Hubbry Logo
Quantitative structure–activity relationshipQuantitative structure–activity relationshipMain
Open search
Quantitative structure–activity relationship
Community hub
Quantitative structure–activity relationship
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Quantitative structure–activity relationship
Quantitative structure–activity relationship
Quantitative structure–activity relationship
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) models are regression or classification models used in the chemical and biological sciences and engineering. Like other regression models, QSAR regression models relate a set of "predictor" variables (X) to the potency of the response variable (Y), while classification QSAR models relate the predictor variables to a categorical value of the response variable.

In QSAR modeling, the predictors consist of physico-chemical properties or theoretical molecular descriptors[1][2] of chemicals; the QSAR response-variable could be a biological activity of the chemicals. QSAR models first summarize a supposed relationship between chemical structures and biological activity in a data-set of chemicals. Second, QSAR models predict the activities of new chemicals.[3][4]

Related terms include quantitative structure–property relationships (QSPR) when a chemical property is modeled as the response variable.[5][6] "Different properties or behaviors of chemical molecules have been investigated in the field of QSPR. Some examples are quantitative structure–reactivity relationships (QSRRs), quantitative structure–chromatography relationships (QSCRs) and, quantitative structure–toxicity relationships (QSTRs), quantitative structure–electrochemistry relationships (QSERs), and quantitative structure–biodegradability relationships (QSBRs)."[7]

As an example, biological activity can be expressed quantitatively as the concentration of a substance required to give a certain biological response. Additionally, when physicochemical properties or structures are expressed by numbers, one can find a mathematical relationship, or quantitative structure-activity relationship, between the two. The mathematical expression, if carefully validated,[8][9][10][11] can then be used to predict the modeled response of other chemical structures.[12]

A QSAR has the form of a mathematical model:

  • Activity = f (physiochemical properties and/or structural properties) + error

The error includes model error (bias) and observational variability, that is, the variability in observations even on a correct model.

Essential steps in QSAR studies

[edit]

The principal steps of QSAR/QSPR include:[7]

  1. Selection of data set and extraction of structural/empirical descriptors
  2. Variable selection
  3. Model construction
  4. Validation evaluation

SAR and the SAR paradox

[edit]

The basic assumption for all molecule-based hypotheses is that similar molecules have similar activities. This principle is also called Structure–Activity Relationship (SAR). The underlying problem is therefore how to define a small difference on a molecular level, since each kind of activity, e.g. reaction ability, biotransformation ability, solubility, target activity, and so on, might depend on another difference. Examples were given in the bioisosterism reviews by Patanie/LaVoie[13] and Brown.[14]

In general, one is more interested in finding strong trends. Created hypotheses usually rely on a finite number of chemicals, so care must be taken to avoid overfitting: the generation of hypotheses that fit training data very closely but perform poorly when applied to new data.

The SAR paradox refers to the fact that it is not the case that all similar molecules have similar activities.[15]

Types

[edit]

Fragment based (group contribution)

[edit]

Analogously, the "partition coefficient"—a measurement of differential solubility and itself a component of QSAR predictions—can be predicted either by atomic methods (known as "XLogP" or "ALogP") or by chemical fragment methods (known as "CLogP" and other variations). It has been shown that the logP of compound can be determined by the sum of its fragments; fragment-based methods are generally accepted as better predictors than atomic-based methods.[16] Fragmentary values have been determined statistically, based on empirical data for known logP values. This method gives mixed results and is generally not trusted to have accuracy of more than ±0.1 units.[17]

Group or fragment-based QSAR is also known as GQSAR.[18] GQSAR allows flexibility to study various molecular fragments of interest in relation to the variation in biological response. The molecular fragments could be substituents at various substitution sites in congeneric set of molecules or could be on the basis of pre-defined chemical rules in case of non-congeneric sets. GQSAR also considers cross-terms fragment descriptors, which could be helpful in identification of key fragment interactions in determining variation of activity.[18] Lead discovery using fragnomics is an emerging paradigm. In this context FB-QSAR proves to be a promising strategy for fragment library design and in fragment-to-lead identification endeavours.[19]

An advanced approach on fragment or group-based QSAR based on the concept of pharmacophore-similarity is developed.[20] This method, pharmacophore-similarity-based QSAR (PS-QSAR) uses topological pharmacophoric descriptors to develop QSAR models. This activity prediction may assist the contribution of certain pharmacophore features encoded by respective fragments toward activity improvement and/or detrimental effects.[20]

3D-QSAR

[edit]

The acronym 3D-QSAR or 3-D QSAR refers to the application of force field calculations requiring three-dimensional structures of a given set of small molecules with known activities (training set). The training set needs to be superimposed (aligned) by either experimental data (e.g. based on ligand-protein crystallography) or molecule superimposition software. It uses computed potentials, e.g. the Lennard-Jones potential, rather than experimental constants and is concerned with the overall molecule rather than a single substituent. The first 3-D QSAR was named Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) by Cramer et al. It examined the steric fields (shape of the molecule) and the electrostatic fields[21] which were correlated by means of partial least squares regression (PLS).

The created data space is then usually reduced by a following feature extraction (see also dimensionality reduction). The following learning method can be any of the already mentioned machine learning methods, e.g. support vector machines.[22] An alternative approach uses multiple-instance learning by encoding molecules as sets of data instances, each of which represents a possible molecular conformation. A label or response is assigned to each set corresponding to the activity of the molecule, which is assumed to be determined by at least one instance in the set (i.e. some conformation of the molecule).[23]

On June 18, 2011 the Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA) patent has dropped any restriction on the use of GRID and partial least-squares (PLS) technologies.[citation needed]

Chemical descriptor based

[edit]

In this approach, descriptors quantifying various electronic, geometric, or steric properties of a molecule are computed and used to develop a QSAR.[24] This approach is different from the fragment (or group contribution) approach in that the descriptors are computed for the system as whole rather than from the properties of individual fragments. This approach is different from the 3D-QSAR approach in that the descriptors are computed from scalar quantities (e.g., energies, geometric parameters) rather than from 3D fields.

An example of this approach is the QSARs developed for olefin polymerization by half sandwich compounds.[25][26]

String based

[edit]

It has been shown that activity prediction is even possible based purely on the SMILES string.[27][28][29]

Graph based

[edit]

Similarly to string-based methods, the molecular graph can directly be used as input for QSAR models,[30][31] but usually yield inferior performance compared to descriptor-based QSAR models.[32][33]

q-RASAR

[edit]

QSAR has been merged with the similarity-based read-across technique to develop a new field of q-RASAR. The DTC Laboratory at Jadavpur University has developed this hybrid method and the details are available at their laboratory page. Recently, the q-RASAR framework has been improved by its integration with the ARKA descriptors in QSAR.

Modeling

[edit]

In the literature it can be often found that chemists have a preference for partial least squares (PLS) methods,[citation needed] since it applies the feature extraction and induction in one step.

