Abstract
The quantitative influence of the choice of energy evaluation method used in the geometry optimization step prior to the calculation of molecular descriptors in QSAR and QSPR models was investigated. A total of 11 energy evaluation methods on three molecular datasets (toxicological compounds, aromatic compounds and PPARγ agonists) were studied. The methods employed were: MMFF94 s, MM3* with ε r (relative dielectric constant) = 1, MM3* with ε r = 80, AM1, PM3, HF/STO-3G, HF/6-31G, HF/6-31G(d,p), B3LYP/STO-3G, B3LYP/6-31G, and B3LYP/6-31G(d,p). The 3D-descriptors used in the QSAR/QSPR models were calculated with commercially available molecular descriptor programs primarily directed toward pharmaceutical research. In order to evaluate the uncertainties involved in the QSAR/QSPR predictions bootstrapping was used to validate all models using 1,000 drawings for each data set. The scale free error-term, q 2, was used to compare the relative quality of the models resulting from different optimization methods on the same set of molecules. Depending on the dataset, the average 0.632 bootstrap estimated q 2 varies from 0.55 to 0.57 for the toxicological compounds, from 0.58 to 0.62 for the aromatic compounds, and from 0.69 to 0.75 for the PPARγ agonists. The B3LYP/6-31G(d,p) provided the best overall results, albeit the increase in q 2 was small in all cases. The results clearly indicate that the choice of the energy evaluation method has very limited impact. This study suggests that QSAR or QSPR studies might benefit from the choice of a rapid optimization method with little or no loss in model accuracy.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- QSPR:
-
Quantitative structure property relationship
- QSAR:
-
Quantitative structure activity relationship
- MM3*:
-
Allinger’s molecular mechanics
- AM1:
-
Austin model 1
- PM3:
-
Parameterized model 3, HF, Hartree–Fock
- B3LYP:
-
The hybrid exchange–correlation functional based on work from Becke, Lee, Yang and Par
- PLS:
-
Partial least squares
- RMSD:
-
Root mean square distance
- MCMM:
-
Monte Carlo multiple minimum
References
Agüero-Chapin G, Varona-Santos J, de la Riva GA, Antunes A, Gonzáles-Villa T, Uriarte E, González-Díaz H (2009) J Proteome Res 8:2122–2128
Pasha FA, Nez MM, Cho SJ, Ansari M, Mishra SK, Tiwari S (2009) Chem Biol Drug Des 73:537–544
Jensen BF, Sørensen MD, Kissmeyer A-M, Björkling F, Sonne K, Engelsen SB, Nørgaard L (2003) J Comput Aid Mol Des 17:849–859
Thorsteinson N, Ban F, Santos-Filho O, Tabaei SMH, Miguel-Queralt S, Underhill C, Cherkasov A, Hammond GL (2009) Toxicol Appl Pharm 234:47–57
Foresman JB, Frisch A (1996) Exploring chemistry with electronic structure methods, 2nd edn. Gaussian, Pittsburgh, pp 157–158
Hudáky I, Hudáky I, Perczel A (2004) J Comput Chem 25:1522–1531
Swart M, Snijders JG (2003) Theor Chem Acc 110:34–41
Bayari S, Saglam S, Ustundag HF (2005) J Mol Struct 726:225–232
Dewar MJS, Zoebisch EG, Healy EF, Stewart JJP (1985) J Am Chem Soc 107:3902–3909
Stewart JJP (1989) J Comput Chem 10:209–220
Roothaan CCJ (1951) Rev Mod Phys 23:69–89
Becke AD (1993) J Chem Phys 98:5648–5652
Lee C, Yang W, Parr RG (1988) Phys Rev B 37:785–789
Vosko SH, Wilk L, Nusair M (1980) Can J Phys 58:1200–1211
Stephens PJ, Devlin FJ, Chabalowski CF, Frisch MJ (1994) J Phys Chem 98:11623–11627
Ditchfield R, Hehre WJ, Pople JA (1971) J Chem Phys 54:724–728
Hehre WJ, Ditchfield R, Pople JA (1972) J Chem Phys 56:2257–2261
Hariharan PC, Pople JA (1974) Mol Phys 27:209–214
Gordon MS (1980) Chem Phys Lett 76:163–168
