The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Nine Programs Predicting p Ka Values of Pharmaceutical Substances
Open accessAbstract
Knowledge of the possible ionization states of a pharmaceutical substance, embodied in the pK(a) values (logarithm of the acid dissociation constant), is vital for understanding many properties essential to drug development. We compare nine commercially available or free programs for predicting ionization constants. Eight of these programs are based on empirical methods: ACD/pK(a) DB 12.0, ADME Boxes 4.9, ADMET Predictor 3.0, Epik 1.6, Marvin 5.1.4, Pallas pKalc Net 2.0, Pipeline Pilot 5.0, and SPARC 4.2; one program is based on a quantum chemical method: Jaguar 7.5. We compared their performances by applying them to 197 pharmaceutical substances with 261 carefully determined and highly reliable experimental pK(a) values from a literature source. The programs ADME Boxes 4.9, ACD/pK(a) DB 12.0, and SPARC 4.2 ranked as the top three with mean absolute deviations of 0.389, 0.478, and 0.651 and r(2) values of 0.944, 0.908, and 0.894, respectively. ACD/pK(a) DB 12.0 predicted all sites, whereas ADME Boxes 4.9 and SPARC 4.2 failed to predict 5 and 18 sites, respectively. The performance of the quantum chemical-based program Jaguar 7.5 was not as expected, with a mean absolute deviation of 1.283 and an r(2) value of 0.579, indicating the potential for further development of this type of approach to pK(a) prediction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Automated exploration of the low-energy chemical space with fast quantum chemical methods
Pracht, P., Bohle, F., & Grimme, S. (2020) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c9cp06869d · Cited by 2,363
The Methylation Effect in Medicinal Chemistry
Barreiro, E. J., Kümmerle, A. E., & Fraga, C. A. M. (2011) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr200060g · Cited by 1,017
In silico ADME/T modelling for rational drug design
Wang, Y., Xing, J., Xu, Y., Zhou, N., Peng, J., Xiong, Z., Liu, X., Luo, X., Luo, C., Chen, K., et al. (2015) · Quarterly Reviews of Biophysics · doi:10.1017/s0033583515000190 · Cited by 367
Xiao, F., Hanson, R. A., Golovko, S. A., Golovko, M. Y., & Arnold, W. A. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.estlett.8b00266 · Cited by 113
Metadata
- Authors
- Liao, C., & Nicklaus, M. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2009-12-04
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2801-2812
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W2047245810
- Cited by
- 179
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 10.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Nine Programs Predicting p Ka Values of Pharmaceutical Substances. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/ci900289x
- The paper
- Liao, C., & Nicklaus, M. C. (2009). Comparison of Nine Programs Predicting p Ka Values of Pharmaceutical Substances. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci900289x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.