ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2016
Calculation of distribution coefficients in the SAMPL5 challenge from atomic solvation parameters and surface areas.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- DockingApp RF: A State-of-the-Art Novel Scoring Function for Molecular Docking in a User-Friendly Interface to AutoDock Vina.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Blind prediction of cyclohexane-water distribution coefficients from the SAMPL5 challenge.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2016Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the context of SAMPL5, we submitted blind predictions of the cyclohexane/water distribution coefficient (D) for a series of 53 drug-like molecules. Our method is purely empirical and based on the additive contribution of each solute atom to the free energy of solvation in water and in cyclohexane. The contribution of each atom depends on the atom type and on the exposed surface area. Comparatively to similar methods in the literature, we used a very small set of atomic parameters: only 10 for solvation in water and 1 for solvation in cyclohexane. As a result, the method is protected from overfitting and the error in the blind predictions could be reasonably estimated. Moreover, this approach is fast: it takes only 0.5 s to predict the distribution coefficient for all 53 SAMPL5 compounds, allowing its application in virtual screening campaigns. The performance of our approach (submission 49) is modest but satisfactory in view of its efficiency: the root mean square error (RMSE) was 3.3 log D units for the 53 compounds, while the RMSE of the best performing method (using COSMO-RS) was 2.1 (submission 16). Our method is implemented as a Python script available at https://github.com/diogomart/SAMPL5-DC-surface-empirical .
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.