Predicting binding affinities of diverse pharmaceutical chemicals to human serum plasma proteins using QSPR modelling approaches

References

• D.E. Mager, Target-mediated drug disposition and dynamics, Biochem. Pharmacol. 72 (2006), pp. 1–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. Zsila, I. Fitos, G. Bencze, G. Keri, and L. Orfi, Determination of human serum α1 acid glycoprotein and albumin binding of various marketed and preclinical kinase inhibitors, Curr. Med. Chem. 16 (2009), pp. 1964–1977.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N.A. Kratochwil, W. Huber, F. Müller, M. Kansy, and P.R. Gerber, Predicting plasma protein binding of drugs: A new approach, Biochem. Pharmacol. 64 (2002), pp. 1355–1374.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Urien, J.P. Tillement, and J. Barré, The significance of plasma-protein binding in drug research, in Pharmacokinetic Optimization in Drug Research, B. Testa, H. van de Waterbeemd, G. Folkers, and R. Guy, eds., Wiley-VCH, Zürich, 2001, pp. 189–197.
   Google Scholar
• G. Colmenarejo, In silico prediction of plasma and tissue protein binding, in Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry II, J.B. Taylor and D.J. Triggle, Vol. 5, Oxford, Elsevier, 2007, pp. 847–866.
   Google Scholar
• S.S. Jambhekar, Physicochemical and biopharmaceutical properties of drug substances and pharmacokinetics, in Foye's Principles of Medicinal Chemistry, W.O. Foye, T.L. Lemke, and D.A. Williams, eds., Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, New York, NY, 2008, pp. 247–250.
   Google Scholar
• T. Ghafourian and Z. Amin, QSAR models for the prediction of plasma protein binding, Bioimpacts 3 (2013), pp. 21–27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• T. Hanai, R. Miyazaki, E. Kamijima, H. Homma, and T. Kinoshita, Computational prediction of drug–albumin binding affinity by modeling liquid chromatographic interactions, Internet Electron. J. Mol. Des. 2 (2003), pp. 702–711.
   Google Scholar
• P.J. Hajduk, R. Mendoza, A.M. Petros, J.R. Huth, M. Bures, S.W. Fesik, and Y.C. Martin, Ligand binding to domain-3 of human serum albumin: A chemometric analysis, J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 17 (2003), pp. 93–102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Yamazaki and M. Kanaoka, Computational prediction of the plasma protein-binding percent of diverse pharmaceutical compounds, J. Pharm. Sci. 93 (2004), pp. 1480–1494.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.X. Xue, R.S. Zhang, H.X. Liu, X.J. Yao, M.C. Liu, Z.D. Hu, and B.T. Fan, QSAR models for the prediction of binding affinities to human serum albumin using the heuristic method and a support vector machine, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 1693–1700.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R.J. Votano, M. Parham, L.M. Hall, L.H. Hall, B.J. Kier, S. Oloff, and A. Tropsha, QSAR modelling of human serum protein binding with several modelling techniques utilizing structure-information representation, J. Med. Chem. 49 (2006), pp. 7169–7181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.L. Moda, C.A. Montanari, and D. Andricopulo, In silico prediction of human plasma protein binding using hologram QSAR, Lett. Drug Des. Discov. 4 (2007), pp. 502–509.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• H. Li, Z. Chen, X. Xu, X. Sui, T. Guo, W. Liu, and J. Zhang, Predicting human plasma protein binding of drugs using plasma protein interaction QSAR analysis (PPI-QSAR), Biopharm. Drug Dispos. 32 (2011), pp. 333–342.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Z. Zhivkova and I. Doytchinova, Quantitative structure–plasma protein binding relationships of acidic drugs, J. Pharm. Sci. 101 (2012), pp. 4627–4641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X.W. Zhu, A. Sedykh, H. Zhu, S.S. Liu, and A. Tropsha, The use of pseudo-equilibrium constant affords improved QSAR models of human plasma protein binding, Pharmaceut. Res. 30 (2013), pp. 1790–1798.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D. Ma, Y. Guo, J. Luo, X. Pu, and M. Li, Prediction of protein–protein binding affinity using diverse protein–protein interface features, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 138 (2014), pp. 7–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• V. Consonni, D. Ballabio, and R. Todeschini, Comments on the definition of the Q2 parameter for QSAR validation, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49 (2009), pp. 1669–1678.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, and P. Rai, Predicting acute aquatic toxicity of structurally diverse chemicals in fish using artificial intelligence approaches, Ecotox. Environ. Safe. 95 (2013), pp. 221–233.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Guidance Document on the Validation of (Quantitative) Structure–Activity Relationships [(Q)SAR] Models, ENV/JM/MONO 2 (2007), 2007, pp. 1–154.
