.png){kind=icon}
Return
3D QSAR methods: Phase and catalyst compared
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
DOI：10.1021/ci7000082.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The programs Phase and Catalyst HypoGen are compared for their performance in determining three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships. Eight sets of compounds with measured activity were collected from the public literature and partitioned into suitable training and test sets by an automated procedure. A range of models is built with each program, and suggested parameter variations are investigated. The models are assessed by their ability to predict the activity of compounds in the test set, and it is demonstrated that the performance of Phase is better than or equal to that of Catalyst HypoGen, with the data sets and parameters used here. Additionally, compounds in two of the data sets are overlaid on crystallographic structures of similar ligands in complex with the target receptor, in order to guide pharmacophore generation by the two programs, but the resulting models do not perform better.
Keywords:
HUMAN GLUTAMINYL CYCLASE
MOLECULAR-FIELD ANALYSIS
SYNTHASE KINASE-3 GSK-3
POTENT INHIBITORS
BIOLOGICAL-ACTIVITY
PHARMACOPHORE MODELS
GENETIC ALGORITHM
CDK INHIBITORS
DATABASE
BINDING
Journal
IF:
5.3
Papers:
9.1K
Citations:
4.0W
Organization
No organization information available
Cited Papers
.png){kind=icon}
ShareSaveShareSaveComparison of conformational analysis techniques to generate pharmacophore hypotheses using catalyst
PREAI
ShareSaveShareSaveShareSave
View more