3.8 Article

4D-QSAR analysis of a series of antifungal P450 inhibitors and 3D-pharmacophore comparisons as a function of alignment

期刊

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ci034142z

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [P01-GM 62195] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A training set of 55 antifungal P450 analogue inhibitors was used to construct receptor-independent four-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (RI 4D-QSAR) models. Ten different alignments were used to build the models, and one alignment yields a significantly better model than the other alignments. Two different methodologies were used to measure the similarity of the best 4D-QSAR models of each alignment. One method compares the residual of fit between pairs of models using the cross-correlation coefficient of their residuals of fit as a similarity measure. The other method compares the spatial distributions of the IPE types (3D-pharmacophores) of pairs of 4D-QSAR models from different alignments. Optimum models from several different alignments have nearly the same correlation coefficients, r(2), and cross-validation correlation coefficients, xv-r(2), yet the 3D-pharmacophores of these models are very different from one another. The highest 3D-pharmacophore similarity correlation coefficient between any pair of 4D-QSAR models from the 10 alignments considered is only 0.216. However, the best 4D-QSAR models of each alignment do contain some proximate common pharmacorphore sites. A test set of 10 compounds was used to validate the predictivity of the best 4D-QSAR models of each alignment. The best model from the 10 alignments has the highest predictivity. The inferred active sites mapped out by the 4D-QSAR models suggest that hydrogen bond interactions are not prevalent when this class of P450 analogue inhibitors binds to the receptor active site. This feature of the 4D-QSAR models is in agreement with the crystal structure results that indicate no ligand-receptor hydrogen bonds are formed.

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

3.8
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