ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2016
Alignment-independent technique for 3D QSAR analysis.
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D-QSAR study for the development of chalcone-based inhibitors targeting ovarian cancer cells with experimental validation.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Machine learning prediction of intestinal α-glucosidase inhibitors using a diverse set of ligands: a drug repurposing effort with drugBank database screening.In silico pharmacology · 2025Article
- Development of a comprehensive open access "molecules with androgenic activity resource (MAAR)" to facilitate risk assessment of chemicals.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Development of models for predicting Torsade de Pointes cardiac arrhythmias using perceptron neural networks.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- An Alignment-Independent 3D-QSAR Study of FGFR2 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.Advanced pharmaceutical bulletin · 2017Article
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
Molecular biochemistry is controlled by 3D phenomena but structure-activity models based on 3D descriptors are infrequently used for large data sets because of the computational overhead for determining molecular conformations. A diverse dataset of 146 androgen receptor binders was used to investigate how different methods for defining molecular conformations affect the performance of 3D-quantitative spectral data activity relationship models. Molecular conformations tested: (1) global minimum of molecules' potential energy surface; (2) alignment-to-templates using equal electronic and steric force field contributions; (3) alignment using contributions "Best-for-Each" template; (4) non-energy optimized, non-aligned (2D > 3D). Aggregate predictions from models were compared. Highest average coefficients of determination ranged from R Test (2) = 0.56 to 0.61. The best model using 2D > 3D (imported directly from ChemSpider) produced R Test (2) = 0.61. It was superior to energy-minimized and conformation-aligned models and was achieved in only 3-7 % of the time required using the other conformation strategies. Predictions averaged from models built on different conformations achieved a consensus R Test (2) = 0.65. The best 2D > 3D model was analyzed for underlying structure-activity relationships. For the compound strongest binding to the androgen receptor, 10 substructural features contributing to binding were flagged. Utility of 2D > 3D was compared for two other activity endpoints, each modeling a medium sized data set. Results suggested that large scale, accurate predictions using 2D > 3D SDAR descriptors may be produced for interactions involving endocrine system nuclear receptors and other data sets in which strongest activities are produced by fairly inflexible substrates.
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.