Data mining approach

[edit]

Computer SAR models typically calculate a relatively large number of features. Because those lack structural interpretation ability, the preprocessing steps face a feature selection problem (i.e., which structural features should be interpreted to determine the structure-activity relationship). Feature selection can be accomplished by visual inspection (qualitative selection by a human); by data mining; or by molecule mining.

A typical data mining based prediction uses e.g. support vector machines, decision trees, artificial neural networks for inducing a predictive learning model.

Molecule mining approaches, a special case of structured data mining approaches, apply a similarity matrix based prediction or an automatic fragmentation scheme into molecular substructures. Furthermore, there exist also approaches using maximum common subgraph searches or graph kernels.[34][35]

QSAR protocol

Matched molecular pair analysis

[edit]
Main article: Matched molecular pair analysis

Typically QSAR models derived from non linear machine learning is seen as a "black box", which fails to guide medicinal chemists. Recently there is a relatively new concept of matched molecular pair analysis[36] or prediction driven MMPA which is coupled with QSAR model in order to identify activity cliffs.[37]

Evaluation of the quality of QSAR models

[edit]

QSAR modeling produces predictive models derived from application of statistical tools correlating biological activity (including desirable therapeutic effect and undesirable side effects) or physico-chemical properties in QSPR models of chemicals (drugs/toxicants/environmental pollutants) with descriptors representative of molecular structure or properties. QSARs are being applied in many disciplines, for example: risk assessment, toxicity prediction, and regulatory decisions[38] in addition to drug discovery and lead optimization.[39] Obtaining a good quality QSAR model depends on many factors, such as the quality of input data, the choice of descriptors and statistical methods for modeling and for validation. Any QSAR modeling should ultimately lead to statistically robust and predictive models capable of making accurate and reliable predictions of the modeled response of new compounds.

For validation of QSAR models, usually various strategies are adopted:[40]

  1. internal validation or cross-validation (actually, while extracting data, cross validation is a measure of model robustness, the more a model is robust (higher q2) the less data extraction perturb the original model);
  2. external validation by splitting the available data set into training set for model development and prediction set for model predictivity check;
  3. blind external validation by application of model on new external data and
  4. data randomization or Y-scrambling for verifying the absence of chance correlation between the response and the modeling descriptors.

The success of any QSAR model depends on accuracy of the input data, selection of appropriate descriptors and statistical tools, and most importantly validation of the developed model. Validation is the process by which the reliability and relevance of a procedure are established for a specific purpose; for QSAR models validation must be mainly for robustness, prediction performances and applicability domain (AD) of the models.[8][9][11][41][42]

Some validation methodologies can be problematic. For example, leave one-out cross-validation generally leads to an overestimation of predictive capacity. Even with external validation, it is difficult to determine whether the selection of training and test sets was manipulated to maximize the predictive capacity of the model being published.

Different aspects of validation of QSAR models that need attention include methods of selection of training set compounds,[43] setting training set size[44] and impact of variable selection[45] for training set models for determining the quality of prediction. Development of novel validation parameters for judging quality of QSAR models is also important.[11][46][47]

Application

[edit]

Chemical

[edit]

One of the first historical QSAR applications was to predict boiling points.[48]

It is well known for instance that within a particular family of chemical compounds, especially of organic chemistry, that there are strong correlations between structure and observed properties. A simple example is the relationship between the number of carbons in alkanes and their boiling points. There is a clear trend in the increase of boiling point with an increase in the number carbons, and this serves as a means for predicting the boiling points of higher alkanes.

A still very interesting application is the Hammett equation, Taft equation and pKa prediction methods.[49]

Biological

[edit]

The biological activity of molecules is usually measured in assays to establish the level of inhibition of particular signal transduction or metabolic pathways. Drug discovery often involves the use of QSAR to identify chemical structures that could have good inhibitory effects on specific targets and have low toxicity (non-specific activity). Of special interest is the prediction of partition coefficient log P, which is an important measure used in identifying "druglikeness" according to Lipinski's Rule of Five.[50]

While many quantitative structure activity relationship analyses involve the interactions of a family of molecules with an enzyme or receptor binding site, QSAR can also be used to study the interactions between the structural domains of proteins. Protein-protein interactions can be quantitatively analyzed for structural variations resulted from site-directed mutagenesis.[51]

It is part of the machine learning method to reduce the risk for a SAR paradox, especially taking into account that only a finite amount of data is available (see also MVUE). In general, all QSAR problems can be divided into coding[52] and learning.[53]

Applications

[edit]

(Q)SAR models have been used for risk management. QSARS are suggested by regulatory authorities; in the European Union, QSARs are suggested by the REACH regulation, where "REACH" abbreviates "Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals". Regulatory application of QSAR methods includes in silico toxicological assessment of genotoxic impurities.[54] Commonly used QSAR assessment software such as DEREK or CASE Ultra (MultiCASE) is used to genotoxicity of impurity according to ICH M7.[55]

The chemical descriptor space whose convex hull is generated by a particular training set of chemicals is called the training set's applicability domain. Prediction of properties of novel chemicals that are located outside the applicability domain uses extrapolation, and so is less reliable (on average) than prediction within the applicability domain. The assessment of the reliability of QSAR predictions remains a research topic, as a unified strategy has yet to be adopted by modellers and regulatory authorities.[56]

The QSAR equations can be used to predict biological activities of newer molecules before their synthesis.

Examples of machine learning tools for QSAR modeling include:[57]

S.No. Name Algorithms External link
1. R RF, SVM, Naïve Bayesian, and ANN "R: The R Project for Statistical Computing".
2. libSVM SVM "LIBSVM -- A Library for Support Vector Machines".
3. Orange RF, SVM, and Naïve Bayesian "Orange Data Mining". Archived from the original on 2011-01-10. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
4. RapidMiner SVM, RF, Naïve Bayes, DT, ANN, and k-NN "RapidMiner | #1 Open Source Predictive Analytics Platform".
5. Weka RF, SVM, and Naïve Bayes "Weka 3 - Data Mining with Open Source Machine Learning Software in Java". Archived from the original on 2011-10-28. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
6. Knime DT, Naïve Bayes, and SVM "KNIME | Open for Innovation".
7. AZOrange[58] RT, SVM, ANN, and RF "AZCompTox/AZOrange: AstraZeneca add-ons to Orange". GitHub. 2018-09-19.
8. Tanagra SVM, RF, Naïve Bayes, and DT "TANAGRA - A free DATA MINING software for teaching and research". Archived from the original on 2017-12-19. Retrieved 2016-03-24.
9. Elki k-NN "ELKI Data Mining Framework". Archived from the original on 2016-11-19.
10. MALLET "MALLET homepage".
11. MOA "MOA Massive Online Analysis | Real Time Analytics for Data Streams". Archived from the original on 2017-06-19.
12. Deep Chem Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, RF, ANN, and others "DeepChem". deepchem.io. Retrieved 20 October 2017.
13. alvaModel[59] Regression (OLS, PLS, k-NN, SVM and Consensus) and Classification (LDA/QDA, PLS-DA, k-NN, SVM and Consensus) "alvaModel: a software tool to create QSAR/QSPR models". alvascience.com.
14. scikit-learn (Python) [60] Logistic Regression, Naive Bayes, kNN, RF, SVM, GP, ANN, and others "SciKit-Learn". scikit-learn.org. Retrieved 13 August 2023.
15. Scikit-Mol[61] Integration of Scikit-learn models and RDKit featurization scikit-mol on pypi.org
16. scikit-fingerprints[62] Molecular fingerprints, API compatible with Scikit-learn models "scikit-fingerprints". GitHub. Retrieved 29 December 2024.
17. DTC Lab Tools Multiple Linear Regression, Partial Least Squares, Applicability Domain, Validation, and others "DTCLab Tools". Retrieved 12 May 2025.
18. DTC Lab Supplementary Tools Quantitative Read-across, q-RASAR, ARKA, Regression and Classification-based ML tools, and others "DTCLab Supplementary Tools". Retrieved 12 May 2025.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Quantitative structure–activity relationship

