The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Molecular Similarity Indices in a Comparative Analysis (CoMSIA) of Drug Molecules to Correlate and Predict Their Biological Activity
Abstract
An alternative approach is reported to compute property fields based on similarity indices of drug molecules that have been brought into a common alignment. The fields of different physicochemical properties use a Gaussian-type distance dependence, and no singularities occur at the atomic positions. Accordingly, no arbitrary definitions of cutoff limits and deficiencies due to different slopes of the fields are encountered. The fields are evaluated by a PLS analysis similar to the CoMFA formalism. Two data sets of steroids binding to the corticosteroid-binding-globulin and thermolysin inhibitors were analyzed in terms of the conventional CoMFA method (Lennard-Jones and Coulomb potential fields) and the new comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA). Models of comparative statistical significance were obtained. Field contribution maps were produced for the different models. Due to cutoff settings in the CoMFA fields and the steepness of the potentials close to the molecular surface, the CoMFA maps are often rather fragmentary and not contiguously connected. This makes their interpretation difficult. The maps obtained by the new CoMSIA approach are superior and easier to interpret. Whereas the CoMFA maps denote regions apart from the molecules where interactions with a putative environment are to be expected, the CoMSIA maps highlight those regions within the area occupied by the ligand skeletons that require a particular physicochemical property important for activity. This is a more significant guide to trace the features that really matter especially with respect to the design of novel compounds.
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
QSAR Modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to?
Cherkasov, A., Muratov, E. N., Fourches, D., Varnek, A., Baskin, I. I., Cronin, M., Dearden, J., Gramatica, P., Martin, Y. C., Todeschini, R., et al. (2014) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm4004285 · Cited by 2,164
QSAR and 3D QSAR in drug design Part 1: methodology
Kubinyi, H. (1997) · Drug Discovery Today · doi:10.1016/s1359-6446(97)01079-9 · Cited by 357
Next generation 3D pharmacophore modeling
Schaller, D., Šribar, D., Noonan, T., Deng, L., Nguyen, T. N., Pach, S., Machalz, D., Bermudez, M., & Wolber, G. (2020) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1468 · Cited by 269
Interpretation of Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Models: Past, Present, and Future
Polishchuk, P. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00274 · Cited by 236
Generative machine learning for de novo drug discovery: A systematic review
Martinelli, D. D. (2022) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2022.105403 · Cited by 177
Metadata
- Authors
- Klebe, G., Abraham, U., & Mietzner, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1994-11
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 4130-4146
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2026610312
- Cited by
- 1,816
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.82
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Molecular Similarity Indices in a Comparative Analysis (CoMSIA) of Drug Molecules to Correlate and Predict Their Biological Activity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jm00050a010
- The paper
- Klebe, G., Abraham, U., & Mietzner, T. (1994). Molecular Similarity Indices in a Comparative Analysis (CoMSIA) of Drug Molecules to Correlate and Predict Their Biological Activity. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm00050a010
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.