ArticleJournal of molecular modeling2007
Novel semi-automated methodology for developing highly predictive QSAR models: application for development of QSAR models for insect repellent amides.
Article in Journal of molecular modeling, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- In silico models for predicting vector control chemicals targeting Aedes aegypti.SAR and QSAR in environmental research · 2014Review
- Promising Aedes aegypti repellent chemotypes identified through integrated QSAR, virtual screening, synthesis, and bioassay.PloS one · 2013Article
- Mapping the Anopheles gambiae odorant binding protein 1 (AgamOBP1) using modeling techniques, site directed mutagenesis, circular dichroism and ligand binding assays.Biochimica et biophysica acta · 2012Article
- Current mathematical methods used in QSAR/QSPR studies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional 3D-QSAR models are built using global minimum conformations or quantum-mechanics based geometry-optimized conformations as bioactive conformers. QSAR models developed using the global minima as bioactive conformers, employing the GFA, PLS and G/PLS methodologies, gave good non-validated r(2) (0.898, 0.868 and 0.922) and performed well on an internal validation test with leave-one-out correlation q(2) (LOO) (0.902, 0.726 and 0.924), leave-10%-out correlation q(2) (L10O) (0.874, 0.728 and 0.883) and leave-20%-out q(2) (L20O) (0.811, 0.716 and 0.907). However, they showed poor predictive ability on an external data set with best predictive r(2) (Pred-r(2)) of 0.349, 0.139 and 0.204 respectively. A novel methodology to mine bioactive conformers, from clusters of conformations with good 3D-spatial representation around pharmacophoric moiety, furnishes highly predictive 3D-QSAR models. The best QSAR model (model A) showed r(2) of 0.989, q(2) (LOO) of 0.989, q(2) (L10O) of 0.980, q(2) (L20O) of 0.963 and Pred-r(2) on eight test compounds of 0.845. The methodology is based on mimicking the multi-way Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique by performing several automated sequential PLS analyses. The poses/shapes of the mined bioactive conformers provide valuable insight into the mechanism of action of the insect repellents. All of the repetitive tasks were automated using Tcl-based Cerius2 scripts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17048015What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.