QSPR modelling for prediction of glass transition temperature of diverse polymers

References

• H. Namazi, Polymers in our daily life, Bioimpacts 7 (2017), pp. 73–74.
   Google Scholar
• M. Rose, Nanoporous polymers: Bridging the gap between molecular and solid catalysts? ChemCatChem. 6 (2014), pp. 1166–1182.
   Google Scholar
• X. Du, Y. Sun, B. Tan, Q. Teng, X. Yao, C. Su, and W. Wang, Tröger’s base-functionalised organic nanoporous polymer for heterogeneous catalysis, Chem. Commun. 46 (2010), pp. 970–972.
   Google Scholar
• K. Jiang, T. Fei, and T. Zhang, Humidity sensing properties of LiCl-loaded porous polymers with good stability and rapid response and recovery, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 199 (2014), pp. 1–6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Jiang, D. Kuang, T. Fei, and T. Zhang, Preparation of lithium-modified porous polymer for enhanced humidity sensitive properties, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 203 (2014), pp. 752–758.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Li, X. Yang, L. Xia, M.I. Majeed, and B. Tan, Hollow microporous organic capsules, Sci. Rep. 3 (2013), p. 2128.
   Google Scholar
• M.R. Aguilar and J.S. Román, Smart Polymers and their Applications, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• D. van Krevelen, Properties of Polymer: Their Correlation with Chemical Structure; Their Numerical Estimation and Prediction from Additive Group Contributions, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• J. Meyer, Glass transition temperature as a guide to selection of polymers suitable for PTC materials, Polym. Eng. Sci. 13 (1973), pp. 462–468.
   Google Scholar
• J. Bicerano, Prediction of the properties of polymers from their structures, J. Macromol. Sci. Polymer Rev. 36 (1996), pp. 161–196.
   Google Scholar
• D.J. Livingstone and A.M. Davis, Drug Design Strategies: Quantitative Approaches, Royal Society of Chemistry, London, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• P. Gramatica, E. Giani, and E. Papa, Statistical external validation and consensus modeling: A QSPR case study for Koc prediction, J. Molec. Graph. Model. 25 (2007), pp. 755–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Yu, X. Wang, H. Wang, A. Liu, and C. Zhang, Prediction of the glass transition temperatures of styrenic copolymers using a QSPR based on the DFT method, J. Mol. Struct. Theochem. 766 (2006), pp. 113–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.S. Petrosyan, S. Kar, J. Leszczynski, and B. Rasulev, Exploring simple, interpretable, and predictive QSPR model of fullerene C60 solubility in organic solvents, J. Nanotoxicol. Nanomed. 2 (2017), pp. 28–43.
   Google Scholar
• J.C. Dearden, The history and development of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs), Int. J.  Quant. Struct.-Prop. Relat. 1(2016), pp. 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• A.R. Katritzky, S. Sild, V. Lobanov, and M. Karelson, Quantitative structure−property relationship (QSPR) correlation of glass transition temperatures of high molecular weight polymers, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 38 (1998), pp. 300–304.
   Google Scholar
• R. García-Domenech and J. de Julián-Ortiz, Prediction of indices of refraction and glass transition temperatures of linear polymers by using graph theoretical indices, J. Phys. Chem. B 106 (2002), pp. 1501–1507.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• X. Yu and X. Huang, A quantitative relationship between Tgs and chain segment structures of polystyrenes, Polímeros 27 (2017), pp. 68–74.
   Google Scholar
• J. Bicerano, Prediction of Polymer Properties, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• A.R. Katritzky, P. Rachwal, K.W. Law, M. Karelson, and V.S. Lobanov, Prediction of polymer glass transition temperatures using a general quantitative structure−property relationship treatment, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 36 (1996), pp. 879–884.
   Google Scholar
• C. Cao and Y. Lin, Correlation between the glass transition temperatures and repeating unit structure for high molecular weight polymers, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43 (2003), pp. 643–650.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• B.E. Mattioni and P.C. Jurs, Prediction of glass transition temperatures from monomer and repeat unit structure using computational neural networks, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 42 (2002), pp. 232–240.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• X. Chen, L. Sztandera, and H.M. Cartwright, A neural network approach to prediction of glass transition temperature of polymers, Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23 (2008), pp. 22–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.G. Mercader and P.R. Duchowicz, Encoding alternatives for the prediction of polyacrylates glass transition temperature by quantitative structure–property relationships, Mater. Chem. Phys. 172 (2016), pp. 158–164.
   Google Scholar
• A.G. Mercader, D.E. Bacelo, and P.R. Duchowicz, Different encoding alternatives for the prediction of halogenated polymers glass transition temperature by quantitative structure–property relationships, Int. J. Polym. Anal. Ch. 22 (2017), pp. 639–648.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Chen, F. Jabeen, B. Rasulev, M. Ossowski, and P. Boudjouk, A computational structure–property relationship study of glass transition temperatures for a diverse set of polymers, J. Polym. Sci. B Polym. Phys. 56 (2018), pp. 877–885.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Brandrup, E. Immergut, and W. McDowell, Polymer Handbook, Wiley, New York, 1975.
   Google Scholar
• A. Mauri, V. Consonni, M. Pavan, and R. Todeschini, Dragon software: An easy approach to molecular descriptor calculations, Match 56 (2006), pp. 237–248.
