QSAR model to predict K_p,uu,brain with a small dataset, incorporating predicted values of related parameter

References

• United Nations New York, world population prospects, 2019. Available at https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (accessed January 29, 2021).
   Google Scholar
• M.S. Alavijeh, M. Chishty, M.Z. Qaiser, and A.M. Palmer, Drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics, the blood-brain barrier, and central nervous system drug discovery, NeuroRX 2 (2005), pp. 554–571. doi:10.1602/neurorx.2.4.554.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S.H. Preskorn, CNS drug development: Lessons learned part 3: Psychiatric and central nervous system drugs developed over the last decade-implications for the field, J. Psychiatr. Pract. 23 (2017), pp. 352–360. doi:10.1097/PRA.0000000000000258.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Tietz and B. Engelhardt, Brain barriers: Crosstalk between complex tight junctions and adherens junctions, J. Cell Biol. 209 (2015), pp. 492–506. doi:10.1083/jcb.201412147.
   Google Scholar
• X. Wang, X. Duan, G. Yang, X. Zhang, L. Deng, H. Zheng, C. Deng, J. Wen, N. Wang, C. Peng, X. Zhao, and Y. Wel, Honokiol crosses BBB and BCSFB, and inhibits brain tumor growth in rat 9L intracerebral gliosarcoma model and human U251 xenograft glioma model, PLoS One 6 (2011), pp. e18490. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0018490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W.M. Pardridge, Blood-brain barrier biology and methodology, J. Neurovirol. 5 (1999), pp. 556–559. doi:10.3109/13550289909021285.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Ayloo and C. Gu, Transcytosis at the blood-brain barrier, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 57 (2019), pp. 32–38. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2018.12.014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Liu and C. Chen, Strategies to optimize brain penetration in drug discovery, Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Devel. 8 (2005), pp. 505–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.C. Kalvass and T.S. Maurer, Influence of nonspecific brain and plasma binding on CNS exposure: Implications for rational drug discovery, Biopharm. Drug Dispos. 23 (2002), pp. 327–328. doi:10.1002/bdd.325.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.C. Kalvass, T.S. Maurer, and G.M. Pollack, Use of plasma and brain unbound fractions to assess the extent of brain distribution of 34 drugs: Comparison of unbound concentration ratios to in vivo p-glycoprotein efflux ratios, Drug Metab. Dispos. 35 (2007), pp. 660–666. doi:10.1124/dmd.106.012294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.G. Summerfield, A.J. Stevens, L. Cutler, M. Del Carmen Osuna, B. Hammond, S.P. Tang, A. Hersey, D.J. Spalding, and P. Jeffrey, Improving the in vitro prediction of in vivo central nervous system penetration: Integrating permeability, P-glycoprotein efflux, and free fractions in blood and brain, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 316 (2006), pp. 1282–1290. doi:10.1124/jpet.105.092916.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.C. Kalvass, E.R. Olson, M.P. Cassidy, D.E. Selley, and G.M. Pollack, Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of seven opioids in P-glycoprotein-competent mice: Assessment of unbound brain EC50,u and correlation of in vitro, preclinical, and clinical data, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 323 (2007), pp. 346–355. doi:10.1124/jpet.107.119560.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Di, H. Rong, and B. Feng, Demystifying brain penetration in central nervous system drug discovery, Miniperspective, J. Med. Chem. 56 (2013), pp. 2–12. doi:10.1021/jm301297f.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Liu, C. Chen, and B.J. Smith, Progress in brain penetration evaluation in drug discovery and development, J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 325 (2008), pp. 349–356. doi:10.1124/jpet.107.130294.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Hammarlund-Udenaes, M. Friden, S. Syvanen, and A. Gupta, On the rate and extent of drug delivery to the brain, Pharm. Res. 25 (2008), pp. 1737–1750. doi:10.1007/s11095-007-9502-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Reichel, Addressing central nervous system (CNS) penetration in drug discovery: Basics and implications of the evolving new concept, Chem. Biodivers. 6 (2009), pp. 2030–2049. doi:10.1002/cbdv.200900103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.S. Chaurasia, M. ller, E.D. Bashaw, E. Benfeldt, J. Bolinder, R. Bullock, P.M. Bungay, E.C.M. DeLange, H. Derendorf, W.F. Elmquist, M. Hammarlund-Udenaes, C. Joukhadar, D.L. Kellogg Jr, C.E. Lunte, C.H. Nordstrom, H. Rollema, R.J. Sawchuk, B.W.Y. Cheung, V.P. Shah, L. Stahle, U. Ungerstedt, D.F. Welty, and H. Yeo, AAPS-FDA workshop white paper: Microdialysis principles, application, and regulatory perspectives, J. Clin. Pharmacol. 47 (2007), pp. 589–603. doi:10.1177/0091270006299091.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.C. Orozco, K. Atkinson, S. Ryu, G. Chang, C. Keefer, J. Lin, K. Riccardi, R.K. Mongillo, D. Tess, K.J. Filipski, A.S. Kalgutkar, J. Litchfield, D. Scott, and L. Di, Structural attributes influencing unbound tissue distribution, J. Med. Chem. 185 (2020), pp. 111813. doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2019.111813.
