4.7 Article

QSAR and classification of murine and human soluble epoxide hydrolase inhibition by urea-like compounds

Journal

JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 46, Issue 6, Pages 1066-1080

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jm020269o

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIEHS NIH HHS [P30-ESO5707, P42-ES04699, R37-ES02710] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A data set of 348 urea-like compounds that inhibit the soluble epoxide hydrolase enzyme in mice and humans is examined. Compounds having IC50 values ranging from 0.06 to > 500 muM (murine) and 0.10 to > 500 muM (human) are categorized as active or inactive for classification, while quantitation is performed on smaller compound subsets ranging from 0.07 to 431,muM (murine) and 0.11 to 490 muM (human). Each compound is represented by calculated structural descriptors that encode topological, geometrical, electronic, and polar surface features. Multiple linear regression (MLR) and computational neural networks (CNNs) are employed for quantitative models. Three classification algorithms, k-nearest neighbor (kNN), linear discriminant analysis (LDA), and radial basis function neural networks (RBFNN), are used to categorize compounds as active or inactive based on selected data split points. Quantitative modeling of human enzyme inhibition results in a nonlinear, five-descriptor model with root-mean-square errors (log units of IC50 [muM]) of 0.616 (r(2) = 0.66), 0.674 (r(2) = 0.61), and 0.914 (r(2) = 0.33) for training, cross-validation, and prediction sets, respectively. The best classification results for human and murine enzyme inhibition are found using kNN. Human classification rates using a seven-descriptor model for training and prediction sets are 89.1% and 91.4%, respectively. Murine classification rates using a five-descriptor model for training and prediction sets are 91.5% and 88.6%, respectively.

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