Four modeling techniques, using topological descriptors to represent molecular structure, were employed to produce models of human serum protein binding (% bound) on a data set of 1008 experimental values, carefully screened from publicly available sources. To our knowledge, this data is the largest set on human serum protein binding reported for QSAR modeling. The data was partitioned into a training set of 808 compounds and an external validation test set of 200 compounds. Partitioning was accomplished by clustering the compounds in a structure descriptor space so that random sampling of 20% of the whole data set produced an external test set that is a good representative of the training set with respect to both structure and protein binding values. The four modeling techniques include multiple linear regression (MLR), artificial neural networks (ANN), k-nearest neighbors (kNN), and support vector machines (SVM). With the exception of the MLR model, the ANN, kNN, and SVM QSARs were ensemble models. Training set correlation coefficients and mean absolute error ranged from r2=0.90 and MAE=7.6 for ANN to r2=0.61 and MAE=16.2 for MLR. Prediction results from the validation set yielded correlation coefficients and mean absolute errors which ranged from r2=0.70 and MAE=14.1 for ANN to a low of r2=0.59 and MAE=18.3 for the SVM model. Structure descriptors that contribute significantly to the models are discussed and compared with those found in other published models. For the ANN model, structure descriptor trends with respect to their affects on predicted protein binding can assist the chemist in structure modification during the drug design process.

Several QSPR models were developed for predicting intrinsic aqueous solubility, S(o). A data set of 5,964 neutral compounds was sub-divided into two classes, aromatic and non-aromatic compounds. Three models were created with different methods on both data sets: two regression models (multiple linear regression and partial least squares) and an artificial neural network model. These models were based on 3343 aromatic and 1674 non-aromatic compounds for training sets; 938 compounds were used in external validation testing. The range in -log S(o) is -1.6 to 10. Topological structure descriptors were used with all models. A genetic algorithm was used for descriptor selection for regression models. For the artificial neural network (ANN) model, descriptor selection was done with a backward elimination process. All models performed well with r2 values ranging 0.72 to 0.84 in external validation testing. The mean absolute errors in validation ranged from 0.44 to 0.80 for the classes of compounds for all the models. These statistical results indicate a sound ANN model. Furthermore, in a comparison with eight other available models, based on predictions using a validation test set (442 compounds), the artificial neural network model presented in this work (CSLogWS) was clearly superior based on both the mean absolute error and the percentage of residuals less than one log unit. In the ANN model both E-State and hydrogen E-State descriptors were found to be important.

A back-propagation artificial neural network (ANN) was used to create a 10-fold leave-10%-out cross-validated ensemble model of high performance liquid chromatography retention index (HPLC-RI) for a data set of 498 diverse druglike compounds. A 10-fold multiple linear regression (MLR) ensemble model of the same data was developed for comparison. Molecular structure was described using IGroup E-state indices, a novel set of structure-information representation (SIR) descriptors, along with molecular connectivity chi and kappa indices and other SIR descriptors previously reported. The same input descriptors were used to develop models by both learning algorithms. The MLR model yielded marginally acceptable statistics with training correlation r(2) = 0.65, mean absolute error (MAE) = 83 RI units. External validation of 104 compounds not used for model development yielded validation v(2) = 0.49 and MAE = 73 RI units. The distribution of residuals for the fit and validate data sets suggest a nonlinear relationship between retention index and molecular structure as described by the SIR indices. Not surprisingly, the ANN model was significantly more accurate for both training and validation with training set r(2) = 0.93, MAE = 30 RI units and validation v(2) = 0.84, MAE = 41 RI units. For the ANN model, a total of 91% of validation predictions were within 100 RI units of the experimental value.