4.5 Article

Prediction of passive blood-brain partitioning: Straightforward and effective classification models based on in silico derived physicochemical descriptors

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR GRAPHICS & MODELLING
卷 28, 期 8, 页码 899-903

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmgm.2010.03.010

关键词

Blood-brain barrier; Blood-brain partitioning; Log BB; Central nervous system; Linear discriminant analysis; QSAR

资金

  1. NIH
  2. NIDDK
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [ZIADK013039] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The distribution of compounds between blood and brain is a very important consideration for new candidate drug molecules. In this paper, we describe the derivation of two linear discriminant analysis (LDA) models for the prediction of passive blood-brain partitioning, expressed in terms of log BB values. The models are based on computationally derived physicochemical descriptors, namely the octanol/water partition coefficient (log P), the topological polar surface area (TPSA) and the total number of acidic and basic atoms, and were obtained using a homogeneous training set of 307 compounds, for all of which the published experimental log BB data had been determined in vivo. In particular, since molecules with log BB > 0.3 cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB) readily while molecules with log BB < -1 are poorly distributed to the brain, on the basis of these thresholds we derived two distinct models, both of which show a percentage of good classification of about 80%. Notably, the predictive power of our models was confirmed by the analysis of a large external dataset of compounds with reported activity on the central nervous system (CNS) or lack thereof. The calculation of straightforward physicochemical descriptors is the only requirement for the prediction of the log BB of novel compounds through our models, which can be conveniently applied in conjunction with drug design and virtual screenings. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

4.5
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