   Google Scholar
• F. Anctil and N. Lauzon, Generalization for neural networks through data sampling and training procedures with applications to stream flow predictions, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 8 (2004), pp. 940–958.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.H. Snelder, N. Lamouroux, J.R. Leathwick, H. Pella, E. Sauquet, and U. Shanker, Predictive mapping of the natural flow regimes of France, J. Hydrol. 373 (2009), pp. 57–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, A. Kumar, and D. Mohan, Multispecies QSAR modeling for predicting the aquatic toxicity of diverse organic chemicals for regulatory toxicology, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 27 (2014), pp. 741–753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, and N. Basant, Predicting toxicities of ionic liquids in multiple test species – An aid in designing of green chemicals, RSC Adv. 4 (2014), pp. 64443–64456.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, and N. Basant, QSTR modeling for predicting aquatic toxicity of pharmacological active compounds in multiple test species for regulatory purpose, Chemosphere 120 (2015), pp. 680–689.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, and N. Basant, In silico prediction of cellular permeability of diverse chemicals using qualitative and quantitative QSAR modeling approaches, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 140 (2015), pp. 61–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Basant, S. Gupta, and K.P. Singh, Predicting toxicities of structurally diverse chemical pesticides in multiple aquatic test species using QSTR modeling approaches, Chemosphere 139 (2015), pp. 246–255.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Basant, S. Gupta, and K.P. Singh, Predicting toxicities of diverse chemical pesticides in multiple avian species using tree-based QSAR approaches for regulatory purposes, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55 (2015), pp. 1337–1348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.G. Dietterich, Ensemble methods in machine learning, Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2000 (1857), pp. 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• C.X. Zhang, J.S. Zhang, and G.W. Wang, An empirical study of using rotation forest to improve regressors, Appl. Math Comput. 195 (2008), pp. 618–629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Breiman, Bagging predictors, Mach. Learn. 24 (1996), pp. 123–140.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.H. Friedman, Stochastic gradient boosting, Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 38 (2002), pp. 367–378.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chemspider; available at www.chemspider.com.
   Google Scholar
• MOSES descriptor Community edition; available at http://www.molecular-networks.com/services/mosesdescriptors.
   Google Scholar
• C. Steinbeck, Y. Han, S. Kuhn, O. Horlacher, E. Luttmann, and E. Willighagen, The chemistry development kit (CDK): An open-source java library for chemo- and bioinformatics, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003), pp. 493–500.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• P.W. Manley, N. Stiefl, S.W. Cowan-Jacob, S. Kaufman, J. Mestan, M. Wartmann, M. Wiesmann, R. Woodmanb, and N. Gallagher, Structural resemblances and comparisons of the relative pharmacological properties of imatinib and nilotinib, Bioorg. Med. Chem. 18 (2010), pp. 6977–6986.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Y. Xue, H. Li, C.Y. Ung, C.W. Yap, and Y.Z. Chen, Classification of a diverse set of Tetrahymena pyriformis toxicity chemical compounds from molecular descriptors by statistical learning methods, Chem. Res. Toxicol. 19 (2006), pp. 1030–1039.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, and P. Rai, Predicting carcinogenicity of diverse chemicals using probabilistic neural network modeling approaches, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 272 (2013), pp. 465–475.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Yang, Y.H. Yang, B.B. Zhou, and A.Y. Zomaya, A review of ensemble methods in bioinformatics, Curr. Bioinform. 5 (2010), pp. 296–308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Lam and C.Y. Suen, Application of majority voting to pattern recognition: An analysis of its behavior and performance, IEEE Trans, Syst. Man Cybern. A Syst. Humans 27 (1997), pp. 553–568.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Pino-Mejias, M.D. Jimenez-Gamero, M.D. Cubiles-de-la-Vega, and A. Pascual-Acosta, Reduced bootstrap aggregating of learning algorithms, Pattern Recogn. Lett. 29 (2008), pp. 265–271.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K.P. Singh, S. Gupta, and D. Mohan, Evaluating influences of seasonal variations and anthropogenic activities on alluvial groundwater hydrochemistry using ensemble learning approaches, J. Hydrol. 511 (2014), pp. 254–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.F. Chenard and D. Caissie, Stream temperature modelling using neural networks: Application on Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada, Hydrol. Process. 