Evans David A, Doman Thompson N, Thorner David A, Bodkin Michael J
Eli Lilly and Company Ltd., Lilly Research Centre, Erl Wood Manor, Sunninghill Road, Windlesham, Surrey, GU20 6PH, England.
J Chem Inf Model. 2007 May-Jun;47(3):1248-57. doi: 10.1021/ci7000082. Epub 2007 May 4.
The programs Phase and Catalyst HypoGen are compared for their performance in determining three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships. Eight sets of compounds with measured activity were collected from the public literature and partitioned into suitable training and test sets by an automated procedure. A range of models is built with each program, and suggested parameter variations are investigated. The models are assessed by their ability to predict the activity of compounds in the test set, and it is demonstrated that the performance of Phase is better than or equal to that of Catalyst HypoGen, with the data sets and parameters used here. Additionally, compounds in two of the data sets are overlaid on crystallographic structures of similar ligands in complex with the target receptor, in order to guide pharmacophore generation by the two programs, but the resulting models do not perform better.
对Phase程序和Catalyst HypoGen程序在确定三维定量构效关系方面的性能进行了比较。从公开文献中收集了八组具有测量活性的化合物,并通过自动化程序将其划分为合适的训练集和测试集。使用每个程序构建了一系列模型,并研究了建议的参数变化。通过模型预测测试集中化合物活性的能力对模型进行评估,结果表明,在此处使用的数据集和参数条件下,Phase程序的性能优于或等同于Catalyst HypoGen程序。此外,将其中两个数据集中的化合物与目标受体结合的类似配体的晶体结构进行叠加,以指导这两个程序生成药效团,但所得模型的性能并未得到改善。