   Google Scholar
• P. Andre, M. Debray, J.M. Scherrmann, and S. Cisternino, Clonidine transport at the mouse blood-brain barrier by a new H+ antiporter that interacts with addictive drugs, J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab. 29 (2009), pp. 1293–1304. doi:10.1038/jcbfm.2009.54.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• E. Dolgikh, I.A. Watson, P.V. Desai, G.A. Sawada, S. Morton, T.M. Jones, and T.J. Ramb, QSAR model of unbound brain-to-plasma partition coefficient, Kp,uu,brain: Incorporating P-glycoprotein efflux as a variable, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56 (2016), pp. 2225–2233. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00229.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Friden, S. Winiwarter, G. Jerndal, O. Bengtsson, H. Wan, U. Bredberg, M. Hammarlund-Udenaes, and M. Antonsson, Structure-brain exposure relationships in rat and human using a novel data set of unbound drug concentrations in brain interstitial and cerebrospinal fluids, J. Med. Chem. 52 (2009), pp. 6233–6243. doi:10.1021/jm901036q.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Chen, S. Winiwarter, M. Friden, M. Antonsson, and O. Engkvist, In silico prediction of unbound brain-to-plasma concentration ratio using machine learning algorithms, J. Mol. Graph. Model. 29 (2011), pp. 985–995. doi:10.1016/j.jmgm.2011.04.004.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Varadharajan, S. Winiwarter, L. Carlsson, O. Engkvist, A. Anantha, T. Kogej, M. Fridén, J. Stålring, and H. Chen, Exploring in silico prediction of the unbound brain-to-plasma drug concentration ratio: Model validation, renewal, and interpretation, J. Pharm. Sci. 104 (2015), pp. 1197–1206. doi:10.1002/jps.24301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Loryan, V. Sinha, C. Mackie, A. van Peer, W.H. Drinkenburg, A. Vermeulen, D. Heald, M. Hammarlund-Udenaes, and C.M. Wassvik, Molecular properties determining unbound intracellular and extracellular brain exposure of CNS drug candidates, Mol. Pharm. 12 (2015), pp. 520–532. doi:10.1021/mp5005965.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Liu, K. Dong, W. Zhang, S.G. Summerfield, and G.C. Terstappen, Prediction of brain:blood unbound concentration ratios in CNS drug discovery employing in silico and in vitro model systems, Drug Discov. Today 23 (2018), pp. 1357–1372. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.03.002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y.Y. Zhang, H. Liu, S.G. Summerfield, C.N. Luscombe, and J. Sahi, Integrating in silico and in vitro approaches to predict drug accessibility to the central nervous system, Mol. Pharm. 13 (2016), pp. 1540–1550. doi:10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.6b00031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S.S. Julia, Drug discovery world, (2013). Available at https://www.ddw-online.com/the-great-neuro-pipeline-brain-drain-why-big-pharma-hasnt-given-up-on-cns-disorders-909-201310.
   Google Scholar
• J. Ma, R.P. Sheridan, A. Liaw, G.E. Dahl, and V. Svetnik, Deep neural nets as a method for quantitative structure-activity relationships, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55 (2015), pp. 263–274. doi:10.1021/ci500747n.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Ramsundar, B. Liu, Z. Wu, A. Verras, M. Tudor, R.P. Sheridan, and V. Pande, Is multitask deep learning practical for pharma?, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57 (2017), pp. 2068–2076. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Wenzel, H. Matter, and F. Schmidt, Predictive multitask deep neural network models for ADME-Tox properties: Learning from large data sets, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59 (2019), pp. 1253–1268. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00785.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Xu, J. Ma, A. Liaw, R.P. Sheridan, and V. Svetnik, demystifying multitask deep neural networks for quantitative structure-activity relationships, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57 (2017), pp. 2490–2504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Sosnin, D. Karlov, I.V. Tetko, and M.V. Fedorov, Comparative study of multitask toxicity modeling on a broad chemical space, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59 (2019), pp. 1052–1072. doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00685.
   Google Scholar
• ADMET predictor, ver 9.0 Simulations Plus, Lancaster, USA. (2018). Available at https://www.simulations-plus.com/software/admetpredictor.
   Google Scholar
• Maestro, Schrödinger K.K., New York, USA. (2019). available at https://www.schrodinger.com/maestro.
   Google Scholar
• C.W. Yap, PaDEL-descriptor, ver 2.21; software available at http://www.yapcwsoft.com/dd/padeldescriptor.
   Google Scholar
• Dragon ver 7.0, Talete srl. Milano, Italy, (2021). Available at http://www.talete.mi.it/products/dragon_description.htm.
