2018
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00600
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative Molecular Field Analysis Using Molecular Integral Equation Theory

Abstract: Recently, Güssregen et al. used solute-solvent distribution functions calculated by the 3D Reference Interaction Site Model (3DRISM) in a 3D-QSAR model to predict the binding affinities of serine protease inhibitors; this approach was referred to as Comparative Analysis of 3D RISM MAps (CARMa). [

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even though CARMa uses a statistical mechanics solvent model, the electrostatic and steric effects implemented in CoMFA cannot be directly captured. This issue has been recently addressed by solving 3D-RISM equations for a solvent comprising CoMFA probes in aqueous solution, this extension being referred to as CARMa(electrolyte) [72]. The analysis performed for six protein-ligand systems reveals a small but consistent increase in prediction accuracy compared to CoMFA.…”
Section: = + Eqmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though CARMa uses a statistical mechanics solvent model, the electrostatic and steric effects implemented in CoMFA cannot be directly captured. This issue has been recently addressed by solving 3D-RISM equations for a solvent comprising CoMFA probes in aqueous solution, this extension being referred to as CARMa(electrolyte) [72]. The analysis performed for six protein-ligand systems reveals a small but consistent increase in prediction accuracy compared to CoMFA.…”
Section: = + Eqmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, Table 3 shows the highest, lowest, and average Qtest2 ${{Q}_{test}^{2}}$ values achieved by the best 30 models created on each benchmarking dataset (see Table SI1), as well as the best Qtest2 ${{Q}_{test}^{2}}$ values reported in the literature by several QSAR models [26a, c, d, f–j]. In this comparison, the generalization ability of the built models regarding several models reported in the literature is analyzed.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%