The importance of molecular structures, endpoints' values, and predictivity parameters in QSAR research: QSAR...

Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methodology aims to explore the relationship between molecular structures and experimental endpoints, producing a model for the prediction of new data; the predictive performance of the model must be checked by external validation. Clearly, the qualities of chemical structure information and experimental endpoints, as well as the statistical parameters used to verify the external predictivity have a strong influence on QSAR model reliability. Here, we emphasize the importance of these three aspects by analyzing our models on estrogen receptor binders (Endocrine disruptor knowledge base (EDKB) database). Endocrine disrupting chemicals, which mimic or antagonize the endogenous hormones such as estrogens, are a hot topic in environmental and toxicological sciences. QSAR shows great values in predicting the estrogenic activity and exploring the interactions between the estrogen receptor and ligands. We have verified our previously published model for additional external validation on new EDKB chemicals. Having found some errors in the used 3D molecular conformations, we redevelop a new model using the same data set with corrected structures, the same method (ordinary least-square regression, OLS) and DRAGON descriptors. The new model, based on some different descriptors, is more predictive on external prediction sets. Three different formulas to calculate correlation coefficient for the external prediction set (Q2 EXT) were compared, and the results indicated that the new proposal of Consonni et al. had more reasonable results, consistent with the conclusions from regression line, Williams plot and root mean square error (RMSE) values. Finally, the importance of reliable endpoints values has been highlighted by comparing the classification assignments of EDKB with those of another estrogen receptor binders database (METI): we found that 16.1% assignments of the common compounds were opposite (20 among 124 common compounds). In order to verify the real assignments for these inconsistent compounds, we predicted these samples, as a blind external set, by our regression models and compared the results with the two databases. The results indicated that most of the predictions were consistent with METI. Furthermore, we built a kNN classification model using the 104 consistent compounds to predict those inconsistent ones, and most of the predictions were also in agreement with METI database.