   Google Scholar
• C.W. Yap, PaDEL‐descriptor: An open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints, J. Comput. Chem. 32 (2011), pp. 1466–1474.
   Google Scholar
• D. Rogers and A.J. Hopfinger, Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure–activity relationships and quantitative structure–property relationships, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 34 (1994), pp. 854–866.
   Google Scholar
• Y. Fan, L.M. Shi, K.W. Kohn, Y. Pommier, and J.N. Weinstein, Quantitative structure–antitumor activity relationships of camptothecin analogues: Cluster analysis and genetic algorithm-based studies, J. Med. Chem. 44 (2001), pp. 3254–3263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.B. Darlington, Regression and Linear Models, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990.
   Google Scholar
• D. Baumann and K. Baumann, Reliable estimation of prediction errors for QSAR models under model uncertainty using double cross-validation, J. Cheminform. 6 (2014), p. 47.
   Google Scholar
• K. Roy and P. Ambure, The “double cross-validation” software tool for MLR QSAR model development, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 159 (2016), pp. 108–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Wold, M. Sjöström, and L. Eriksson, PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 58 (2001), pp. 109–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Ghose and V. Viswanadhan, Combinatorial Library Design and Evaluation: Principles, Software, Tools, and Applications in Drug Discovery, Taylor & Francis, New York, 2001.
   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.
   Google Scholar
• A. Golbraikh and A. Tropsha, Beware of q2! J. Mol. Graph. Model. 20 (2002), pp. 269–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Roy, P. Ambure, S. Kar, and P.K. Ojha, Is it possible to improve the quality of predictions from an “intelligent” use of multiple QSAR/QSPR/QSTR models? J. Chemom. 32 (2018), pp. e2992.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Roy, R.N. Das, P. Ambure, and R.B. Aher, Be aware of error measures. Further studies on validation of predictive QSAR models, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 152 (2016), pp. 18–33.
   Google Scholar
• V. Consonni and R. Todeschini, New spectral indices for molecule description, MATCH 60 (2008) pp. 3–14.
   Google Scholar
• J. Danielson, A. Jones, J. Gosselin, M. Natisin, and C. Surko, Interplay between permanent dipole moments and polarizability in positron-molecule binding, Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012), p. 022709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• V.H. Dalvi and P.J. Rossky, Molecular origins of fluorocarbon hydrophobicity, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 107 (2010), pp. 13603–13607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• T. Luechtefeld, A. Maertens, D.P. Russo, C. Rovida, H. Zhu, and T. Hartung, Analysis of public oral toxicity data from REACH registrations 2008–2014, Altex 33 (2016), pp. 111–122.
   Google Scholar
• G. OmPraba and D. Velmurugan, Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) analysis of a series of indole analogues as inhibitor for human group V secretory phospholipase A₂, Indian J. Biochem. Biophys. 43 (2006), pp. 154–159.
   Google Scholar
• R. Todeschini and V. Consonni, Molecular Descriptors for Chemoinformatics: Volume I: Alphabetical Listing/Volume II: Appendices, References, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 2009.
   Google Scholar
• T. Kureha, Y. Nishizawa, and D. Suzuki, Controlled separation and release of organoiodine compounds using poly(2-methoxyethyl acrylate)-analogue microspheres, ACS Omega 2 (2017), pp. 7686–7694.
   Google Scholar
• L. Nadareishvili, Polymers and Polymeric Materials for Fiber and Gradient Optics, VSP, Tokyo, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• K. Roy, Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationships in Drug Design, Predictive Toxicology, and Risk Assessment, IGI Global, Hershey, PA, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• R.O. Ebewele, Polymer Science and Technology, CRC Press, New York, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• S. Riahi, E. Pourbasheer, R. Dinarvand, M.R. Ganjali, and P. Norouzi, QSAR study of 2‐(1‐propylpiperidin‐4‐yl)‐1H‐benzimidazole‐4‐carboxamide as PARP inhibitors for treatment of cancer, Chem. Biol Drug Des. 72 (2008), pp. 575–584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. De, I. Adhikari, A. Nandy, A. Saha, and B.B. Goswami, In silico modelling of azole derivatives with tyrosinase inhibition ability: Application of the models for activity prediction of new compounds, Comput. Biol. Chem. 74 (2018), pp. 105–114.
   Google Scholar
• L. Saghaie, M. Shahlaei, A. Fassihi, A. Madadkar‐Sobhani, M.B. Gholivand, and A. Pourhossein, QSAR analysis for some diaryl‐substituted pyrazoles as ccr2 inhibitors by ga‐stepwise MLR, Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 77 (2011), pp. 75–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Roy and G. Ghosh, QSTR with extended topochemical atom indices. 2. Fish toxicity of substituted benzenes, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 44 (2004), pp. 559–567.
   Google Scholar
• U. SIMCA-P, 10.0, https://umetrics.com/ (last accessed on 25 Oct 2018), Umea, Sweden, 2002.
   Google Scholar
• N. Akarachantachote, S. Chadcham, and K. Saithanu, Cutoff threshold of variable importance in projection for variable selection, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 94 (2014), pp. 307–322.
   Google Scholar
• K. Roy, P. Ambure, and S. Kar, How precise are our quantitative structure–activity relationship derived predictions for new query chemicals? ACS Omega 3 (2018) pp. 11392–11406.
   Google Scholar
• S. Wold, M. Sjöström, and L. Eriksson, PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics, ‎Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 58 (2001), pp. 109–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar