Advantages and limitations of classic and 3D QSAR approaches in nano-QSAR studies based on biological activity of fullerene derivatives
Source abstract
Abstract
In this contribution, the advantages and limitations of two computational techniques that can be used for the investigation of nanoparticles activity and toxicity: classic nano-QSAR (Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships employed for nanomaterials) and 3D nano-QSAR (three-dimensional Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships, such us Comparative Molecular Field Analysis, CoMFA/Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis, CoMSIA analysis employed for nanomaterials) have been briefly summarized. Both approaches were compared according to the selected criteria, including: efficiency, type of experimental data, class of nanomaterials, time required for calculations and computational cost, difficulties in the interpretation. Taking into account the advantages and limitations of each method, we provide the recommendations for nano-QSAR modellers and QSAR model users to be able to determine a proper and efficient methodology to investigate biological activity of nanoparticles in order to describe the underlying interactions in the most reliable and useful manner.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Fullerene Chemistry and Applications · Computational Drug Discovery Methods · Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (41)
Show source-provided references
1. Ahmed L, Rasulev B, Turabekova M, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2013) Receptor- and ligand-based study of fullerene analogues: comprehensive computational approach including quantum-chemical, QSAR and molecular docking simulations. Org Biomol Chem 11:5798–5808. doi: 10.1039/c3ob40878g10.1039/c3ob40878g ↗
2. Cramer RD, Patterson DE, Bunce JD (1988) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J Am Chem Soc 110:5959–5967. doi: 10.1021/ja00226a00510.1021/ja00226a005 ↗
3. Durdagi S, Mavromoustakos T, Chronakis N, Papadopoulos MG (2008a) Computational design of novel fullerene analogues as potential HIV-1 PR inhibitors: analysis of the binding interactions between fullerene inhibitors and HIV-1 PR residues using 3D QSAR, molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations. Bioorgan Med Chem 16:9957–9974. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2008.10.03910.1016/j.bmc.2008.10.039 ↗
4. Durdagi S, Mavromoustakos T, Papadopoulos MG (2008b) 3D QSAR CoMFA/CoMSIA, molecular docking and molecular dynamics studies of fullerene-based HIV-1 PR inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett 18:6283–6289. doi: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2008.09.10710.1016/j.bmcl.2008.09.107 ↗
5. Epa VC, Burden FR, Tassa C, Weissleder R, Shaw S, Winkler DA (2012) Modeling biological activities of nanoparticles. Nano Lett 12:5808–5812. doi: 10.1021/nl303144k10.1021/nl303144k ↗
6. Gajewicz A, Cronin MTD, Rasulev B, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2015) Novel approach for efficient predictions properties of large pool of nanomaterials based on limited set of species: nano-read-across. Nanotechnology. doi: 10.1088/0957-4484/26/1/01570110.1088/0957-4484/26/1/015701 ↗
7. Gramatica P (2007) Principles of QSAR models validation: internal and external. QSAR Comb Sci 26:694–701. doi: 10.1002/qsar.20061015110.1002/qsar.200610151 ↗
8. Gramatica P, Chirico N, Papa E, Cassani S, Kovarich S (2013) QSARINS: a new software for the development, analysis, and validation of QSAR MLR models. J Comput Chem 34:2121–2132. doi: 10.1002/jcc.2336110.1002/jcc.23361 ↗
9. Gramatica P, Cassani S, Chirico N (2014) QSARINS-chem: insubria datasets and new QSAR/QSPR models for environmental pollutants in QSARINS. J Comput Chem 35:1036–1044. doi: 10.1002/jcc.2357610.1002/jcc.23576 ↗
