Cargando…

Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges

The acid dissociation constant p K(a)is a very important molecular property, and there is a strong interest in the development of reliable and fast methods for p K(a)prediction. We have evaluated the p K(a)prediction capabilities of QSPR models based on empirical atomic charges calculated by the Ele...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vařeková, Radka Svobodová, Geidl, Stanislav, Ionescu, Crina-Maria, Skřehota, Ondřej, Bouchal, Tomáš, Sehnal, David, Abagyan, Ruben, Koča, Jaroslav
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-18
_version_ 1782271053016334336
author Vařeková, Radka Svobodová
Geidl, Stanislav
Ionescu, Crina-Maria
Skřehota, Ondřej
Bouchal, Tomáš
Sehnal, David
Abagyan, Ruben
Koča, Jaroslav
author_facet Vařeková, Radka Svobodová
Geidl, Stanislav
Ionescu, Crina-Maria
Skřehota, Ondřej
Bouchal, Tomáš
Sehnal, David
Abagyan, Ruben
Koča, Jaroslav
author_sort Vařeková, Radka Svobodová
collection PubMed
description The acid dissociation constant p K(a)is a very important molecular property, and there is a strong interest in the development of reliable and fast methods for p K(a)prediction. We have evaluated the p K(a)prediction capabilities of QSPR models based on empirical atomic charges calculated by the Electronegativity Equalization Method (EEM). Specifically, we collected 18 EEM parameter sets created for 8 different quantum mechanical (QM) charge calculation schemes. Afterwards, we prepared a training set of 74 substituted phenols. Additionally, for each molecule we generated its dissociated form by removing the phenolic hydrogen. For all the molecules in the training set, we then calculated EEM charges using the 18 parameter sets, and the QM charges using the 8 above mentioned charge calculation schemes. For each type of QM and EEM charges, we created one QSPR model employing charges from the non-dissociated molecules (three descriptor QSPR models), and one QSPR model based on charges from both dissociated and non-dissociated molecules (QSPR models with five descriptors). Afterwards, we calculated the quality criteria and evaluated all the QSPR models obtained. We found that QSPR models employing the EEM charges proved as a good approach for the prediction of p K(a)(63% of these models had R(2) > 0.9, while the best had R(2) = 0.924). As expected, QM QSPR models provided more accurate p K(a)predictions than the EEM QSPR models but the differences were not significant. Furthermore, a big advantage of the EEM QSPR models is that their descriptors (i.e., EEM atomic charges) can be calculated markedly faster than the QM charge descriptors. Moreover, we found that the EEM QSPR models are not so strongly influenced by the selection of the charge calculation approach as the QM QSPR models. The robustness of the EEM QSPR models was subsequently confirmed by cross-validation. The applicability of EEM QSPR models for other chemical classes was illustrated by a case study focused on carboxylic acids. In summary, EEM QSPR models constitute a fast and accurate p K(a)prediction approach that can be used in virtual screening. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1758-2946-5-18) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3663834
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36638342013-05-31 Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges Vařeková, Radka Svobodová Geidl, Stanislav Ionescu, Crina-Maria Skřehota, Ondřej Bouchal, Tomáš Sehnal, David Abagyan, Ruben Koča, Jaroslav J Cheminform Research Article The acid dissociation constant p K(a)is a very important molecular property, and there is a strong interest in the development of reliable and fast methods for p K(a)prediction. We have evaluated the p K(a)prediction capabilities of QSPR models based on empirical atomic charges calculated by the Electronegativity Equalization Method (EEM). Specifically, we collected 18 EEM parameter sets created for 8 different quantum mechanical (QM) charge calculation schemes. Afterwards, we prepared a training set of 74 substituted phenols. Additionally, for each molecule we generated its dissociated form by removing the phenolic hydrogen. For all the molecules in the training set, we then calculated EEM charges using the 18 parameter sets, and the QM charges using the 8 above mentioned charge calculation schemes. For each type of QM and EEM charges, we created one QSPR model employing charges from the non-dissociated molecules (three descriptor QSPR models), and one QSPR model based on charges from both dissociated and non-dissociated molecules (QSPR models with five descriptors). Afterwards, we calculated the quality criteria and evaluated all the QSPR models obtained. We found that QSPR models employing the EEM charges proved as a good approach for the prediction of p K(a)(63% of these models had R(2) > 0.9, while the best had R(2) = 0.924). As expected, QM QSPR models provided more accurate p K(a)predictions than the EEM QSPR models but the differences were not significant. Furthermore, a big advantage of the EEM QSPR models is that their descriptors (i.e., EEM atomic charges) can be calculated markedly faster than the QM charge descriptors. Moreover, we found that the EEM QSPR models are not so strongly influenced by the selection of the charge calculation approach as the QM QSPR models. The robustness of the EEM QSPR models was subsequently confirmed by cross-validation. The applicability of EEM QSPR models for other chemical classes was illustrated by a case study focused on carboxylic acids. In summary, EEM QSPR models constitute a fast and accurate p K(a)prediction approach that can be used in virtual screening. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1758-2946-5-18) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2013-04-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3663834/ /pubmed/23574978 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-18 Text en © Svobodová Vařeková et al.; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd. 2013 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Vařeková, Radka Svobodová
Geidl, Stanislav
Ionescu, Crina-Maria
Skřehota, Ondřej
Bouchal, Tomáš
Sehnal, David
Abagyan, Ruben
Koča, Jaroslav
Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges
title Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges
title_full Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges
title_fullStr Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges
title_full_unstemmed Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges
title_short Predicting pK(a) values from EEM atomic charges
title_sort predicting pk(a) values from eem atomic charges
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3663834/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574978
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-18
work_keys_str_mv AT varekovaradkasvobodova predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT geidlstanislav predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT ionescucrinamaria predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT skrehotaondrej predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT bouchaltomas predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT sehnaldavid predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT abagyanruben predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges
AT kocajaroslav predictingpkavaluesfromeematomiccharges