4.4 Review

Considerations and recent advances in QSAR models for cytochrome P450-mediated drug metabolism prediction

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 843-855

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9225-4

关键词

QSAR; drug metabolism prediction; dataset diversity; variable selection; random forest; multivariate adaptive regression splines; graph machine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) methods are urgently needed for predicting ADME/T (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity) properties to select lead compounds for optimization at the early stage of drug discovery, and to screen drug candidates for clinical trials. Use of suitable QSAR models ultimately results in lesser time-cost and lower attrition rate during drug discovery and development. In the case of ADME/T parameters, drug metabolism is a key determinant of metabolic stability, drug-drug interactions, and drug toxicity. QSAR models for predicting drug metabolism have undergone significant advances recently. However, most of the models used lack sufficient interpretability and offer poor predictability for novel drugs. In this review, we describe some considerations to be taken into account by QSAR for modeling drug metabolism, such as the accuracy/consistency of the entire data set, representation and diversity of the training and test sets, and variable selection. We also describe some novel statistical techniques (ensemble methods, multivariate adaptive regression splines and graph machines), which are not yet used frequently to develop QSAR models for drug metabolism. Subsequently, rational recommendations for developing predictable and interpretable QSAR models are made. Finally, the recent advances in QSAR models for cytochrome P450-mediated drug metabolism prediction, including in vivo hepatic clearance, in vitro metabolic stability, inhibitors and substrates of cytochrome P450 families, are briefly summarized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据