Abstract
Two experimental (log P, RMw) and 17 calculation descriptors for molecular lipophilicity (fragmental, atom-based or based on molecular properties) were investigated by multivariate analysis for a database of 159 compounds including both simple structures as well as more complex drug molecules. Principal component analysis (PCA) of the entire database exhibits a clustering of chemical groups; preciseness of clustering corresponds to chemical similarity. Thus, diversity searching in databases might effectively be performed by PCA on the basis of calculated log P. The comparative validity check of experimental and computational procedures by regression analysis and PCA was performed with a chemically balanced, reduced data set (n=55) representing 11 chemical groups with 5 members each. Regression of experimental descriptors (log Poct versus RMw) proves that chromatographic data, obtained under well-defined experimental conditions, can be used as valid substitutes for log P. Regression of calculated versus experimental lipophilicity data shows a superiority of fragmental over atom-based methods and approaches based on molecular properties, as indicated by correlation coefficients, slopes and intercepts. In addition, PCA revealed that fragmental methods (Rekker-type, KOWWIN, KLOGP) sense the compound ranking in log P data to almost the same extent as experimental approaches. For atom-based procedures and CLOGP, both the comparability of absolute values and the sensing of the compound ranking in the database are slightly less. This trend is more pronounced for the methods based on molecular properties, with the exception of BLOGP.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hansch, C., Leo, A. and Hoekman, D., Exploring QSAR. Hydrophobic, Electronic, and Steric Constants. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, 1995.
Mannhold, R., Dross, K. and Rekker, R.F., Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat., 9 (1990) 21.
Mannhold, R., Rekker, R.F., Sonntag, C., ter Laak, A.M., Dross, K. and Polymeropoulos, E.E., J. Pharm. Sci., 84 (1995) 1410.
Taylor, P.J. and Cruickshank, J.M., J. Pharm. Pharmacol., 37 (1985) 143.
Dross, K., Sonntag, Ch. and Mannhold, R., J. Chromatogr., A 638 (1993) 287.
Dross, K., Sonntag, Ch. and Mannhold, R., J. Chromatogr., A 673 (1994) 113.
Rekker, R.F., The Hydrophobic Fragmental Constant. Pharmacochemistry Library, Vol. 1, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1977.
Rekker, R.F. and Mannhold, R., Calculation of Drug Lipophilicity, VCH, Weinheim, 1992.
Leo, A., Jow, P.Y.C., Silipo, C. and Hansch, C., J. Med. Chem., 18 (1975) 865.
Hansch, C. and Leo, A.J., Substituent Constants for Correlation Analysis in Chemistry and Biology, Wiley, New York, NY, 1979.
Klopman, G., Li, J.-Y., Wang, S. and Dimayuga, M., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 34 (1994) 752.
Meylan, W. and Howard, P., J. Pharm. Sci., 84 (1995) 83.
Ghose, A.K. and Crippen, G.M., J. Comput. Chem., 7 (1986) 565.
Ghose, A.K. and Crippen, G.M., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 27 (1987) 21.
Ghose, A.K., Pritchett, A. and Crippen, G.M., J. Comput. Chem., 9 (1988) 80.
Viswanadhan, V.N., Ghose, A.K., Revankar, G.R. and Robins, R.K., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 29 (1989) 163.
Brickmann, J. and Waldherr-Teschner, M., Informationstechnik, 33 (1991) 83.
Suzuki, T. and Kudo, Y., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 4 (1990) 155.
Convard, T., Dubost, J.-P., Le Solleu, H. and Kummer, E. Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat., 13 (1994) 34.
Kellogg, G.E. and Abraham, D., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 5 (1991) 545.
Van de Waterbeemd, H., Karajiannis, H., Kansy, M., Obrecht, D., Mueller, K. and Lehmann, Ch., Conformation-lipophilicity relationships of peptides and peptide mimetics. In Sanz, F. (Ed.) Trends in QSAR and Molecular Modeling 94, Prous, Barcelona (1996).
Wold, S., Esbensen, K. and Geladi, P., Chem. Intell. Lab. System, 2 (1987) 37.
Baroni, M., Costantino, G., Cruciani, G., Riganelli, D., Valigi, R. and Clementi, S., Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat., 12 (1993) 9.
Wold, S., University of Umeå, 1983.
Lipophilicity in Drug Action and Toxicology (eds. V. Pliska, B. Testa and H. van de Waterbeemd), in: Methods and Principles in Medicinal Chemistry, VCH Publishers, Weinheim, 1996.
Leo, A., Chem. Rev., 93 (1993) 1281.
Pixner, P., Heiden, W., Merx, H., Moeckel, G., Möller, A. and Brickmann, J., J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 34 (1994) 1309.
Heiden, W., Moeckel, G. and Brickmann, J., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 7 (1993) 503.
Gaillard, P., Carrupt, P.-A., Testa, B. and Boudon, A., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8 (1994) 83.
Richards, N.G.J. and Williams, P.B., Chem. Design Automat. News, 9 (1994) 1.
Kim, K. H., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 9 (1995) 308.
Kellogg, G.E., Joshi, G.S. and Abraham, D.J., Med. Chem. Res., 1 (1992) 444.
Abraham, D. and Kellogg, G.E., J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Design, 8 (1994) 41.
Cruciani, G., Clementi, S., Fravolini, A., Cecchetti, V., Tabarrini, O. and Filipponi, E., XIII meeting of the Italian Pharm. Chemistry Society, Paestum, Italy, 1996, abstr. book P 126.
Mannhold, R. and Dross, K., Quant. Struct.-Act. Relat., 15 (1996) 403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mannhold, R., Cruciani, G., Dross, K. et al. Multivariate analysis of experimental and computational descriptors of molecular lipophilicity. J Comput Aided Mol Des 12, 573–581 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008060415622
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008060415622