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) refers to computational modeling techniques that correlate the structural or physicochemical properties of chemical compounds with their biological activities or toxicological endpoints through statistical or methods. These models typically employ molecular descriptors—numerical representations of features such as , , electronic distribution, and hydrophobicity—to predict outcomes like potency, receptor binding affinity, or environmental without requiring extensive experimental testing. Originating in the with foundational work by researchers like Corwin Hansch and Toshio Fujita, who introduced linear free-energy relationships to quantify effects on activity, QSAR has evolved from simple linear regressions to sophisticated 3D and learning-based approaches incorporating spatial molecular conformations. QSAR's primary applications span , where it facilitates of vast chemical libraries to identify promising leads, and regulatory , enabling predictions for untested compounds to support safety assessments under frameworks like the EPA's evaluations or the EU's REACH program. In pharmaceuticals, it accelerates lead optimization by forecasting how structural modifications influence efficacy, thereby reducing synthesis and costs. Notable achievements include its integration into pipelines, contributing to faster development cycles, and its role in read-across strategies for hazard identification, which minimize while prioritizing empirical validation of model predictions. Despite these advances, QSAR models face inherent limitations, including challenges in handling non-linear relationships, activity cliffs where small structural changes yield large activity shifts, and the need for well-defined applicability domains to avoid unreliable extrapolations beyond training data. Common pitfalls, such as from excessive descriptors or biased datasets, underscore the importance of rigorous validation metrics like external test set performance and cross-validation to ensure causal interpretability over mere statistical . While QSAR enhances efficiency, its predictions must be complemented by mechanistic understanding and experimental confirmation, reflecting a commitment to empirical rigor amid evolving computational capabilities.

Definition and Principles

Core Concepts of QSAR

Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling establishes mathematical correlations between quantitative representations of molecular structure, known as descriptors, and measurable biological activities or physicochemical properties, enabling predictions for untested compounds. This approach assumes that structural similarity implies functional similarity in biological responses, formalized as biological activity (BA) = f(descriptors, D), where f can be linear (e.g., multiple linear regression: BA = k₁D₁ + k₂D₂ + ... + c) or nonlinear (e.g., via machine learning algorithms). The method originated from linear free-energy relationships but has evolved to handle complex, multidimensional data through statistical and computational techniques. Central to QSAR are molecular descriptors, which numerically encode structural features such as atomic composition, bond connectivity, electronic distribution, and . These include constitutional descriptors (e.g., molecular weight), topological indices (e.g., for branching), physicochemical parameters (e.g., , logP), and quantum chemical properties derived from computational simulations. Descriptors transform chemical structures—often represented as graphs with atoms as vertices and bonds as edges—into a multidimensional for analysis, with hundreds or thousands possible per , necessitating to avoid . Model development in QSAR involves curating high-quality datasets of structures and experimentally measured activities (e.g., IC₅₀ values), followed by descriptor calculation and regression or machine learning to fit the data. Validation is essential, adhering to principles like those from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which require defined applicability domains, internal cross-validation (e.g., q² > 0.5), and external predictivity tests to ensure models generalize beyond training sets. Poor data quality or unaddressed assumptions, such as activity cliffs (sharp activity changes from minor structural tweaks), can undermine reliability.

Mathematical Foundations

The mathematical foundations of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) modeling primarily derive from linear free energy relationships (LFERS), which correlate changes in with variations in free energy-related properties, such as biological potency. These relationships, pioneered in , assume that substituent effects on reactivity or activity can be quantified through additive parameters representing electronic, steric, and hydrophobic influences. The core statistical tool is multiple (MLR), where —often expressed as log(1/C), with C being the required for a standard response—is regressed against molecular descriptors to yield equations of the form log(1/C) = aX_1 + bX_2 + ... + k, with coefficients derived from least-squares fitting to empirical data sets. A seminal formulation is the Hansch-Fujita equation, introduced in 1964, which integrates hydrophobic (π), electronic (σ), and steric (E_s) parameters: log(1/C) = a(log P - log P_0)^2 + ρσ + δE_s + c, where log P is the octanol-water partition coefficient (a measure of lipophilicity), π = log P - log P_0 accounts for substituent hydrophobicity relative to a parent compound, σ is the Hammett constant for electronic effects, E_s is the Taft steric parameter, and terms like the quadratic in log P capture parabolic dependencies on lipophilicity optimal for membrane transport. This extrathermodynamic approach assumes linear additivity of substituent contributions to free energy changes (ΔΔG = -RT log(1/C)), enabling prediction of activity for untested analogs within congeneric series, though it requires careful validation against overfitting via cross-validation statistics like r^2 and q^2. In parallel, the Free-Wilson analysis, developed in , employs an additive group contribution model without physicochemical parameters, treating as log(1/C) = μ + Σ β_i I_i, where μ is the parent activity, β_i are substituent-specific increments, and I_i are indicator variables (0 or 1) for the presence of group i at position j. Fitted via MLR on sets of congeners differing by discrete substituents, this method assumes independence and additivity of fragment effects, yielding interpretable relative potencies but faltering with multicollinear or non-additive interactions, as evidenced by its sensitivity to incomplete substitution patterns. Both approaches underpin QSAR by formalizing structure-activity correlations as linear models, later extended to nonlinear forms or multivariate techniques like partial least squares to handle descriptor and high-dimensional data.