   Google Scholar
• K. Stepnik and W. Kukula-Koch, In silico studies on triterpenoid saponins permeation through the blood-brain barrier combined with postmortem research on the brain tissues of mice affected by astragaloside iv administration, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21 (2020), pp. 2534. doi:10.3390/ijms21072534.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• S. Sato, K. Tohyama, and Y. Kosugi, Investigation of MDR1-overexpressing cell lines to derive a quantitative prediction approach for brain disposition using in vitro efflux activities, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 142 (2020), pp. 105119. doi:10.1016/j.ejps.2019.105119.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R. Jansson, U. Bredberg, and M. Ashton, Prediction of drug tissue to plasma concentration ratios using a measured volume of distribution in combination with lipophilicity, J. Pharm. Sci. 97 (2008), pp. 2324–2339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Han, X. Zheng, Y. Wang, X. Sun, Y. Xiao, Y. Tang, and W. Qin, Random forest can accurately predict the development of end-stage renal disease in immunoglobulin a nephropathy patients, Ann. Transl. Med. 7 (2019), pp. 234. doi:10.21037/atm.2018.12.11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.M. Deist, F.J.W.M. Dankers, G. Valdes, R. Wijsman, I.C. Hsu, C. Oberije, T. Lustberg, J. van Soest, F. Hoebers, A. Jochems, I. El Naqa, L. Wee, O. Morin, D.R. Raleigh, W. Bots, J.H. Kaanders, J. Belderbos, M. Kwint, T. Solberg, R. Monshouwer, J. Bussink, A. Dekker, and P. Lambin, Machine learning algorithms for outcome prediction in (chemo)radiotherapy: An empirical comparison of classifiers, Med. Phys. 45 (2018), pp. 3449–3459. doi:10.1002/mp.12967.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Tan, W. Ma, F. Wu, and Q. Du, Random forest-based estimation of heavy metal concentration in agricultural soils with hyperspectral sensor data, Environ. Monit. Assess. 191 (2019), pp. 446. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7510-4.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• M. Al-Mukhtar, Random forest, support vector machine, and neural networks to modelling suspended sediment in Tigris River-Baghdad, Environ. Monit. Assess. 191 (2019), pp. 673. doi:10.1007/s10661-019-7821-5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• H. Singh, S. Singh, D. Singla, S.M. Agarwal, and G.P. Raghava, QSAR based model for discriminating EGFR inhibitors and non-inhibitors using Random forest, Biol. Direct 10 (2015), pp. 10. doi:10.1186/s13062-015-0046-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Random forest package information, Available at https://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/randomForest/index.html.
   Google Scholar
• Caret package information, Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/checks/check_results_caret.html.
   Google Scholar
• P.P. Graczyk, Gini coefficient: A new way to express selectivity of kinase inhibitors against a family of kinases, J. Med. Chem. 50 (2007), pp. 5773–5779. doi:10.1021/jm070562u.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Domingos, The role of Occam’s razor in knowledge discovery, Data Min. Knowl. Discov. 3 (1999), pp. 409–425. doi:10.1023/A:1009868929893.
   Google Scholar
• QikProp, Schrödinger K.K., New York, USA. (2019). available at http://gohom.win/ManualHom/Schrodinger/Schrodinger_2012_docs/general/qikprop_props.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• D.F. Veber, S.R. Johnson, H.Y. Cheng, B.R. Smith, K.W. Ward, and K.D. Kopple, Molecular properties that influence the oral bioavailability of drug candidates, J. Med. Chem. 45 (2002), pp. 2615–2623. doi:10.1021/jm020017n.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.W. Fong, Permeability of the blood-brain barrier: Molecular mechanism of transport of drugs and physiologically important compounds, J. Membr. Biol. 248 (2015), pp. 9778–9779. doi:10.1007/s00232-015-9778-9.
   Google Scholar
• H. Kodaira, H. Kusuhara, E. Fuse, J. Ushiki, and Y. Sugiyama, Quantitative investigation of the brain-to-cerebrospinal fluid unbound drug concentration ratio under steady-state conditions in rats using a pharmacokinetic model and scaling factors for active efflux transporters, Drug Metab. Dispos. 42 (2014), pp. 983–989. doi:10.1124/dmd.113.056606.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R. Jansson, U. Bredberg, and M. Ashton, Prediction of drug tissue to plasma concentration ratios using a measured volume of distribution in combination with lipophilicity, J. Pharm. Sci. 97 (2008), pp. 2324–2329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y.E. Yun and A.N. Edginton, Correlation-based prediction of tissue-to-plasma partition coefficients using readily available input parameters, Xenobiotica 43 (2013), pp. 839–852. doi:10.3109/00498254.2013.770182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Xu, J. Ma, A. Liaw, R.P. Sheridan, and V. Svetnik, Demystifying multitask deep neural networks for quantitative structure-activity relationships, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57 (2017), pp. 2490–2504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar