QSAR Modeling of the Blood–Brain Barrier Permeability for Diverse Organic Compounds
- 1.1k Downloads
Development of externally predictive Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship (QSAR) models for Blood–Brain Barrier (BBB) permeability.
Combinatorial QSAR analysis was carried out for a set of 159 compounds with known BBB permeability data. All six possible combinations of three collections of descriptors derived from two-dimensional representations of molecules as chemical graphs and two QSAR methodologies have been explored. Descriptors were calculated by MolconnZ, MOE, and Dragon software. QSAR methodologies included k-Nearest Neighbors and Support Vector Machine approaches. All models have been rigorously validated using both internal and external validation methods.
The consensus prediction for the external evaluation set afforded high predictive power (R 2 = 0.80 for 10 compounds within the applicability domain after excluding one activity outlier). Classification accuracies for two additional external datasets, including 99 drugs and 267 organic compounds, classified as permeable (BBB+) or non-permeable (BBB−) were 82.5% and 59.0%, respectively. The use of a fairly conservative model applicability domain increased the prediction accuracy to 100% and 83%, respectively (while naturally reducing the dataset coverage to 60% and 43%, respectively). Important descriptors that affect BBB permeability are discussed.
Models developed in these studies can be used to estimate the BBB permeability of drug candidates at early stages of drug development.
KEY WORDScombinatorial QSAR k-nearest neighbors model validation predictors of BBB permeability support vector machines
mean absolute error
National Institutes of Health
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
quantitative structure–activity relationship
support vector machines
We are grateful to Dr. Scott Oloff for his implementation of the SVM approach that was used in this study. We also thank Dr. J. Grier for his critical comments and his help with editing this manuscript. The studies reported in this paper have been supported by the NIH RoadMap grant GM076059.
- 4.R. C. Young, R. C. Mitchell, T. H. Brown, C. R. Ganellin, R. Griffiths, M. Jones, K. K. Rana, D. Saunders, I. R. Smith, N. E. Sore, and T. J. Wilks. Development of a new physicochemical model for brain penetration and its application to the design of centrally acting H2 receptor histamine antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 31:656–671 (1988).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.M. Vracko, V. Bandelj, P. Barbieri, E. Benfenati, Q. Chaudhry, M. Cronin, J. Devillers, A. Gallegos, G. Gini, P. Gramatica, C. Helma, P. Mazzatorta, D. Neagu, T. Netzeva, M. Pavan, G. Patlewicz, M. Randic, I. Tsakovska, and A. Worth. Validation of counter propagation neural network models for predictive toxicology according to the OECD principles: A case study. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 17:265–284 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.M. Olah, M. Mracec, L. Ostopovici, R. Rad, A. Bora, N. Hadaruga, I. Olah, M. Banda, Z. Simon, M. Mracec, and Y. I. Oprea. WOMBAT: World of Molecular Bioactivity, in chemoinformatics in drug discovery. Wiley-VCH, New York, 2004.Google Scholar
- 28.L. B. Kier, and L. H. Hall. Molecular connectivity in structure–activity analysis. Wiley, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
- 29.L. B. Kier, and L. H. Hall. Molecular connectivity in chemistry and drug research. Academic Press, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
- 35.L. H. Hall, B. K. Mohney, and L. B. Kier. The electrotopological state: Structure information at the atomic level for molecular graphs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 31:76–82 (1991).Google Scholar
- 37.L. B. Kier, and L. H. Hall. Molecular structure description: The electrotopological state. Academic Press, New York, 1999.Google Scholar
- 39.M. Petitjean. Applications of the radius–diameter diagram to the classification of topological and geometrical shapes of chemical compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 32:331–337 (1992).Google Scholar
- 42.C. Shannon, and W. Weaver. In mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1949.Google Scholar
- 46.Talete s.r.l. Dragon. [5.4.2006]. 2007. Milan (Italy).Google Scholar
- 47.R. Todeschini, and V. Consonni. Handbook of molecular descriptors. Wiley, Weinheim (Germany), 2000.Google Scholar
- 49.V. N. Vapnik. In the nature of statistical learning theory. Springer, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
- 53.L. Sachs. Applied statistics: A handbook of techniques. Springer, New York, 1984.Google Scholar
- 54.K. M. Mahar Doan, J. E. Humphreys, L. O. Webster, S. A. Wring, L. J. Shampine, C. J. Serabjit-Singh, K. K. Adkison, and J. W. Polli. Passive permeability and P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux differentiate central nervous system (CNS) and non-CNS marketed drugs. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 303:1029–1037 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 57.H. Zhu, A. Tropsha, D. Fourches, A. Varnek, E. Papa, P. Gramatica, T. Oberg, P. Dao, A. Cherkasov, and I. V. Tetko. Combinatorial QSAR modeling of chemical toxicants tested against tetrahymena pyriformis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. in press (2008).Google Scholar
- 62.L. H. Hall, and L. B. Kier. MDL QSAR modeling blood–brain barrier partitioning. http://www.mdl.com/products/pdfs/MDLQSARreprint.pdf. 2002.