Historical Development

Early Foundations (Pre-1960s)

The earliest conceptual foundations for quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSAR) emerged in the mid-19th century, when Alexander Crum-Brown and Thomas Richard Fraser proposed in 1868 that physiological action could be mathematically expressed as a function of chemical constitution. Their work on alkaloids suggested a direct correlation between structural modifications and toxicity, framing activity as f(φ), where φ represents constitutional changes, though without explicit equations or descriptors. This idea laid the groundwork for later quantitative efforts by emphasizing empirical correlations over anecdotal observations. Subsequent pre-20th-century attempts focused on narcosis and . In 1893, correlated of organic compounds with their in , finding that toxicity increased with decreasing solubility, expressed as log(1/) ∝ . Hans Horst Meyer and Charles Ernest Overton independently advanced this in 1899–1901, demonstrating that narcotic potency in tadpoles and other organisms was proportional to the oil/ (log P), quantifying lipophilicity's role in partitioning and . These relations provided early physicochemical predictors, linking hydrophobic effects causally to and non-specific via thermodynamic principles. In the 1920s, K.H. Meyer and Gottlieb-Billroth derived one of the first explicit QSAR-like equations in 1920, correlating anesthetic potency with partition coefficients for a series of compounds. further solidified quantitative foundations through linear free-energy relationships (LFER). Louis P. Hammett's 1937 equation, log(k/k₀) = ρσ, quantified substituent electronic effects (σ constants) on reaction rates and equilibria using ionization as a reference, enabling prediction of reactivity variations across series. Extensions like Robert W. Taft's 1952 parameters for steric and polar substituents complemented this, providing additive descriptors for structure-property correlations that anticipated biological applications. These LFER tools, grounded in measurable thermodynamic data, shifted from qualitative analogies to verifiable, parameter-based modeling, though applications remained limited to physicochemical properties rather than direct biological activities pre-1960.

Modern QSAR Establishment (1960s-1980s)

The establishment of modern QSAR in the 1960s marked a shift from qualitative structure-activity correlations to quantitative predictive models grounded in linear free-energy relationships derived from physical-organic chemistry principles. Corwin Hansch and Toshio Fujita introduced the foundational Hansch-Fujita approach in 1964, correlating biological potency (often expressed as log(1/C), where C is the for a standard biological response) with molecular descriptors: hydrophobic effects via π constants (log P_X / P_H, where P denotes octanol-water partition coefficients), electronic influences through Hammett σ values, and initial considerations of steric parameters using equations like log(1/C) = a(π - π_0)^2 + bπ + ρσ + c. This ρ-σ-π analysis, published in the Journal of the , enabled the first systematic predictions of activity for series like phenylalkylamines and sulfonamides, emphasizing that biological transport and receptor interactions could be modeled via measurable physicochemical properties. Concurrently in 1964, S.M. Free and J.W. Wilson developed the Free-Wilson method, an alternative additive model that treated as the linear sum of contributions without invoking continuous physicochemical parameters. Represented as log(1/C) = Σ a_i X_i + μ (where a_i are group contributions, X_i indicator variables for presence/absence, and μ the parent activity), this approach used on binary structural data from congeneric series, such as substituted imidazoles, proving effective for cases where effects were independent and non-multiplicative. Unlike Hansch analysis, which integrated mechanistic insights from Hammett-Taft equations, Free-Wilson prioritized empirical , though it required larger datasets to avoid and lacked interpretability for nonlinear effects. Both methods, validated on datasets of 10-50 congeners yielding r² > 0.8, spurred QSAR's adoption in by reducing synthetic trial-and-error. Through the 1970s and 1980s, QSAR matured with refinements addressing limitations, including parabolic hydrophobicity terms (log(1/C) = -a(log P)^2 + b log P + ... ) to model optimal plateaus observed in like barbiturates (peaking at log P ≈ 2), and bilinear models by Kubinyi for sigmoidal partitioning behaviors. Hansch's lab compiled extensive congener tables exceeding 1,000 compounds across therapeutic classes, while software prototypes emerged for parameter calculation and regression, such as early versions of C-QSAR programs handling up to 100 variables. Applications expanded beyond to pesticide design (e.g., correlating herbicidal activity with σ and π for 100+ anilines) and , with studies on 50-200 predicting log(1/LC50) for fish via regression coefficients validated against experimental bioassays (r² ≈ 0.85-0.95). These advances, supported by growing computational access (e.g., mainframes running OLS regression), established QSAR as a core tool in rational , though critiques noted dataset homogeneity requirements and extrapolation risks to noncongeners.

Evolution to Advanced Methods (1990s-Present)

The 1990s marked a pivotal shift in QSAR toward three-dimensional (3D) modeling, with the refinement and broad application of Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA), originally proposed in 1988, enabling the correlation of molecular fields (steric and electrostatic) around aligned conformations to biological activities. This approach addressed limitations of 2D QSAR by incorporating spatial arrangements, facilitating virtual screening and lead optimization in drug design. Concurrently, Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis (CoMSIA), introduced in 1994, extended CoMFA by adding hydrophobic, hydrogen-donor, and hydrogen-acceptor descriptors, reducing alignment sensitivity and enhancing model robustness for diverse datasets. Early machine learning integrations, such as neural networks for structure-activity analysis in 1992, began handling non-linear relationships previously challenging for linear regressions. The 2000s saw accelerated incorporation of algorithms, with k-nearest neighbors (k-NN) applied to QSAR in 2000 for similarity-based predictions, followed by support vector machines (SVMs) in 2003 to manage high-dimensional descriptor spaces and random forests (RF) in the same year, which emerged as a benchmark for in activity and forecasting. These methods improved generalizability over traditional partial (PLS) by capturing complex interactions, particularly in ADMET (absorption, distribution, , , ) profiling, where RF models demonstrated superior cross-validated R² values (often >0.7) on benchmark datasets. By mid-decade, artificial neural networks gained traction for bioactivity , leveraging to fit non-linear patterns in larger congeneric series. From the 2010s onward, revolutionized QSAR, spurred by the 2012 Merck Molecular Activity Challenge, which highlighted deep neural networks (DNNs) for across endpoints, achieving up to 20% gains in predictive accuracy over shallow models on sparse data. Graph neural networks and convolutional variants, integrated post-2015, processed molecular graphs directly, enhancing inverse QSAR for de novo design and addressing activity cliffs—sharp activity changes from minor structural tweaks—via advanced interpretability tools like SHAP values. Recent trends emphasize hybrid models combining quantum mechanical descriptors with DNNs for precise ADMET predictions, supported by big data from repositories like , yielding models with external validation R² exceeding 0.8 in assays. These advancements have expanded QSAR applicability to and , though challenges persist in data quality and extrapolative power beyond training domains.

