4.7 Article

Major Source of Error in QSPR Prediction of Intrinsic Thermodynamic Solubility of Drugs: Solid vs Nonsolid State Contributions?

Journal

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 12, Issue 6, Pages 2126-2141

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5b00119

Keywords

thermodynamic intrinsic aqueous solubility; QSPR/QSAR; crystal packing contribution; free energy of fusion; free energy of mixing; error propagation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The main purpose of this study is to define the major limiting factor in the accuracy of the quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) models of the thermodynamic intrinsic aqueous solubility of the drug-like compounds. For doing this, the thermodynamic intrinsic aqueous solubility property was suggested to be indirectly measured from the contributions of solid state, Delta G(fus), and nonsolid state, Delta G(mix), properties, which are estimated by the corresponding QSPR models. The QSPR models of Delta G(fus) and Delta G(mix) properties were built based on a set of drug-like compounds with available accurate measurements of fusion and thermodynamic solubility properties. For consistency Delta G(fus) and Delta G(mix) models were developed using similar algorithms and descriptor sets, and validated against the similar test compounds. Analysis of the relative performances of these two QSPR models clearly demonstrates that it is the solid state contribution which is the limiting factor in the accuracy and predictive power of the QSPR models of the thermodynamic intrinsic solubility. The performed analysis outlines a necessity of development of new descriptor sets for an accurate description of the long-range order (periodicity) phenomenon in the crystalline state. The proposed approach to the analysis of limitations and suggestions for improvement of QSPR-type models may be generalized to other applications in the pharmaceutical industry.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available