Hariharan PC, Pople JA (1973) Theor Chim Acta 28:213–222
Fletcher R, Reeves CM (1964) Computer J 7:149–154
Stewart JPP (1989) Comput Chem 13:157–158
Dennis JE, More JJ (1977) SIAM Rev 19:46–89
He L, Jurs PC (2005) J Mol Graphics Modell 23:503–523
Agantovic-Kustrin S, Beresford R, Pauzi A, Yusof M (2001) J Pharm Biomed Anal 26:241–254
Rücker C, Scarsi M, Meringer M (2006) Bioorg Med Chem 14:5178–5195
Dennington II R, Keith T, Milliam J, Eppinnett K, Hovell WL, Gilliland R (2003) GaussView, Version 3.09, Semichem, Inc., Shawnee Mission. http://www.gaussian.com
Schrödinger LLC (2007) http://www.schrodinger.com
Halgren TA (1999) J Comput Chem 20:720–729
Polak E, Ribiere G (1969) Revenue Francaise Inform Rech Operationelle 16:35
Allinger NL, Yuh YH, Lii J-H (1989) J Am Chem Soc 111:8551–8566
Hehre WJ, Stewart RF, Pople JA (1969) J Chem Phys 51:2657–2664
Peng CY, Ayala PY, Schlegel HB, Frisch MJ (1996) J Comp Chem 17:49–56
Vamp 6.5 (1997) Oxford Software Limited
Talete srl (2009) DRAGON for Windows (Software for Molecular Descriptor Calculations) http://www.talete.mi.it
Schuur JH, Selzer P, Gasteiger J (1996) J Am Chem Soc 36:334–344
Todeschini R, Lasagni M (1994) J Chemom 8:263–272
Consonni V, Todeschini R, Pavan M, Gramatica P (2002) J Chem Inf Comput Sci 42:693–705
Martens H, Martens M, Næs T (2001) Multivariate analysis of quality. John Wiley, Chichester, pp 111–125
Wehrens R, Putter H, Buydens LMC (2000) Chemom Intell Lab Syst 54:35–52
Efron B, Gong G (1983) Am Stat 37:36–48
Consonni V, Ballabio D, Todeschini R (2009) J Chem Inf Model 49:1669–1678
Howell JF, Games PA (1974) Brit J Math Stat Psy 27:72–81
Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Montgomery JA, Jr VrevenT, Kudin KN, Burant JC, Millam JM, Iyengar SS, Tomasi J, Barone V, Mennucci B, Cossi M, Scalmani G, Rega N, Petersson GA, Nakatsuji H, Hada M, Ehara M, Toyota K, Fukuda R, Hasegawa J, Ishida M, Nakajima T, Honda Y, Kitao O, Nakai H, Klene M, Li X, Knox JE, Hratchian HP, Cross JB, Bakken V, Adamo C, Jaramillo J, Gomperts R, Stratmann RE, Yazyev O, Austin AJ, Cammi R, Pomelli C, Ochterski JW, Ayala PY, Morokuma K, Voth GA, Salvador P, Dannenberg JJ, Zakrzewski VG, Dapprich S, Daniels AD, Strain MC, Farkas O, Malick DK, Rabuck AD, Raghavachari K, Foresman JB, Ortiz JV, Cui Q, Baboul AG, Clifford S, Cioslowski J, Stefanov BB, Liu G, Liashenko A, Piskorz P, Komaromi I, Martin RL, Fox DJ, Keith T, Al-Laham MA, Peng CY, Nanayakkara A, Challacombe M, Gill PMW, Johnson B, Chen W, Wong MW, Gonzalez C, Pople JA (2009) Gaussian 03 revision C02. Gaussian Inc, Wallingford
The Mathworks ™ (2009) USA, http://www.mathworks.com
Puzyn T, Suzuki N, Haranczyk M, Rak J (2008) J Chem Inf Model 48:1174–1180
Rocha GB, Freire RO, Simas AM, Stewart JJP (2006) J Comput Chem 27:1101–1111
Stewart JJP (2007) J Mol Model 13:1173–1213
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the KU-LIFE strategic research project BEST for the financial funding of Åsmund Rinnan and the project Build Your Food ((FFS05-9) sponsored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for the financial funding for Niels Johan Christensen.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rinnan, Å., Christensen, N.J. & Engelsen, S.B. How the energy evaluation method used in the geometry optimization step affect the quality of the subsequent QSAR/QSPR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des 24, 17–22 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-009-9308-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-009-9308-x