The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Information Content of 2D and 3D Structural Descriptors Relevant to Ligand-Receptor Binding
Abstract
We have previously studied the ability of various structural descriptors to distinguish between biologically active and inactive compounds (ref 1). This paper examines the degree to which these descriptors encode information relevant to the forces of ligand-receptor binding, namely hydrophobic, dispersion, electrostatic, steric, and hydrogen bonding interactions. This is assessed by the ability to accurately predict values for physical properties of a structure related to each of the interactions, from the known values for other structures which are shown to be structurally similar to the first by the descriptor in question. Our results suggest that the differences we observed in the ability of descriptors to separate active from inactive molecules may be explained by the degree to which they encode information relevant to ligand-receptor binding. In particular we found that the MACCS structural key descriptor implicitly contains a great deal of information relevant to each type of interaction.
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
Willett, P., Barnard, J. M., & Downs, G. M. (1998) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci9800211 · Cited by 1,765
Walters, W. P., Stahl, M. T., & Murcko, M. A. (1998) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(97)01163-x · Cited by 991
Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints
Willett, P. (2006) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2006.10.005 · Cited by 849
Do Structurally Similar Molecules Have Similar Biological Activity?
Martin, Y. C., Kofron, J. L., & Traphagen, L. M. (2002) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm020155c · Cited by 806
Self-citationMolecular Recognition and Docking Algorithms
Brooijmans, N., & Kuntz, I. D. (2003) · Annual Review of Biophysics and Biomolecular Structure · doi:10.1146/annurev.biophys.32.110601.142532 · Cited by 788
Machine learning bandgaps of double perovskites
Pilania, G., Mannodi-Kanakkithodi, A., Uberuaga, B. P., Ramprasad, R., Gubernatis, J. E., & Lookman, T. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep19375 · Cited by 518
FRED and HYBRID docking performance on standardized datasets
McGann, M. (2012) · Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design · doi:10.1007/s10822-012-9584-8 · Cited by 503
Convolutional embedding of attributed molecular graphs for physical property prediction
Coley, C. W., Barzilay, R., Green, W. H., Jaakkola, T. S., & Jensen, K. F. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00601 · Cited by 470
Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods?
Sheridan, R. (2002) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(02)02411-x · Cited by 412
Frequent substructure-based approaches for classifying chemical compounds
Deshpande, M., Kuramochi, M., Wale, N., & Karypis, G. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2005.127 · Cited by 371
Sastry, M., Lowrie, J. F., Dixon, S. L., & Sherman, W. (2010) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci100062n · Cited by 332
Per Aspera Ad Astra : Application of Simplex Qsar Approach in Antiviral Research
Muratov, E. N., Artemenko, A. G., Varlamova, E. V., Polischuk, P. G., Lozitsky, V. P., Fedchuk, A. S., Lozitska, R. L., Gridina, T. L., Koroleva, L. S., Sil’nikov, V. N., et al. (2010) · Future Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.4155/fmc.10.194 · Cited by 64
Deep learning-based classification model for GPR151 activator activity prediction
Xu, H., Zhang, B., & Liu, Q. (2023) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-023-05369-y · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Brown, R. D., & Martin, Y. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1997-01-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-9
- ISSN
- 0095-2338 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2081050523
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 40.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
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.
