4.4 Article

Categorical QSAR models for skin sensitization based on local lymph node assay measures and both ground and excited state 4D-fingerprint descriptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTER-AIDED MOLECULAR DESIGN
卷 22, 期 6-7, 页码 345-366

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9190-y

关键词

skin sensitization; categorical QSAR models; excited state structures

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [1 R21 GM075775-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In previous studies we have developed categorical QSAR models for predicting skin-sensitization potency based on 4D-fingerprint (4D-FP) descriptors and in vivo murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) measures. Only 4D-FP derived from the ground state (GMAX) structures of the molecules were used to build the QSAR models. In this study we have generated 4D-FP descriptors from the first excited state (EMAX) structures of the molecules. The GMAX, EMAX and the combined ground and excited state 4D-FP descriptors (GEMAX) were employed in building categorical QSAR models. Logistic regression (LR) and partial least square coupled logistic regression (PLS-CLR), found to be effective model building for the LLNA skin-sensitization measures in our previous studies, were used again in this study. This also permitted comparison of the prior ground state models to those involving first excited state 4D-FP descriptors. Three types of categorical QSAR models were constructed for each of the GMAX, EMAX and GEMAX datasets: a binary model (2-state), an ordinal model (3-state) and a binary-binary model (two-2-state). No significant differences exist among the LR 2-state model constructed for each of the three datasets. However, the PLS-CLR 3-state and 2-state models based on the EMAX and GEMAX datasets have higher predictivity than those constructed using only the GMAX dataset. These EMAX and GMAX categorical models are also more significant and predictive than corresponding models built in our previous QSAR studies of LLNA skin-sensitization measures.

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