4.7 Article

Nonlinear QSAR modeling for predicting cytotoxicity of ionic liquids in leukemia rat cell line: an aid to green chemicals designing

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
卷 22, 期 16, 页码 12699-12710

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-015-4526-3

关键词

Cytotoxicity; Leukemia rat cell line; Ionic liquids; Nonlinear QSARs; Structural diversity; Descriptors

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Safety assessment and designing of safer ionic liquids (ILs) are among the priorities of the chemists and toxicologists today. Computational approaches have been considered as appropriate methods for prior safety assessment of chemicals and tools to aid in structural designing. The present study is an attempt to investigate the chemical attributes of a wide variety of ILs towards their cytotoxicity in leukemia rat cell line IPC-81 through the development of nonlinear quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models in the light of the OECD principles for QSAR development. Here, the cascade correlation network (CCN), probabilistic neural network (PNN), and generalized regression neural networks (GRNN) QSAR models were established for the discrimination of ILs in four categories of cytotoxicity and their endpoint prediction using few simple descriptors. The diversity and nonlinearity of the considered dataset were evaluated through computing the Euclidean distance and Brock-Dechert-Scheinkman statistics. The constructed QSAR models were validated with external test data. The predictive power of these models was established through a variety of stringent parameters recommended in QSAR literature. The classification QSARs rendered the accuracy of >86 %, and the regression models yielded correlation (R-2) of >0.90 in test data. The developed QSAR models exhibited high statistical confidence and identified the structural elements of the ILs responsible for their cytotoxicity and, hence, could be useful tools in structural designing of safer and green ILs.

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

4.7
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