Cargando…
Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists
Histamine H3 receptor subtype has been the target of several recent drug development programs. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methods are used to predict the pharmaceutically relevant properties of drug candidates whenever it is applicable. The aim of this study was to compare t...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25317190 |
_version_ | 1782297508843618304 |
---|---|
author | Dastmalchi, Siavoush Hamzeh-Mivehroud, Maryam Asadpour-Zeynali, Karim |
author_facet | Dastmalchi, Siavoush Hamzeh-Mivehroud, Maryam Asadpour-Zeynali, Karim |
author_sort | Dastmalchi, Siavoush |
collection | PubMed |
description | Histamine H3 receptor subtype has been the target of several recent drug development programs. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methods are used to predict the pharmaceutically relevant properties of drug candidates whenever it is applicable. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive powers of three different QSAR techniques, namely, multiple linear regression (MLR), artificial neural network (ANN), and HASL as a 3D QSAR method, in predicting the receptor binding affinities of arylbenzofuran histamine H3 receptor antagonists. Genetic algorithm coupled partial least square as well as stepwise multiple regression methods were used to select a number of calculated molecular descriptors to be used in MLR and ANN-based QSAR studies. Using the leave-group-out cross-validation technique, the performances of the MLR and ANN methods were evaluated. The calculated values for the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), ranging from 2.9 to 3.6, and standard deviation of error of prediction (SDEP), ranging from 0.31 to 0.36, for both MLR and ANN methods were statistically comparable, indicating that both methods perform equally well in predicting the binding affinities of the studied compounds toward the H3 receptors. On the other hand, the results from 3D-QSAR studies using HASL method were not as good as those obtained by 2D methods. It can be concluded that simple traditional approaches such as MLR method can be as reliable as those of more advanced and sophisticated methods like ANN and 3D-QSAR analyses. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3876572 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38765722014-10-14 Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists Dastmalchi, Siavoush Hamzeh-Mivehroud, Maryam Asadpour-Zeynali, Karim Iran J Pharm Res Original Article Histamine H3 receptor subtype has been the target of several recent drug development programs. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methods are used to predict the pharmaceutically relevant properties of drug candidates whenever it is applicable. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive powers of three different QSAR techniques, namely, multiple linear regression (MLR), artificial neural network (ANN), and HASL as a 3D QSAR method, in predicting the receptor binding affinities of arylbenzofuran histamine H3 receptor antagonists. Genetic algorithm coupled partial least square as well as stepwise multiple regression methods were used to select a number of calculated molecular descriptors to be used in MLR and ANN-based QSAR studies. Using the leave-group-out cross-validation technique, the performances of the MLR and ANN methods were evaluated. The calculated values for the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), ranging from 2.9 to 3.6, and standard deviation of error of prediction (SDEP), ranging from 0.31 to 0.36, for both MLR and ANN methods were statistically comparable, indicating that both methods perform equally well in predicting the binding affinities of the studied compounds toward the H3 receptors. On the other hand, the results from 3D-QSAR studies using HASL method were not as good as those obtained by 2D methods. It can be concluded that simple traditional approaches such as MLR method can be as reliable as those of more advanced and sophisticated methods like ANN and 3D-QSAR analyses. Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2012 /pmc/articles/PMC3876572/ /pubmed/25317190 Text en © 2012 by School of Pharmacy, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Dastmalchi, Siavoush Hamzeh-Mivehroud, Maryam Asadpour-Zeynali, Karim Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists |
title | Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists |
title_full | Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists |
title_fullStr | Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists |
title_short | Comparison of Different 2D and 3D-QSAR Methods on Activity Prediction of Histamine H3 Receptor Antagonists |
title_sort | comparison of different 2d and 3d-qsar methods on activity prediction of histamine h3 receptor antagonists |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3876572/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25317190 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dastmalchisiavoush comparisonofdifferent2dand3dqsarmethodsonactivitypredictionofhistamineh3receptorantagonists AT hamzehmivehroudmaryam comparisonofdifferent2dand3dqsarmethodsonactivitypredictionofhistamineh3receptorantagonists AT asadpourzeynalikarim comparisonofdifferent2dand3dqsarmethodsonactivitypredictionofhistamineh3receptorantagonists |