Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 21, 2025

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
Published on: May 9, 2025
QSAR-derived affinity fingerprints (part 2): modeling performance for potency prediction
Isidro Cortés-Ciriano1,2, Ctibor Škuta3, Andreas Bender4
1Centre for Molecular Informatics, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK. icortes@ebi.ac.uk.
Abstract:
Affinity fingerprints report the activity of small molecules across a set of assays, and thus permit to gather information about the bioactivities of structurally dissimilar compounds, where models based on chemical structure alone are often limited, and model complex biological endpoints, such as human toxicity and in vitro cancer cell line sensitivity. Here, we propose to model in vitro compound activity using computationally predicted bioactivity profiles as compound descriptors. To this aim, we apply and validate a framework for the calculation of QSAR-derived affinity fingerprints (QAFFP) using a set of 1360 QSAR models generated using Ki, Kd, IC50 and EC50 data from ChEMBL database. QAFFP thus represent a method to encode and relate compounds on the basis of their similarity in bioactivity space. To benchmark the predictive power of QAFFP we assembled IC50 data from ChEMBL database for 18 diverse cancer cell lines widely used in preclinical drug discovery, and 25 diverse protein target data sets. This study complements part 1 where the performance of QAFFP in similarity searching, scaffold hopping, and bioactivity classification is evaluated. Despite being inherently noisy, we show that using QAFFP as descriptors leads to errors in prediction on the test set in the ~ 0.65-0.95 pIC50 units range, which are comparable to the estimated uncertainty of bioactivity data in ChEMBL (0.76-1.00 pIC50 units). We find that the predictive power of QAFFP is slightly worse than that of Morgan2 fingerprints and 1D and 2D physicochemical descriptors, with an effect size in the 0.02-0.08 pIC50 units range. Including QSAR models with low predictive power in the generation of QAFFP does not lead to improved predictive power. Given that the QSAR models we used to compute the QAFFP were selected on the basis of data availability alone, we anticipate better modeling results for QAFFP generated using more diverse and biologically meaningful targets. Data sets and Python code are publicly available at https://github.com/isidroc/QAFFP_regression .
More Related Videos
05:50Pharmacophore Modeling for Targets with Extensive Ligand Libraries: A Case Study on SARS-CoV-2 Mpro
Published on: September 26, 2025
13:54A Workflow for Lipid Nanoparticle LNP Formulation Optimization using Designed Mixture-Process Experiments and Self-Validated Ensemble Models SVEM
Published on: August 18, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Structure-Activity Relationships and Drug Design
SAR studies the intricate relationship between a drug's chemical structure and biological activity. It focuses on understanding how modifications to a drug's structure can influence...
Dose-Response Relationship: Potency and Efficacy
Quantitative Aspects of Drug-Receptor Interaction
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength
Drug Product Performance: In Vitro–In Vivo Correlation