Cited by 76Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Universal Approach for Structural Interpretation of QSAR/QSPR Models

Polishchuk, Pavel G., Kuz'min, Victor E., Artemenko, Anatoly G., Muratov, Eugene N.·2013·Molecular Informatics

Abstract

In this paper we offer a novel approach for the structural interpretation of QSAR models. The major advantage of our developed methodology is its universality, i.e., it can be applied to any QSAR/QSPR model irrespective of chemical descriptors and machine learning methods applied. This universality was achieved by using only the information obtained from substructures of the compounds of interest to interpret model outcomes. Reliability of the offered approach was confirmed by the results of three case studies, including end‐points of different types (continuous and binary classification) and nature (solubility, mutagenicity, and inhibition of Transglutaminase 2), various fragment and whole‐molecule descriptors (Simplex and Dragon), and multiple modeling techniques (partial least squares, random forest, and support vector machines). We compared the global contributions of molecular fragments obtained using our methodology with known SAR rules derived experimentally. In all cases high concordance between our interpretation and results published by others was observed. Although the proposed interpretation approach could be easily extended to any type of descriptors, we would recommend using Simplex descriptors to achieve a larger variety of investigated molecular fragments. The developed approach is a good tool for interpretation of such “black box” models like random forest, neural networks, etc. Analysis of fragment global contributions and their deviation across a dataset could be useful for the identification of key fragments and structural alerts. This information could be helpful to maximize the positive influence of structural surroundings on the given fragment and to decrease the negative effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/minf.201300029

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Polishchuk, P. G., Kuz'min, V. E., Artemenko, A. G., & Muratov, E. N.
Affiliations
  • National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (UA)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Venue
Molecular Informatics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-16
Volume
32
Issue
9-10
Pages
843-853
ISSN
  • 1868-1743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-1751
OpenAlex
W2103252267
Cited by
76
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Molecular Informatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • NIH (GM66940)
  • EPA (RD 83382501, R832720)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
QSPR, structural interpretation, molecular fragments, substructure analysis, Dragon descriptors, solubility, mutagenicity, structural alerts, black-box models, random forest, support vector machine, partial least squares

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review