Silico structure-activity relationship

The reliability of the in silico models will be improved and their scope for predictions will be broader as soon as more reliable experimental data are available. However, there is the paradox of predictivity versus diversity. The greater the chemical diversity in a data set, the more difficult is the establishment of a predictive structure-activity relationship. Otherwise, a model developed based on compounds representing only a small subspace of the chemical space has no predictivity for compounds beyond its boundaries. 

ECVAM is the leading international center for alternative test method validation. Hartung et al. (29) summarized the modular steps necessary to accomplish stage 3 (test validation). The seven modular steps are (I) test definition, (2) within-laboratory variability, (3) transferability, (4) between-laboratory variability, (5) predictive capacity, (6) applicability domain, and (7) performance standards (29). Steps 2-4 evaluate the test s reliability steps 5 and 6 evaluate the relevance of the test. Successful completion of all seven steps is necessary to proceed to stage 4 (independent assessment or peer review). This modular approach allows flexibility for the validation process where information on the test method can be gathered either prospectively or retrospectively. The approach is applicable not only to in vitro test methods but also to in silico approaches (e.g., computer-based approaches such as quantitative structure-activity relationships or QSAR) and pattern-based systems (e.g., genomics and proteomics). 

Numerous in silico studies have been undertaken with the focus of identifying or developing novel antimalarial drugs as well as understanding the structure-activity relationships (SARs) for sets of... 

One may think of an iterative model for the preclinical discovery screening cycle. A large number of compounds are to be mined for compounds that are active for example, that bind to a particular target. The compounds may come from different sources such as vendor catalogues, corporate collections, or combinatorial chemistry projects. In fact, the compounds need only to exist in a virtual sense, because in silico predictions in the form of a model can be made in a virtual screen (Section 8) which can then be used to decide which compounds should be physically made and tested. A mapping from the structure space of compounds to the descriptor space or property space provides covariates or explanatory variables that can be used to build predictive models. These models can help in the selection process, where a subset of available molecules is chosen for the biological screen. The experimental results of the biological screen (actives and inactives, or numeric potency values) are then used to learn more about the structure-activity relationship (SAR) which leads to new models and a new selection of compounds as the cycle renews. 

The two major independent in silico methods for the prediction of toxicity are quantitative-structure-activity-relationship (QSAR) and expert systems (e.g. DEREK, MultiCASE). QSAR means the quantitative relationship between a chemical structure and its biological/ toxicological activity with the help of chemical descriptors that are generated from the... 

Recently predictive in silico modeling for hERG channel blockers has been described." Different approaches have aimed primarily at fdtering out potential hERG channel blockers in the context of combinatorial and virtual libraries and to elucidate structure-activity relationships. These new computational methods may predict trends, but are not as yet sufficiently precise to make valid predictions. 

In silico models (or expert systems ) have also been developed. These are computer software-based structure-activity relationship and quantitative structure-activity relationship analyses of data libraries of acute toxicity data developed for use in evaluating and predicting the acute oral and inhalation toxicity potential of a chemical or drug. 

This chapter reviews some of the in silico attempts to predict oral bioavailability. However, bioavailability is a complex property, and various pros and cons of current quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) based approaches will be discussed here. As an alternative, physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling is discussed as a promising approach to predict and simulate pharmacokinetics (PK), including estimating bioavailability. 

---