Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Elsevier, Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 22(15), p. 5088-5094, 2005

DOI: 10.1016/j.bmcl.2005.07.056

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Proteins QSAR with Markov average electrostatic potentials

Journal article published in 2005 by Humberto González-Díaz ORCID, Eugenio Uriarte
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Classic physicochemical and topological indices have been largely used in small molecules QSAR but less in proteins QSAR. In this study, a Markov model is used to calculate, for the first time, average electrostatic potentials xik for an indirect interaction between aminoacids placed at topologic distances k within a given protein backbone. The short-term average stochastic potential xi1 for 53 Arc repressor mutants was used to model the effect of Alanine scanning on thermal stability. The Arc repressor is a model protein of relevance for biochemical studies on bioorganics and medicinal chemistry. A linear discriminant analysis model developed correctly classified 43 out of 53, 81.1% of proteins according to their thermal stability. More specifically, the model classified 20/28, 71.4% of proteins with near wild-type stability and 23/25, 92.0% of proteins with reduced stability. Moreover, predictability in cross-validation procedures was of 81.0%. Expansion of the electrostatic potential in the series xi0, xi1, xi2, and xi3, justified the use of the abrupt truncation approach, being the overall accuracy >70.0% for xi0 but equal for xi1, xi2, and xi3. The xi1 model compared favorably with respect to others based on D-Fire potential, surface area, volume, partition coefficient, and molar refractivity, with less than 77.0% of accuracy [Ramos de Armas, R.; González-Díaz, H.; Molina, R.; Uriarte, E. Protein Struct. Func. Bioinf.2004, 56, 715]. The xi1 model also has more tractable interpretation than others based on Markovian negentropies and stochastic moments. Finally, the model is notably simpler than the two models based on quadratic and linear indices. Both models, reported by Marrero-Ponce et al., use four-to-five time more descriptors. Introduction of average stochastic potentials may be useful for QSAR applications; having xik amenable physical interpretation and being very effective.