The acid dissociation constant is an important molecular property, and it can be successfully predicted by Quantitative Structure-Property Relationship (QSPR) models, even for in silico designed molecules. We analyzed how the methodology of in silico 3D structure preparation influences the quality of QSPR models. Specifically, we evaluated and compared QSPR models based on six different 3D structure sources (DTP NCI, Pubchem, Balloon, Frog2, OpenBabel, and RDKit) combined with four different types of optimization. These analyses were performed for three classes of molecules (phenols, carboxylic acids, anilines), and the QSPR model descriptors were quantum mechanical (QM) and empirical partial atomic charges. Specifically, we developed 516 QSPR models and afterward systematically analyzed the influence of the 3D structure source and other factors on their quality. Our results confirmed that QSPR models based on partial atomic charges are able to predict pKa with high accuracy. We also confirmed that ab initio and semiempirical QM charges provide very accurate QSPR models and using empirical charges based on electronegativity equalization is also acceptable, as well as advantageous, because their calculation is very fast. On the other hand, Gasteiger-Marsili empirical charges are not applicable for pKa prediction. We later found that QSPR models for some classes of molecules (carboxylic acids) are less accurate. In this context, we compared the influence of different 3D structure sources. We found that an appropriate selection of 3D structure source and optimization method is essential for the successful QSPR modeling of pKa. Specifically, the 3D structures from the DTP NCI and Pubchem databases performed the best, as they provided very accurate QSPR models for all the tested molecular classes and charge calculation approaches, and they do not require optimization. Also, Frog2 performed very well. Other 3D structure sources can also be used but are not so robust, and an unfortunate combination of molecular class and charge calculation approach can produce weak QSPR models. Additionally, these 3D structures generally need optimization in order to produce good quality QSPR models.

†National Centre for Biomolecular Research Faculty of Science and CEITEC Central European Institute of Technology Masaryk University Brno Kamenice 5 625 00 Brno Bohunice Czech Republic

‡Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences University of California 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0657 San Diego California 92161 United States

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Comer J, Tam K. Pharmacokinetic Optimization in Drug Research: Biological, Physicochemical, and Computational Strategies. Verlag Helvetica Chimica Acta, Post-fach; CH-8042 Zürich, Switzerland: 2001.

Klebe G. Recent Developments in Structure-Based Drug Design. J Mol Med. 2000;78:269–281. PubMed

Kim JH, Gramatica P, Kim MG, Kim D, Tratnyek PG. QSAR Modelling of Water Quality Indices of Alkylphenol Pollutants. SAR QSAR Environ Res. 2007;18:729–743. PubMed

Lee AC, Crippen GM. Predicting pKa. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49:2013–2033. PubMed

Rupp M, Körner R, Tetko IV. Predicting the pKa of Small Molecules. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2010;14:307–327. PubMed

Ho J. Predicting pKa in Implicit Solvents: Current Status and Future Directions. Aust J Chem. 2014;67:1441–1460.

Balogh GT, Tarcsay Á, Keserű GM. Comparative Evaluation of pKa Prediction Tools on a Drug Discovery Dataset. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2012;6768:63–70. PubMed

Svobodová Vařeková R, Geidl S, Ionescu CM, Skřehota O, Bouchal T, Sehnal D, Abagyan R, Koča J. Predicting pKa Values From EEM Atomic Charges. J Cheminf. 2013;5:18–34. PubMed PMC

Fraczkiewicz R, Lobell M, Gller AH, Krenz U, Schoenneis R, Clark RD, Hillisch A. Best of Both Worlds: Combining Pharma Data and State of the Art Modeling Technology to Improve in silico pKa Prediction. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55:389–397. PubMed

Settimo L, Bellman K, Knegtel RMA. Comparison of the Accuracy of Experimental and Predicted pKa Values of Basic and Acidic Compounds. Pharmaceut Res. 2014;31:1082–1095. PubMed

Jelfs S, Ertl P, Selzer P. Estimation of pKa for Druglike Compounds Using Semiempirical and Information-Based Descriptors. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47:450–459. PubMed

Dixon SL, Jurs PC. Estimation of pKa for Organic Oxyacids Using Calculated Atomic Charges. J Comput Chem. 1993;14:1460–1467.

Zhang J, Kleinöder T, Gasteiger J. Prediction of pKa Values for Aliphatic Carboxylic Acids and Alcohols With Empirical Atomic Charge Descriptors. J Chem Inf Model. 2006;46:2256–2266. PubMed

Citra MJ. Estimating the pKa of Phenols, Carboxylic Acids and Alcohols From Semi-empirical Quantum Chemical Methods. Chemosphere. 1999;1:191–206. PubMed

Gross KC, Seybold PG, Hadad CM. Comparison of Different Atomic Charge Schemes for Predicting pKa Variations in Substituted Anilines and Phenols. Int J Quantum Chem. 2002;90:445–458.

Kreye WC, Seybold PG. Correlations Between Quantum Chemical Indices and the pKas of a Diverse Set of Organic Phenols. Int J Quantum Chem. 2009;109:3679–3684.

Svobodová Vařeková R, Geidl S, Ionescu CM, Skřehota O, Kudera M, Sehnal D, Bouchal T, Abagyan R, Huber HJ, Koča J. Predicting pKa Values of Substituted Phenols From Atomic Charges: Comparison of Different Quantum Mechanical Methods and Charge Distribution Schemes. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51:1795–1806. PubMed

Rayne S, Forest K, Friesen K. Examining the PM6 Semiempirical Method for pKa Prediction Across a Wide Range of Oxyacids. Available from Nature Precedings. http://hdl.handle.net/10101/npre.2009.2981.1.

