4.6 Article

An Empirical Additive Model for Aqueous Solubility Computation: Success and Limitations

期刊

ACTA PHYSICO-CHIMICA SINICA
卷 28, 期 10, 页码 2249-2257

出版社

PEKING UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3866/PKU.WHXB201209171

关键词

Aqueous solubility; Additive model; XLOGS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81172984, 21072213, 21002117, 21102168, 21102165]
  2. National High-Tech Research and Development Program of China (863) [2012AA020308]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have developed a new empirical model, namely XLOGS, for computing aqueous solubility (logS) of organic compounds. This model is essentially an additive model, which employs a total of 83 atom/group types and three correction factors as descriptors. Furthermore, it computes the logS value of a query compound by using the known logS value of an appropriate reference molecule as a starting point. XLOGS was calibrated on a training set of 4171 compounds with known logS values. The squared correlation coefficient (R-2) and standard deviation (SD) in regression were 0.82 and 0.96 log units, respectively. The entire training set was further split into one subset containing liquid compounds only and another subset containing solid compounds only. Regression results of XLOGS were obviously better on the former subset (SD=0.65 vs 0.94 log units). The difference between log1/S and logP (partition coefficient, the ratio of concentrations of a compound in a mixture of water and n-octanol at equilibrium) was used as an indicator to investigate the performance of XLOGS on liquid compounds and solid compounds. Our results suggested that an additive model like XLOGS performed most satisfactorily when this difference was close to zero. Three other logS models, including Qikprop, MOE-logS, and ALOGPS, were also compared with XLOGS on an independent test set of 132 drug-like compounds. Put together, our study provides some general guidance for applying additive models to computation of aqueous solubility.

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