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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dastmalchi, Siavoush, Hamzeh-Mivehroud, Maryam, Asadpour-Zeynali, Karim
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