Methodological Framework

Essential Steps in QSAR Studies

Quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) studies follow a structured to derive predictive models linking molecular structures to biological activities. The process begins with the collection and curation of a high-quality comprising chemical structures and corresponding experimental activity , such as binding affinities or endpoints, sourced from reliable or to minimize errors and biases. Data curation involves removing duplicates, standardizing representations (e.g., canonical SMILES), identifying and addressing outliers, and ensuring structural diversity to avoid . This step is critical, as poor quality undermines model reliability, with studies emphasizing the need for at least 20–30 compounds per descriptor to achieve statistical robustness. Following data preparation, molecular descriptors—numerical representations of structural features like physicochemical properties, topological indices, or quantum mechanical parameters—are calculated using software such as or PaDEL-Descriptor. Thousands of descriptors may be generated, necessitating dimensionality reduction through techniques like genetic algorithms or to identify those most correlated with activity while mitigating . The dataset is then split into training (typically 70–80%), validation (for hyperparameter tuning), and external test sets (20–30%) to enable unbiased evaluation. Model development proceeds by applying statistical or methods, such as multiple , partial , random forests, or support vector machines, to establish quantitative relationships between selected descriptors and activity values. Internal validation via cross-validation (e.g., leave-one-out or k-fold) assesses predictive power within the training set, while external validation on unseen data measures generalizability using metrics like R², Q², RMSE, or accuracy. Models must define an applicability domain, often via leverage or similarity thresholds, to flag predictions for novel compounds outside the training space. Final steps include model interpretation to elucidate mechanistic insights, such as descriptor contributions to activity, and iterative refinement by incorporating new data or alternative descriptors to enhance performance. Rigorous adherence to these steps ensures models meet principles for regulatory , emphasizing transparency, robustness, and mechanistic plausibility over mere statistical fit.

Data Preparation and Descriptor Calculation

Data preparation in QSAR studies involves curating datasets to ensure high quality and reliability, as poor data can lead to misleading models. This process typically begins with compiling chemical structures alongside measured biological activities or properties from reliable sources such as (HTS) assays or literature databases. Structures are standardized to canonical representations, such as InChI or SMILES strings, to resolve ambiguities from tautomers, salts, and stereoisomers; for instance, salts are dissociated, charges neutralized, and implicit hydrogens added. Duplicates and near-analogs are identified and removed using similarity metrics like Tanimoto coefficients above 0.9, while outliers in activity values—often defined as exceeding three standard deviations from the mean—are scrutinized or excluded to mitigate experimental artifacts. Biological endpoints are normalized, commonly converting or to negative logarithm scales (pIC50 or pEC50) for better statistical properties and to handle wide dynamic ranges spanning orders of magnitude. Automated tools facilitate this curation, such as those integrating cheminformatics libraries for , emphasizing the need for manual verification in complex cases to preserve dataset integrity. Following preparation, molecular descriptors are calculated to quantify structural features correlating with activity. Descriptors encompass diverse categories: zero-dimensional (e.g., molecular weight, atom counts), one-dimensional (e.g., logP for hydrophobicity), two-dimensional topological indices (e.g., for branching), and three-dimensional geometrical or quantum chemical properties (e.g., dipole moment from DFT calculations). Calculation often employs software like RDKit for open-source 2D descriptors or commercial suites such as for over 5,000 predefined indices, ensuring reproducibility through standardized input formats like SDF files. Descriptor selection precedes modeling to reduce dimensionality and ; techniques include filtering (e.g., removing variables with pairwise |r| > 0.9) and feature importance ranking via methods like genetic algorithms. High-quality descriptors must be interpretable and mechanistically relevant, avoiding over-reliance on black-box computations without validation against known structure-activity trends. Recent advancements incorporate chirality-aware descriptors for stereospecific modeling, computed from 3D conformers generated via or docking.

Types of QSAR Approaches

2D QSAR Methods

Two-dimensional (2D) quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) methods establish mathematical correlations between a molecule's topological or connectivity-based structural features and its , typically using descriptors that capture physicochemical properties without considering three-dimensional conformations. These approaches rely on representations such as SMILES strings or molecular graphs to compute parameters like hydrophobicity, electronic effects, and steric factors, enabling predictions via regression models. Traditional 2D QSAR emerged in the as a foundational tool in for rational , prioritizing interpretable, linear models over complex spatial alignments required in higher-dimensional methods. The Hansch-Fujita approach, introduced in 1964, exemplifies classical 2D QSAR by applying linear free-energy relationships to link biological potency—often expressed as log(1/C), where C is the concentration for a standard response—to constants via . The general takes the form:
log(1/C) = a (log P)^b + ρ σ + δ E_s + k,
where log P measures hydrophobicity (transport across membranes), σ denotes the Hammett constant for electronic effects, E_s represents the Taft steric parameter, and a, b, ρ, δ, k are fitted coefficients. Hydrophobicity is quantified using the hydrophobic constant π = log P_X - log P_H, where P_X and P_H are partition coefficients for substituted and parent compounds, respectively; parabolic terms like (log P)^2 account for optimal beyond which activity declines due to poor or nonspecific binding. This method assumes additivity of effects and has been validated in congeneric series, such as phenyl-substituted benzoic acids, yielding models with coefficients r > 0.8 in early applications. In contrast, the Free-Wilson analysis, also developed in 1964, treats as an of discrete contributions within a common molecular scaffold, bypassing continuous physicochemical descriptors. The model is:
A_i = μ + Σ a_j I_{ij},
where A_i is the activity of analog i, μ is the parent activity, a_j is the contribution of j, and I_{ij} is a binary indicator (1 if j is present in i, 0 otherwise). Least-squares fitting estimates a_j values, assuming group independence and no higher-order interactions; significance is assessed via analysis of variance, requiring at least as many analogs as substituents to avoid . This de novo method excels for qualitative SAR but falters with in diverse substituents or non-additive effects, as evidenced by its correlation to Hansch models only when group constants align with physicochemical trends. Beyond these pioneers, 2D QSAR encompasses topological descriptors like (W, summing squared distances in molecular graphs for branching quantification) and connectivity indices (e.g., χ = Σ (δ_i δ_j / ζ_{ij})^{0.5} for valence-adjusted paths), which encode shape and connectivity without atomic coordinates. Physicochemical descriptors remain central, including molecular weight, (α), and acid dissociation constants (pK_a), often combined in partial or for multicollinear data. Modern extensions integrate fragment-based counts or graph invariants into frameworks, yet traditional models prioritize simplicity and interpretability, with validation via cross-validation (q^2 > 0.5) and external test sets to mitigate risks. Limitations include neglect of conformational dynamics and receptor interactions, rendering 2D QSAR most reliable for rather than diverse datasets.

