Dapson Richard W, Horobin Richard W
Dapson & Dapson, LLC , 6951 East AB Avenue, Richland, Michigan.
Biotech Histochem. 2013 Nov;88(8):489-97. doi: 10.3109/10520295.2013.811287. Epub 2013 Aug 1.
The log P descriptor, despite its usefulness, can be difficult to use, especially for researchers lacking skills in physical chemistry. Moreover this classic measure has been determined in numerous ways, which can result in inconsistant estimates of log P values, especially for relatively complex molecules such as fluorescent probes. Novel measures of hydrophilicity/lipophilicity (the Hydrophilic/Lipophilic Index, HLI) and amphiphilicity (hydrophilic/lipophilic indices for the head group and tail, HLIT and HLIHG, respectively) therefore have been devised. We compare these descriptors with measures based on log P, the standard method for quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR) studies. HLI can be determined using widely available molecular modeling software, coupled with simple arithmetic calculations. It is based on partial atomic charges and is intended to be a stand-alone measure of hydrophilicity/lipophilicity. Given the wide application of log P, however, we investigated the correlation between HLI and log P using a test set of 56 fluorescent probes of widely different physicochemical character. Overall correlation was poor; however, correlation of HLI and log P for probes of narrowly specified charge types, i.e., non-ionic compounds, anions, conjugated cations, or zwitterions, was excellent. Values for probes with additional nonconjugated quaternary cations, however, were less well correlated. The newly devised HLI can be divided into domain-specific descriptors, HLIT and HLIHG in amphiphilic probes. Determinations of amphiphilicity, made independently by the authors using their respective methods, showed excellent agreement. Quantifying amphiphilicity from partial log P values of the head group (head group hydrophilicity; HGH) and tail (amphiphilicity index; AI) has proved useful for understanding fluorescent probe action. The same limitations of log P apply to HGH and AI, however. The novel descriptors, HLIT and HLIHG, offer analogous advantages to those seen with HLI over log P. The high correlation between log P and HLI, and the concordance between the two systems for assessing amphiphilicity, provide a powerful tool for QSAR studies. It is possible now to select a probe with missing fragments, and thus no log P, AI or HGH; and to estimate these important descriptors from parameters derived from HLI.
尽管log P描述符很有用,但使用起来可能很困难,尤其是对于缺乏物理化学技能的研究人员。此外,这种经典的测量方法有多种确定方式,这可能导致log P值的估计不一致,特别是对于荧光探针等相对复杂的分子。因此,人们设计了亲水性/亲脂性的新测量方法(亲水/亲脂指数,HLI)和两亲性(分别针对头部基团和尾部基团的亲水/亲脂指数,HLIT和HLIHG)。我们将这些描述符与基于log P的测量方法进行比较,log P是定量构效关系(QSAR)研究的标准方法。HLI可以使用广泛可用的分子建模软件并结合简单的算术计算来确定。它基于部分原子电荷,旨在作为亲水性/亲脂性的独立测量方法。然而,鉴于log P的广泛应用,我们使用一组56种具有广泛不同物理化学性质的荧光探针测试集研究了HLI与log P之间的相关性。总体相关性较差;然而,对于特定电荷类型的探针,即非离子化合物、阴离子、共轭阳离子或两性离子,HLI与log P的相关性非常好。然而,具有额外非共轭季铵阳离子的探针的值相关性较差。新设计的HLI可以分为两亲性探针中特定域的描述符HLIT和HLIHG。作者使用各自的方法独立进行的两亲性测定显示出极好的一致性。从头部基团(头部基团亲水性;HGH)和尾部(两亲性指数;AI)的部分log P值量化两亲性已被证明有助于理解荧光探针的作用。然而,log P的同样局限性也适用于HGH和AI。新颖的描述符HLIT和HLIHG与HLI相比log P具有类似的优势。log P与HLI之间的高度相关性以及两个评估两亲性系统之间的一致性为QSAR研究提供了一个强大的工具。现在有可能选择一个缺少片段,因此没有log P、AI或HGH的探针;并从HLI导出的参数估计这些重要描述符。