22 (2008), pp. 3361–3372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I. Mitra, A. Saha, and K. Roy, Exploring quantitative structure–activity relationship studies of antioxidant phenolic compounds obtained from traditional Chinese medicinal plants, Mol. Simul. 36 (2010), pp. 1067–1079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.A. Cooper, R. Saracci, and P. Cole, Describing the validity of carcinogen screening test, Br. J. Cancer. 39 (1979), pp. 87–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B.W. Matthews, Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phase lysozyme, Biochim. Biophys. Acta 405 (1975), pp. 442–451.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.I. Lin, Assay validation using the concordance correlation coefficient, Biometrics 48 (1992), pp. 599–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.M. Shi, H. Fang, W. Tong, J. Wu, R. Perkins, R.M. Blair, W.S. Branham, S.L. Dial, C.L. Moland, and D.M. Sheehan, QSAR models using a large diverse set of estrogens, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41 (2001), pp. 186–195.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• G. Schuurmann, R. Ebert, J. Chen, B. Wang, and R. Kuhne, External validation and prediction employing the predictive squared correlation coefficient test set activity mean vs training set activity mean, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 48 (2008), pp. 2140–2145.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Roy, P. Chakraborty, I. Mitra, P.K. Ojha, S. Kar, and R.N. Das, Some case studies on application of “rm2” metrics for judging quality of quantitative structure–activity relationship predictions: Emphasis on scaling of response data, J. Comput. Chem. 34 (2013), pp. 1071–1082.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• N. Chirico and P. Gramatica, Real external predictivity of QSAR models: Part 2. New intercomparable thresholds for different validation criteria and the need for scatter plot inspection, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52 (2012), pp. 2044–2058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Tropsha, A. Golbraikh, and W.J. Cho, Development of kNN QSAR models for 3-arylisoquinoline antitumor agents, Bull. Korean. Chem. Soc. 32 (2011), pp. 2397–2404.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.I. Netzeva, A.P. Worth, A. Aldenberg, R. Benigni, M.T.D. Cronin, P. Gramatica, J.S. Jaworska, S. Kahn, G. Klopman, C.A. Marchant, G. Myatt, N. Nikolova-Jeliazkova, G.Y. Patliwicz, R. Perkins, D.W. Roberts, T.W. Schultz, D.P. Stanton, J.J.M. van de Sandt, W. Tong, G. Veith, and C. Yang, Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationship, ATLA 33 (2005), pp. 155–173.
   Google Scholar
• P. Gramatica, Principles of QSAR models validation: Internal and external, QSAR Comb. Sci. 26 (2007), pp. 694–701.
   Google Scholar
• P. Hajek, V. Olej, and R. Myskova, Forecasting stock prices using sentiment information in annual reports – A neural network and support vector regression approach, BAE 10 (2013), pp. 293–305.
   Google Scholar
• T. Kanungo and D. Orr, Predicting the readability of short web summaries, In ProceedingWSDM'09 Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2009, pp. 202–211, http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1498759.1498827.
   Google Scholar
• P. Stenberg, C.A. Bergstrom, K. Luthman, and P. Artursson, Theoretical predictions of drug absorption in drug discovery and development, Clin. Pharmacokinet. 41 (2002), pp. 877–899.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T.J. Hou, W. Zhang, K. Xia, X.B. Qiao, and X.J. Xu, ADME evaluation in drug discovery. 5. Correlation of Caco-2 permeation with simple molecular properties, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 1585–1600.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• P. Paixão, L.F. Gouveia, and J.A.G. Morais, Prediction of the in vitro permeability determined in Caco-2 cells by using artificial neural networks, Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 41 (2010), pp. 107–117.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G.M. Crippen, Chirality descriptors in QSAR, Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 4 (2008), pp. 259–264.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C. Suenderhauf, F. Hammann, and J. Huwyler, Computational prediction of blood-brain barrier permeability using decision tree induction, Molecules 17 (2012), pp. 10429–10445.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.D.I. Nuez and R. Rodríguez, Current methodology for the assessment of ADME-Tox properties on drug candidate molecules, Biotecnol. Apl. 25 (2008), pp. 97–110.
   Google Scholar
• N. Fjodorova, M. Vracko, M. Novic, A. Roncaglioni, and E. Benfenati, New public QSAR models for carcinogenicity, Chem. Cent. J. 4 (2010), pp. 1–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• F. Cheng, J. Shen, Y. Yu, W. Li, G. Liu, P.W. Lee, and Y. Tang, In silico prediction of Tetrahymena pyriformis toxicity for diverse industrial chemicals with substructure pattern recognition and machine learning methods, Chemosphere 82 (2011), pp. 1636–1643.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar