4.6 Article

Proteochemometric Modeling of the Bioactivity Spectra of HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors by Introducing Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprint

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041698

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20903058, 30976611]
  2. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20100072120050]
  3. Natural Science Foundation of Ningbo [2010A610025]
  4. TCM modernization of Shanghai [09dZ1972800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

HIV-1 protease is one of the main therapeutic targets in HIV. However, a major problem in treatment of HIV is the rapid emergence of drug-resistant strains. It should be particularly helpful to clinical therapy of AIDS if one method can be used to predict antivirus capability of compounds for different variants. In our study, proteochemometric (PCM) models were created to study the bioactivity spectra of 92 chemical compounds with 47 unique HIV-1 protease variants. In contrast to other PCM models, which used Multiplication of Ligands and Proteins Descriptors (MLPD) as cross-term, one new cross-term, i.e. Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprint (PLIF) was introduced in our modeling. With different combinations of ligand descriptors, protein descriptors and cross-terms, nine PCM models were obtained, and six of them achieved good predictive abilities (Q(test)(2)> 0.7). These results showed that the performance of PCM models could be improved when ligand and protein descriptors were complemented by the newly introduced cross-term PLIF. Compared with the conventional cross-term MLPD, the newly introduced PLIF had a better predictive ability. Furthermore, our best model (GD & P & PLIF: Q(test)(2) = 0.8271) could select out those inhibitors which have a broad antiviral activity. As a conclusion, our study indicates that proteochemometric modeling with PLIF as cross-term is a potential useful way to solve the HIV-1 drug-resistant problem.

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

4.6
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