H (ed) 3D QSAR in Drug Design. ESCOM, Leiden, pp 523–550Google Scholar
  9. 150.
    Tetko IV, Luik AI, Poda GI (1993) Application of Neural Networks in Structure-Activity Relationships of a Small Number of Molecules. J Med Chem 36:811–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 151.
    Ajay A (1993) A Unified Framework for Using Neural Networks to Build QSARs. J Med Chem 36:3565–3571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 152.
    Stuper AJ, Jurs C (1975) Classification of Psychotropic Drugsas Sedatives or Tranquilizers using Pattern Recognition Techniques. J Am Chem Soc 97:182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 153.
    Kowalski BR, Bender CF (1973) Pattern Recognition. II. Linear and Nonlinear Methods for Displaying Chemical Data. J Am Chem Soc 95:686–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 154.
    McFarland JW, Gans DJ (1987) Cluster Significance Analysis contrasted with three other quantitative structure-activity relationship models. J Med Chem 30:46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 155.
    Moriguchi I, Hirono S, Liu Q, Nakagome I (1992) Fuzzy Adaptive Least Squares and its application to Structure-Activity Studies. Quant Struct-Act Relat 11:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 156.
    Carbó R, Besalú E, Amat L, Fradera X (1995) Quantum molecular similarity measures (MQSM) as a natural way leading towards a theoretical foundation of quantitative structure-properties relationships (QSPR). J Math Chem 18:237–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 157.
    Montogmery DC, Peck EA (1992) Introduction to linear regression analysis. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 158.
    Amat L, Carbó-Dorca R, Ponec R (1999) Simple linear QSAR models based on Quantum Similarity Measures. J Med Chem 42:5169–5180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 159.
    Zupan J, Gasteiger J (1993) Neural Networks for Chemists. VCH, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  19. 160.
    Allen DM (1974) The relationship between variable selection and data augmentation and a method for prediction. Technometrics 16:125–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 161.
    Wold S, Eriksson L (1995) Statistical validation of QSAR results. In: Van de Waterbeemd H (ed) Chemometric methods in molecular design. VCH, New York, Vol 2, pp 309–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 162.
    Kier LB, Hall LH (1974) Molecular Connectivity and Drug Research. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 163.
    Hall LH, Kier LB (1991) The Molecular Connectivity Chi Indexes and Kappa Shape Indexes in Structure-Poperty Modelling. In: Lipkowitz KB, Boyd DB (eds) Reviews in Computational Chemistry II. VCH, New York, pp 367–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 164.
    Mihalic Z, Trinajstic N (1992) A Graph-Theoretical Approach to Structure-Property Relationships. J Chem Educ 69:701–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 165.
    Cho SJ, Tropsha A (1995) Cross-Validated R2-Guided Region Selection for Comparative Molecular Field Analysis: A Simple Method to Achieve Consistent Results. J Med Chem 38:1060–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 166.
    Kroemer TR, Hecht P (1995) Replacement of Steric 6-12 Potential-Derived Interaction energies by Atom-Based Indicator Variables in CoMFA Leads to Models of Higher Consistency. J Comput-Aided Mol Design 9:205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 167.
    Klebe G, Abraham U (1993) On the prediction of Binding Properties of Drug Molecules by Comparative Molecular Field Analysis. J Med Chem 36:70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 168.
    Sulea T, Oprea TI, Muresan S, Chan SL (1997) A Different Method for Steric Field Evaluation in CoMFA Improves Model Robustness. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 37:1162–1170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 169.
    Folkers G, Merz A, Rognan D (1993) CoMFA: Scope and Limitations. In: Kubinyi H (ed) 3D QSAR in Drug Design. ESCOM, Leiden, pp 583–618Google Scholar
  29. 170.
    Cramer III RD, DePriest SA, Patterson A, Hecht P (1993) The Developing of Comparative Molecular Field Analysis. In: Kubinyi H (ed) 3D QSAR in Drug Design. ESCOM, Leiden, pp 443–485Google Scholar
  30. 171.
    Simon Z (1992) Comparative molecular field analysis. Critical comments. Rev Roum Chem 37:323–325Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Computational Chemistry, Campus MontiliviUniversity of GironaGironaSpain

Personalised recommendations