The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Neighborhood Behavior: A Useful Concept for Validation of “Molecular Diversity” Descriptors
Abstract
When searching for new leads, testing molecules that are too "similar" is wasteful, but when investigating a lead, testing molecules that are "similar" to the lead is efficient. Two questions then arise. Which are the molecular descriptors that should be "similar"? How much "similarity" is enough? These questions are answered by demonstrating that, if a molecular descriptor is to be a valid and useful measure of "similarity" in drug discovery, a plot of differences in its values vs differences in biological activities for a set of related molecules will exhibit a characteristic trapezoidal distribution enhancement, revealing a "neighborhood behavior" for the descriptor. Applying this finding to 20 datasets allows 11 molecular diversity descriptors to be ranked by their validity for compound library design. In order of increasing frequency of usefulness, these are random numbers = log P = MR = strain energy < connectivity indices < 2D fingerprints (whole molecule) = atom pairs = autocorrelation indices < steric CoMFA fields = 2D fingerprints (side chain only) = H-bonding CoMFA fields.
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
U.S. FDA Approved Drugs from 2015–June 2020: A Perspective
Bhutani, P., Joshi, G., Raja, N., Bachhav, N., Rajanna, P. K., Bhutani, H., Paul, A. T., & Kumar, R. (2021) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jmedchem.0c01786 · Cited by 815
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
Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review
Scior, T., Bender, A., Tresadern, G., Medina-Franco, J. L., Martínez-Mayorga, K., Langer, T., Cuanalo-Contreras, K., & Agrafiotis, D. K. (2012) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/ci200528d · Cited by 438
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
Bender, A., Mussa, H. Y., Glen, R. C., & Reiling, S. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci0498719 · Cited by 322
Comprehensive prediction of drug-protein interactions and side effects for the human proteome
Zhou, H., Gao, M., & Skolnick, J. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep11090 · Cited by 138
Rojas-Cherto, M., Peironcely, J. E., Kasper, P. T., van der Hooft, J. J. J., de Vos, R. C. H., Vreeken, R., Hankemeier, T., & Reijmers, T. (2012) · Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1021/ac2034216 · Cited by 92
Wu, Y.-W., HuangFu, W.-C., Lin, T. E., Peng, C.-H., Tu, H.-J., Sung, T.-Y., Sung, T.-Y., Yen, S.-C., Pan, S.-L., & Hsu, K.-C. (2024) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.129074 · Cited by 15
(2001) · doi:10.1002/1521-3773(20010119)40:2<351::aid-anie351>3.0.co;2-6
Metadata
- Authors
- Patterson, D. E., Cramer, R. D., Ferguson, A. M., Clark, R. D., & Weinberger, L. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Medicinal Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 1996-01-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 3049-3059
- ISSN
- 0022-2623 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2021083597
- Cited by
- 509
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 35.56
- 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.