3D and Multidimensional QSAR

3D QSAR extends traditional 2D approaches by incorporating molecular conformations and spatial arrangements to model , addressing limitations in capturing stereoelectronic effects and binding orientations critical for receptor interactions. Unlike 2D QSAR, which relies on topological descriptors, 3D methods generate interaction fields—steric, electrostatic, and sometimes hydrophobic or hydrogen-bonding—around aligned molecular structures to derive quantitative relationships with activity data. This alignment step, often performed via superposition of pharmacophoric features or receptor-based docking, is pivotal, as misalignment can introduce artifacts, necessitating robust conformational sampling from or dynamics simulations. A foundational 3D QSAR technique is Comparative Molecular Field Analysis (CoMFA), introduced in 1988 by Cramer, Patterson, and Bunce, which probes ligand fields using a grid spaced at 2 Å intervals and Lennard-Jones and Coulomb potentials to quantify steric and electrostatic contributions. Partial least squares (PLS) regression then correlates these field values with experimental activities, yielding contour maps that visualize favorable/unfavorable regions for substituent placement. CoMFA's predictive power stems from its ability to highlight non-bonded interactions, with cross-validated q2q^2 values often exceeding 0.5 in validated models for datasets of 20–100 compounds. An extension, Comparative Molecular Similarity Indices Analysis (CoMSIA), incorporates additional fields like hydrophobicity (via Gaussian functions) and hydrogen bonding, reducing sensitivity to grid positioning and improving interpretability for diverse chemical series. Receptor-based 3D QSAR variants, such as those using GRID or interaction energy fingerprints, integrate protein structures to refine alignments, enhancing accuracy for structure-based but requiring high-resolution crystallographic . These methods have demonstrated superior performance over 2D QSAR in predicting activities for congeneric series with conformational flexibility, as evidenced by studies on inhibitors where 3D models achieved r2>0.8r^2 > 0.8 versus r2<0.6r^2 < 0.6 for 2D counterparts. Challenges include conformational ambiguity and computational cost, often mitigated by ensemble averaging or machine learning integration for descriptor selection. Multidimensional QSAR builds on 3D frameworks by accounting for dynamic aspects, with 4D-QSAR treating activity as a function of conformational ensembles generated via molecular dynamics, using grid-based or quantum mechanical descriptors across multiple states to capture entropy and flexibility effects. Introduced in the 1990s, 4D approaches, such as those by Silverman and Kellogg, employ PLS or genetic algorithms to weight conformations by their population and interaction profiles, yielding models robust to induced-fit phenomena absent in static 3D alignments. Predictive validation on datasets like DHFR inhibitors has shown 4D-QSAR improving external rpred2r^2_{pred} by 20–30% over 3D methods, particularly for flexible ligands. Higher dimensions extend this paradigm: 5D-QSAR incorporates induced-fit adaptations by simulating ligand-receptor perturbations, often via free-energy perturbation calculations, to model binding free energies beyond rigid docking. 6D-QSAR further includes alignment entropy or solvation vectors, addressing ensemble docking variability, though these remain computationally intensive and less widespread due to validation needs on large datasets. Recent advances, fueled by GPU-accelerated simulations, have revived interest in multidimensional QSAR for polypharmacology and ADME predictions, with hybrid models combining 4D–6D descriptors achieving q2>0.7q^2 > 0.7 in cross-domain applications. Despite advantages in realism, multidimensional methods demand extensive sampling to avoid , emphasizing the need for orthogonal validation against diverse bioassays.

Other Specialized Types

Holographic quantitative structure-activity relationship (HQSAR) modeling encodes molecular fragments into fixed-length bitstring holograms, representing the presence and connectivity of substructural fragments without reliance on three-dimensional conformations. Developed in 1997, this method fragments molecules into bins of varying lengths (typically 4-7 atoms) and uses partial least squares (PLS) regression to derive structure-activity models, enabling rapid analysis of large datasets and identification of bioactive fragment contributions. HQSAR has demonstrated superior predictive performance over traditional 2D methods in cases like binding, with cross-validated r² values exceeding 0.8 in optimized models. Proteochemometric modeling (PCM) integrates and target protein descriptors to predict bioactivities across compound-protein pairs, addressing limitations of single-target QSAR by modeling polypharmacology. Utilizing or support vector machines, PCM leverages sparse interaction data—often from databases like —to forecast affinities for unseen combinations, achieving mean absolute errors below 1.0 log unit in inhibition datasets with over 10,000 interactions. This approach outperforms independent QSAR models for novel targets by borrowing statistical strength from related proteins, as evidenced in predictions. Multi-task QSAR extends traditional modeling by simultaneously optimizing predictions for multiple related biological endpoints, such as activities against families, through shared latent representations in neural networks or Gaussian processes. In applications to compounds, multi-task frameworks improved AUC-ROC scores by 0.05-0.10 over single-task baselines when trained on datasets exceeding 50 targets, enhancing generalization via task similarity regularization. These methods are particularly effective for data-scarce scenarios, where from high-data tasks boosts performance on low-data ones by up to 20% in error.

Modeling Techniques

Traditional Statistical Models

Traditional statistical models in quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) studies form the foundational approaches for correlating molecular descriptors with or physicochemical properties, typically assuming linear relationships and relying on regression techniques to derive predictive equations. These methods emerged in the , emphasizing interpretable parameters such as hydrophobicity (e.g., logP), electronic effects (e.g., Hammett σ constants), and steric factors. Key assumptions include additivity of effects, independence of variables, and minimal , though violations often necessitate or variable selection. The Hansch-Fujita approach, introduced in 1964, exemplifies early linear free-energy-related models, expressing biological activity (often as log(1/C) where C is concentration for 50% effect) as a function of hydrophobic, electronic, and steric descriptors via multiple linear regression (MLR): log(1/C) = a(logP - b(logP)^2) + cσ + dEs + k, where logP measures partitioning, σ denotes electronic substituent constants, and Es captures steric hindrance. This parabolic incorporation of logP accounts for optimal hydrophobicity, enabling the rationalization of structure-activity trends in congeneric series, such as substituted benzoic acids or phenylalanine analogs. Despite limitations like sensitivity to outlier data and collinear descriptors, Hansch analysis provided mechanistic insights and influenced drug design by prioritizing interpretable physicochemical drivers over black-box predictions. Complementing Hansch methods, Free-Wilson analysis (1964) employs an using binary (dummy) variables for presence, treating activity as the sum of group contributions plus a parent scaffold constant: Activity = Σ(α_i * X_i) + μ, where α_i is the effect of i and X_i is 1 if present or 0 otherwise, fitted via MLR. This de novo parameter estimation avoids reliance on external constants, proving effective for discrete structural modifications in series like sulfonamides, but falters with non-additive interactions or unbalanced datasets lacking full combinatorial coverage. Modified Free-Wilson variants incorporate physicochemical corrections to enhance robustness. Beyond substituent-focused models, MLR remains a core technique for traditional QSAR, directly regressing activity against selected descriptors while assessing significance via t-tests, , and R² values (typically requiring R² > 0.8 for utility). For datasets with multicollinear variables—common in descriptor-rich QSAR—partial least squares (PLS) regression projects data onto latent variables, maximizing between descriptors and activity: Y = X B + E, where B derives from PLS components. PLS mitigates in small-sample scenarios (e.g., n < 100 compounds) and supports cross-validation, yielding models with Q² > 0.5 indicating , as demonstrated in anti-HIV HEPT studies. These methods prioritize statistical rigor, with validation via leave-one-out or k-fold procedures to guard against chance correlations.