Gieleciak R, Polanski J. Modeling Robust QSAR. 2. Iterative Variable Elimination Schemes for CoMSA: Application for Modeling Benzoic Acid pKa Values. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47:547–556. PubMed

Mortier WJ, Ghosh SK, Shankar S. Electronegativity Equalization Method for the Calculation of Atomic Charges in Molecules. J Am Chem Soc. 1986;108:4315–4320.

Czodrowski P, Dramburg I, Sotriffer CA, Klebe G. Development, Validation, and Application of Adapted PEOE Charges to Estimate pKa Values of Functional Groups in Protein–Ligand Complexes. Proteins Struct Funct Bioinf. 2006;65:424–437. PubMed

Tehan BG, Lloyd EJ, Wong MG, Pitt WR, Montana JG, Manallack DT, Gancia E. Estimation of pKa Using Semiempirical Molecular Orbital Methods. Part 1: Application to Phenols and Carboxylic Acids. Quant Struct-Act Relat. 2002;21:457–472.

NCI Open Database Compounds. Retrieved from http://cactus.nci.nih.gov/ on August 10, 2010.

Sadowski J, Gasteiger J. From Atoms and Bonds to Three-Dimensional Atomic Coordinates: Automatic Model Builders. Chem ReV. 1993;93:2567–2581.

Bolton EE, Wang Y, Thiessen PA, Bryant SH. In: In Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry. Wheeler R, Spellmeyer D, editors. 4; Chapter 12 Elsevier; 2008.

Hawkins PCD, Skillman AG, Warren GL, Ellingson BA, Stahl MT. Conformer Generation with OMEGA: Algorithm and Validation Using High Quality Structures from the Protein Databank and Cambridge Structural Database. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50:572–584. PubMed PMC

Vainio MJ, Johnson MS. Generating Conformer Ensembles Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47:2462–2474. PubMed

Leite TB, Gomes D, Miteva M, Chomilier J, Villoutreix B, Tuffry P. Frog: a FRee Online DruG 3D Conformation Generator. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:W568–W572. PubMed PMC

O'Boyle N, Banck M, James C, Morley C, Vandermeersch T, Hutchison G. Open Babel: An Open Chemical Toolbox. J Cheminf. 2011;3:33–47. PubMed PMC

Landrum G. RDKit: Open-Source Cheminformatics. Retrieved from http://www.rdkit.org on January 10, 2014.

Gross KC, Seybold PG. Substituent Effects on the Physical Properties and pKa of Phenol. Int J Quantum Chem. 2001;85:569–579.

Habibi-Yangjeh A, Danandeh-Jenagharad M, Nooshyar M. Application of Artificial Neural Networks for Predicting the Aqueous Acidity of Various Phenols Using QSAR. J Mol Model. 2006;12:338–347. PubMed

Howard P, Meylan W. Physical/Chemical Property Database (PHYSPROP) Syracuse Research Corporation, Environmental Science Center; North Syracuse NY: 1999.

Frisch MJ, Trucks GW, Schlegel HB, Scuseria GE, Robb MA, Cheeseman JR, Montgomery JA, Jr, Vreven T, 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. Gaussian 09, Revision E.01. Gaussian, Inc.; Wallingford, CT: 2004.

Gront D, Kolinski A. BioShell – a Package of Tools for Structural Biology Computations. Bioinformatics. 2006;22:621–622. PubMed

Gront D, Kolinski A. Utility Library for Structural. Bioinformatics. 2008;24:584–585. PubMed

Svobodová Vařeková R, Koča J. Optimized and Parallelized Implementation of the Electronegativity Equalization Method and the Atom-Bond Electronegativity Equalization Method. J Comput Chem. 2006;3:396–405. PubMed

Svobodová Vařeková R, Jiroušková Z, Vaněk J, Suchomel S, Koča J. Electronegativity Equalization Method: Parameterization and Validation for Large Sets of Organic, Organohalogene and Organometal Molecule. Int J Mol Sci. 2007;8:572–582.

Chaves J, Barroso JM, Bultinck P, Carbo-Dorca R. Toward an Alternative Hardness Kernel Matrix Structure in the Electronegativity Equalization Method (EEM) J Chem Inf Model. 2006;46:1657–1665. PubMed

Bultinck P, Langenaeker W, Lahorte P, De Proft F, Geerlings P, Van Alsenoy C, Tollenaere JP. The Electronegativity Equalization Method II: Applicability of Different Atomic Charge Schemes. J Phys Chem A. 2002;106:7895–7901.

Bultinck P, Vanholme R, Popelier PLA, De Proft F, Geerlings P. High-speed Calculation of AIM Charges Through the Electronegativity Equalization Method. J Phys Chem A. 2004;108:10359–10366.

Skřehota O, Svobodová Vařeková R, Geidl S, Kudera M, Sehnal D, Ionescu CM, Koča J. QSPR Designer – a Program to Design and Evaluate QSPR models. Case Study on pKa Prediction. J Cheminf. 2011;3(Suppl 1):16.

Lemm S, Blankertz B, Dickhaus T, Müller KR. Introduction to Machine Learning for Brain Imaging. NeuroImage. 2011;56:387–399. PubMed

Katritzky AR, Lobanov VS, Karelson M. QSPR: The Correlation and Quantitative Prediction of Chemical and Physical Properties From Structure. Chem Soc Rev. 1995;24:279–287.

Optimized SQE atomic charges for peptides accessible via a web application

NEEMP: software for validation, accurate calculation and fast parameterization of EEM charges

High-quality and universal empirical atomic charges for chemoinformatics applications

AtomicChargeCalculator: interactive web-based calculation of atomic charges in large biomolecular complexes and drug-like molecules