ArticleBioinformation2008
CoMFA and CoMSIA 3D-QSAR analysis of DMDP derivatives as anti-cancer agents.
Article in Bioinformation, 2008. 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.
- A QSAR model of Olanzapine derivatives as potential inhibitors for 5-HT2A Receptor.Bioinformation · 2017Article
- 3D-QSAR AND CONTOUR MAP ANALYSIS OF TARIQUIDAR ANALOGUES AS MULTIDRUG RESISTANCE PROTEIN-1 (MRP1) INHIBITORS.International journal of pharmaceutical sciences and research · 2016Article
- Design and prediction of new anticoagulants as a selective Factor IXa inhibitor via three-dimensional quantitative structure-property relationships of amidinobenzothiophene derivatives.Drug design, development and therapy · 2015Article
- Identification of new novel scaffold for Aurora A inhibition by pharmacophore modeling and virtual screening.Molecular diversity · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA) and comparative molecular similarity indices analysis (CoMSIA) based on three dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationship (3D-QSAR) studies were conducted on a series (78 compounds) of 2, 4-diamino-5-methyl-5-deazapteridine (DMDP) derivatives as potent anticancer agents. The best prediction were obtained with a CoMFA standard model (q(2) = 0.530, r(2) = 0.903) and with CoMSIA combined steric, electrostatic, hydrophobic and hydrogen bond donor fields (q(2) = 0.548, r(2) = 0.909). Both models were validated by a test set of ten compounds producing very good predictive r(2) values of 0.935 and 0.842, respectively. CoMFA and CoMSIA contour maps were then used to analyze the structural features of ligands to account for the activity in terms of positively contributing physiochemical properties such as steric, electrostatic, hydrophobic and hydrogen bond donor fields. The resulting contour maps produced by the best CoMFA and CoMSIA models were used to identify the structural features relevant to the biological activity in this series of analogs. This study suggests that the highly electropositive substituents with low steric tolerance are required at 5 position of the pteridine ring and bulky electronegatve substituents are required at the meta-position of the phenyl ring. The information obtained from CoMFA and CoMSIA 3-D contour maps can be used for the design of deazapteridine-based analogs as anticancer agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.