10. Hansch C, Streich M, Geiger F, Muir RM, Maloney PP, Fujita T (1963) Correlation of biological activity of plant growth regulators and chloromycetin derivatives with Hammett constants and partition coefficients. J Am Chem Soc 85:2817–2824. doi: 10.1021/Ja00901a03310.1021/ja00901a033 ↗
11. Hristozov DR, Gottardo S, Critto A, Marcomini A (2012) Risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials: a review of available data and approaches from a regulatory perspective. Nanotoxicology 6:880–898. doi: 10.3109/17435390.2011.62653410.3109/17435390.2011.626534 ↗
12. Jagiello K et al (2014) Direct QSPR: the most efficient way of predicting organic carbon/water partition coefficient (log K (OC)) for polyhalogenated POPs. Struct Chem 25:997–1004. doi: 10.1007/s11224-014-0419-110.1007/s11224-014-0419-1 ↗
13. Jaworska J, Nikolova-Jeliazkova N, Aldenberg T (2005) QSAR applicability domain estimation by projection of the training set in descriptor space: a review. Atla Altern Lab Anim 33:445–45910.1177/026119290503300508 ↗
14. Kim KH, Greco G, Novellino E (1998) A critical review of recent CoMFA applications. Perspect Drug Discov 12:257–315. doi: 10.1023/A:101701081158110.1023/A:1017010811581 ↗
15. Klebe G, Abraham U, Mietzner T (1994) Molecular similarity indexes in a comparative-analysis (Comsia) of drug molecules to correlate and predict their biological-activity. J Med Chem 37:4130–4146. doi: 10.1021/Jm00050a01010.1021/jm00050a010 ↗
16. Kubinyi H (1998) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). Wiley, New York
17. Mikolajczyk A et al (2015) Zeta potential for metal oxide nanoparticles: a predictive model developed by a nano-quantitative structure-property relationship approach. Chem Mater 27:2400–2407. doi: 10.1021/cm504406a10.1021/cm504406a ↗
18. OECD (2004) OECD principles for the validation, for regulatory purposes, of (Quantitative) structure activity relationship models, 37th joint meeting of the chemicals committee and working party on chemicals, pesticides and biotechnology. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Paris
19. Podlogar BL, Ferguson DM (2000) QSAR and CoMFA: a perspective on the practical application to drug discovery. Drug Des Discov 17:4–12
20. Puzyn T, Leszczynski J, Cronin MTD (2010) Recent advances in QSAR studies. methods and applications. Challenges and advances in computational chemistry and physics. Springer, New York
21. Puzyn T, Mostrag-Szlichtyng A, Gajewicz A, Skrzynski M, Worth AP (2011a) Investigating the influence of data splitting on the predictive ability of QSAR/QSPR models. Struct Chem 22:795–804. doi: 10.1007/s11224-011-9757-410.1007/s11224-011-9757-4 ↗
22. Puzyn T et al (2011b) Using nano-QSAR to predict the cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Nat Nanotechnol 6:175–178. doi: 10.1038/NNANO.2011.1010.1038/nnano.2011.10 ↗
23. Rassolov VA, Ratner MA, Pople JA, Redfern PC, Curtiss LA (2001) 6-31G* basis set for third-row atoms. J Comput Chem 22:976–984. doi: 10.1002/Jcc.1058.Abs10.1002/jcc.1058 ↗
24. Reynolds CA, Wade RC, Goodford PJ (1989) Identifying targets for bioreductive agents: using grid to predict selective binding regions of proteins. J Mol Graphics 7:103–108. doi: 10.1016/S0263-7855(89)80013-X10.1016/S0263-7855(89)80013-X ↗
25. Roy K, Kar S, Ambure P (2015) On a simple approach for determining applicability domain of QSAR models. Chemometr Intell Lab 145:22–29. doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2015.04.01310.1016/j.chemolab.2015.04.013 ↗
26. Salahinejad M (2015) Nano-QSPR modelling of carbon-based nanomaterials properties. Curr Top Med Chem 15:1868–188610.2174/1568026615666150506145017 ↗
27. Sippl W (2010) 3D-QSAR-application, recent advances and limitations. In: Puzyn T, Leszczynski J, Cronin MTD (eds) Recent advances in QSAR studies. Challenges and advances in computational chemistry and physics. Springer, New York, pp 103–126