Machine Learning and Data-Driven Approaches

Machine learning (ML) methods in quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling represent an evolution from traditional linear regression techniques, enabling the capture of non-linear dependencies and high-dimensional interactions among molecular descriptors and endpoints such as binding affinity or toxicity. These approaches employ algorithms like random forests (RF), support vector machines (SVM), and gradient boosting machines (e.g., XGBoost) to construct predictive models from large datasets of chemical structures and measured activities. For instance, RF models aggregate predictions from multiple decision trees to reduce overfitting and improve generalization, achieving superior performance on datasets with thousands of compounds compared to partial least squares regression. Similarly, SVMs map descriptors into higher-dimensional spaces via kernel functions to handle complex boundaries, as demonstrated in models predicting protein-ligand interactions with R² values exceeding 0.8 on benchmark datasets. Data-driven ML strategies emphasize the integration of vast public repositories, such as and , which contain millions of bioactivity data points, to train robust models via techniques like and . Ensemble methods, combining RF with boosting algorithms, have yielded QSAR models for carcinogenicity prediction with Matthews correlation coefficients up to 0.75 on external test sets derived from human exposure data augmented by expansion of small datasets (n=59). These approaches mitigate data scarcity by incorporating read-across and similarity-based imputation, enhancing applicability to regulatory assessments under frameworks like REACH. However, model interpretability remains a challenge, as black-box algorithms like deep neural networks (DNNs) prioritize accuracy over mechanistic insight, necessitating hybrid techniques such as SHAP values for feature attribution. Deep learning subsets, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for 3D molecular grids and graph neural networks (GNNs) for topological representations, have advanced QSAR by automating feature extraction and modeling spatial conformations without explicit descriptor . A 2023 review highlights GNNs' efficacy in generative QSAR for de novo drug design, where models trained on 1.5 million compounds from generated novel scaffolds with predicted potencies matching experimental IC₅₀ values within 0.5 log units. Recent applications, such as ML-enhanced QSAR for activation, report area under the curve (AUC) scores of 0.92 using 3D-QSAR with CNNs on datasets exceeding 10,000 ligands. Validation protocols adapted for ML include k-fold cross-validation and scaffold-based splitting to ensure domain relevance, addressing risks inherent in high-parameter models trained on imbalanced datasets. Despite these gains, data quality issues—such as experimental variability and descriptor multicollinearity—persist, with studies noting that ML models' performance degrades on extrapolation to novel chemical spaces, underscoring the need for causal validation beyond correlative metrics. Ongoing developments, including federated learning for privacy-preserving multi-source data integration, aim to scale data-driven QSAR for real-time predictions in drug discovery pipelines as of 2025.

Matched Molecular Pair Analysis

Matched molecular pair analysis (MMPA) is a cheminformatics technique used to derive quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) by systematically comparing pairs of molecules that differ solely through a defined chemical transformation, such as replacing a or modifying a while preserving the core scaffold. This approach focuses on local SAR patterns, quantifying the impact of specific structural changes on , physicochemical properties, or other endpoints like potency (e.g., pIC50) through aggregated statistics such as mean activity differences and confidence intervals derived from multiple pair instances. Unlike global QSAR models that rely on continuous descriptors across diverse datasets, MMPA emphasizes discrete, interpretable transformations, enabling the extraction of transferable "rules" from large compound libraries without assuming linearity in the overall SAR. The methodology typically begins with molecule fragmentation using algorithms like the RECAP or Bruice rules to identify consistent attachment points, generating substructural fragments (e.g., R-groups or transformation operators) for pairwise matching. Valid pairs are those where the transformation occurs at a single site with identical surrounding contexts, allowing computation of Δ-activity (e.g., Δlog potency) for each pair and statistical summarization across replicates to assess reliability, often filtering for sufficient sample sizes (e.g., ≥3 pairs per transformation) to mitigate from experimental variability. Tools like open-source platforms (e.g., mmpdb) automate this process on datasets exceeding millions of compounds, integrating with QSAR workflows to predict outcomes for untested modifications by applying observed deltas to query molecules. In practice, MMPA complements traditional QSAR by highlighting discontinuities or context-dependent effects that global regression models might overlook. In applications, MMPA facilitates lead optimization by prioritizing syntheses based on historical deltas, such as the frequent observation that fluorine substitution enhances metabolic stability with minimal potency loss in kinase inhibitors. It has been applied to analyze property cliffs (large activity changes from minor tweaks) and promiscuity patterns in data, aiding in the design of more selective compounds. Advantages include high interpretability—yielding "white-box" insights into causal structural drivers—and robustness to heterogeneity, as transformations are evaluated locally rather than via holistic descriptors. However, limitations arise from dependency on data volume for statistical power, potential non-transferability of rules across scaffolds or assays due to unrecognized context influences, and sensitivity to measurement errors, which can inflate variance in delta estimates. Validation often requires cross-validation against held-out pairs or integration with to flag unreliable predictions.

Model Evaluation and Validation

Quality Metrics and Statistical Tests

Quality metrics in QSAR modeling assess the goodness-of-fit to , robustness against , and for unseen compounds, with statistical tests verifying significance and ruling out spurious correlations. The , R2R^2, measures the proportion of variance in observed activities explained by the model, typically required to exceed 0.6 for acceptable fit in regression-based QSAR, though values above 0.9 may indicate without validation. The error (RMSE) quantifies residuals, providing an absolute scale, while adjusted R2R^2 penalizes excessive descriptors to favor parsimony. The F-statistic tests overall model significance by comparing explained to unexplained variance, with p-values below 0.05 indicating non-random fits. Internal validation employs cross-validation techniques, such as leave-one-out or k-fold methods, yielding Q2Q^2 as the cross-validated R2R^2, which estimates predictivity within the training set; Q2>0.5Q^2 > 0.5 is often deemed satisfactory, but discrepancies between R2R^2 and Q2Q^2 exceeding 0.2–0.3 signal potential overfitting. Bootstrapping resamples the dataset with replacement to derive confidence intervals for coefficients and predictions, assessing stability; models with narrow intervals from 1000+ iterations demonstrate reliability. Y-randomization, or scrambling response values while preserving descriptors, tests for chance correlation; significant drops in R2R^2 and Q2Q^2 (e.g., below 0.2) post-scrambling confirm model legitimacy rather than data artifacts. External validation on independent test sets computes Rpred2R^2_{pred} or Qext2Q^2_{ext}, defined as 1−∑(yobs−ypred)2∑(yobs−yˉtrain)21 - \frac{\sum (y_{obs} - y_{pred})^2}{\sum (y_{obs} - \bar{y}_{train})^2}, prioritizing this over internal metrics for true predictivity, with thresholds around 0.5–0.6 for utility in regulatory contexts. Advanced metrics like the modified mean absolute error-based rm2r_m^2 account for prediction bias, calculated as rm2=R2×(1−RMSEpred/RMSEobs)(1+RMSEpred/RMSEobs)r_m^2 = R^2 \times \frac{(1 - RMSE_{pred}/RMSE_{obs})}{(1 + RMSE_{pred}/RMSE_{obs})}, enhancing assessment of systematic over- or under-prediction. Per guidelines, models must demonstrate robust predictivity via such metrics, alongside applicability domain checks using leverage or to flag extrapolation risks, ensuring statistical tests align with empirical performance rather than inflated fit statistics. For classification QSAR, metrics shift to accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and Matthews correlation coefficient, with evaluating paired predictions against baselines.

