4.5 Article

Modeling and Prediction of Solvent Effect on Human Skin Permeability using Support Vector Regression and Random Forest

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 32, 期 11, 页码 3604-3617

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-015-1720-4

关键词

in silico prediction; quantitative structure-property relationship; skin permeability; solvent effect; support vector regression

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22136001] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The solvent effect on skin permeability is important for assessing the effectiveness and toxicological risk of new dermatological formulations in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics development. The solvent effect occurs by diverse mechanisms, which could be elucidated by efficient and reliable prediction models. However, such prediction models have been hampered by the small variety of permeants and mixture components archived in databases and by low predictive performance. Here, we propose a solution to both problems. We first compiled a novel large database of 412 samples from 261 structurally diverse permeants and 31 solvents reported in the literature. The data were carefully screened to ensure their collection under consistent experimental conditions. To construct a high-performance predictive model, we then applied support vector regression (SVR) and random forest (RF) with greedy stepwise descriptor selection to our database. The models were internally and externally validated. The SVR achieved higher performance statistics than RF. The (externally validated) determination coefficient, root mean square error, and mean absolute error of SVR were 0.899, 0.351, and 0.268, respectively. Moreover, because all descriptors are fully computational, our method can predict as-yet unsynthesized compounds. Our high-performance prediction model offers an attractive alternative to permeability experiments for pharmaceutical and cosmetic candidate screening and optimizing skin-permeable topical formulations.

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