28. Sizochenko N, Rasulev B, Gajewicz A, Kuz’min V, Puzyn T, Leszczynski J (2014) From basic physics to mechanisms of toxicity: the “liquid drop” approach applied to develop predictive classification models for toxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Nanoscale 6:13986–13993. doi: 10.1039/c4nr03487b10.1039/C4NR03487B ↗
29. Sizochenko N, Jagiello K, Leszczynski J, Puzyn T (2015) How the “Liquid Drop” approach could be efficiently applied for quantitative structure-property relationship modeling of nanofluids. J Phys Chem C 119:25542–25547. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.5b0575910.1021/acs.jpcc.5b05759 ↗
30. Talete (2014) Dragon (software for molecular descriptors calculation). http://www.talete.mo.it/ . Milano
31. Todeschini R, Consonni V (2009) Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics. Wiley, Weinheim10.1002/9783527628766 ↗
32. Toropov AA, Toropova AP (2015) Quasi-QSAR for mutagenic potential of multi-walled carbon-nanotubes. Chemosphere 124:40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.06710.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.10.067 ↗
33. Toropov AA, Toropova AP, Benfenati E, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2010) InChI-based optimal descriptors: QSAR analysis of fullerene[C60]-based HIV-1 PR inhibitors by correlation balance. Eur J Med Chem 45:1387–1394. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmech.2009.12.03710.1016/j.ejmech.2009.12.037 ↗
34. Toropov AA, Toropova AP, Benfenati E, Gini G, Puzyn T, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2012) Novel application of the CORAL software to model cytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles to bacteria Escherichia coli. Chemosphere 89:1098–1102. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.07710.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.05.077 ↗
35. Toropov AA, Toropova AP, Puzyn T, Benfenati E, Gini G, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2013) QSAR as a random event: modeling of nanoparticles uptake in PaCa2 cancer cells. Chemosphere 92:31–37. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.03.01210.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.03.012 ↗
36. Toropova AP, Toropov AA, Benfenati E, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2010) QSAR modeling of measured binding affinity for fullerene-based HIV-1 PR inhibitors by CORAL. J Math Chem 48:959–987. doi: 10.1007/s10910-010-9719-x10.1007/s10910-010-9719-x ↗
37. Toropova AP, Toropov AA, Benfenati E, Leszczynska D, Leszczynski J (2015) QSAR model as a random event: a case of rat toxicity. Bioorgan Med Chem 23:1223–1230. doi: 10.1016/j.bmc.2015.01.05510.1016/j.bmc.2015.01.055 ↗
38. TRIPOS Inc. (2001) Sybyl Molexular Modelling Software Packages, ver. 6.8. St Luis
39. Tzoupis H, Leonis G, Durdagi S, Mouchlis V, Mavromoustakos T, Papadopoulos MG (2011) Binding of novel fullerene inhibitors to HIV-1 protease: insight through molecular dynamics and molecular mechanics Poisson-Boltzmann surface area calculations. J Comput Aided Mol Des 25:959–976. doi: 10.1007/s10822-011-9475-410.1007/s10822-011-9475-4 ↗
40. Winkler DA, Mombelli E, Pietroiusti A, Tran L, Worth A, Fadeel B, McCall MJ (2013) Applying quantitative structure-activity relationship approaches to nanotoxicology: current status and future potential. Toxicology 313:15–23. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2012.11.00510.1016/j.tox.2012.11.005 ↗
41. Zhao Y, Truhlar DG (2008) The M06 suite of density functionals for main group thermochemistry, thermochemical kinetics, noncovalent interactions, excited states, and transition elements: two new functionals and systematic testing of four M06-class functionals and 12 other functionals. Theor Chem Acc 120:215–241. doi: 10.1007/s00214-007-0310-x10.1007/s00214-007-0310-x ↗