Validation Challenges and Best Practices

Validation of QSAR models faces significant challenges, primarily stemming from issues such as experimental errors and , which can inflate prediction errors and limit the fundamental predictivity of models. For instance, in bioactivity data can lead to RMSE values that underestimate true model performance when evaluated on noisy test sets, necessitating careful distinction between observed and underlying true values during assessment. remains a persistent pitfall, particularly when datasets are small or descriptor spaces are high-dimensional, resulting in models that perform well on training data but fail on unseen compounds due to spurious correlations. Additionally, the scarcity of large, diverse external test sets complicates robust external validation, often forcing reliance on internal cross-validation that may overestimate predictivity. Another key challenge is the absence of universal standards for validation metrics, where traditional goodness-of-fit measures like R2R^2 alone do not ensure external predictivity, potentially leading to overconfidence in correlative rather than mechanistic models. Extrapolation beyond the applicability domain (AD) exacerbates these issues, as QSAR models, being empirical, lack causal interpretability and can produce unreliable predictions for structurally dissimilar compounds. Best practices emphasize adherence to the validation principles, which require a defined endpoint, unambiguous , clear , appropriate statistical measures, and transparent reporting to ensure regulatory reliability. Datasets should be curated for quality, with outlier detection and balancing to mitigate noise effects, followed by splitting into (typically 70-80%), validation, and independent external sets (20-30%) representative of the chemical space. Internal validation via cross-validation techniques—such as leave-many-out (LMO) or repeated double cross-validation—is recommended over leave-one-out (LOO) for small datasets to better approximate external performance, targeting cross-validated Q2>0.5Q^2 > 0.5. External validation metrics include external r2>0.6r^2 > 0.6, coefficients close to 1 (e.g., k/k′k/k' between 0.85-1.15), and (CCC) > 0.8, supplemented by Y-randomization to detect chance s. Defining the AD using methods like leverage or is crucial to flag predictions outside the model's scope, preventing overextrapolation. Multiple models or ensemble approaches, combined with experimental verification for high-stakes predictions, further enhance robustness, prioritizing predictivity over mere fit.

Applications

In Drug Discovery and Design

Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models play a central role in by correlating molecular structures with biological activities, enabling the prediction of compound potency and selectivity without exhaustive experimental testing. These models facilitate of large chemical libraries to identify potential hits, reducing the time and cost of initial lead identification phases. In practice, QSAR approaches have been integrated into high-throughput workflows, where descriptors derived from molecular , , and pharmacophores are regressed against data to forecast binding affinities or inhibitory concentrations. During hit-to-lead optimization, QSAR guides structural modifications to enhance desired properties such as potency, metabolic stability, and solubility, often prioritizing compounds with favorable quantitative metrics like values below 1 μM. For instance, models can quantify how substituents affect hydrogen bonding or hydrophobic interactions, informing cycles that accelerate progression from micromolar to nanomolar leads. This process is particularly valuable in targeting resistant pathogens, where QSAR has identified candidates against by predicting antibacterial activity from structural features. Beyond activity prediction, QSAR extends to absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) profiling, crucial for advancing candidates to preclinical stages. Models trained on datasets like those from the Therapeutic Data Commons predict pharmacokinetic parameters, such as plasma protein binding exceeding 90% thresholds that may hinder efficacy. Regulatory applications, including FDA evaluations, leverage validated QSAR for safety assessments, ensuring predictions align with empirical outcomes before human trials. Overall, these tools enhance causal understanding of structure-activity dependencies, though their reliability hinges on robust validation against diverse, high-quality datasets to mitigate extrapolation risks.

Toxicology and Regulatory Assessment

QSAR models predict toxicological endpoints, including acute oral (e.g., LD50 values), skin , mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity, by correlating molecular descriptors with experimental , enabling preliminary identification and reducing reliance on in regulatory contexts. These predictions support integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA), where models inform decisions on whether further studies are warranted. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) outlined five validation principles in 2004 for (Q)SAR models intended for regulatory use: (1) a defined endpoint, (2) an unambiguous algorithm, (3) a defined applicability domain, (4) measures of goodness-of-fit, robustness, and predictivity, and (5) a mechanistic interpretation, if possible. These principles, detailed in subsequent guidance documents such as OECD ENV/JM/MONO(2007)2, ensure models meet scientific standards for transparency and reliability before predictions influence decisions. The OECD (Q)SAR Assessment Framework (QAF), updated in 2023, extends this by providing structured evaluation for single or multiple model predictions in chemical reviews. Under the European Union's REACH regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, effective June 1, 2007), registrants use validated QSAR models to fill data gaps for physicochemical properties, environmental fate, and toxicity endpoints like aquatic ecotoxicity or repeated-dose toxicity, with predictions documented via the QSAR Model Reporting Format (QMRF). The (ECHA) accepts QSAR for weight-of-evidence approaches, particularly when experimental data are unavailable or ethically prohibitive, as in alternatives analyses for human health hazards. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applies QSAR under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for prioritizing chemicals and estimating risks, employing tools like ECOSAR (version 2.0, released 2020) for acute and chronic aquatic toxicity to fish, , and based on narcosis and mode-of-action models. The QSAR Toolbox (version 4.6, released 2023) integrates over 100 external models for profiling chemicals and generating predictions, supporting regulatory submissions by automating workflows for toxicity categorization and read-across. Despite these advancements, regulatory acceptance hinges on model performance metrics (e.g., Q² > 0.5 for external predictivity) and expert judgment to address uncertainties like beyond training sets.

Environmental and Chemical Applications

QSAR models have been employed to predict the environmental fate and of chemicals, enabling assessments of , , and ecotoxicological effects without extensive experimental testing. In environmental applications, these models estimate properties such as rates, factors (BCF), and partitioning coefficients, which inform the risk posed by pollutants like pesticides and industrial effluents. For instance, models correlating molecular descriptors with BCF values have demonstrated predictive fidelity comparable to experimental , relying primarily on octanol-water partition coefficients. A prominent tool is the OECD QSAR Toolbox, a free software application released in 2008 that facilitates reproducible hazard assessments by integrating (Q)SAR predictions for endpoints including skin sensitization, mutagenicity, and aquatic toxicity. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) utilizes the Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (TEST), which applies consensus QSAR methods to forecast toxicity measures from molecular structures, supporting evaluations of untested chemicals in ecological risk assessments. Under the European Union's REACH regulation, implemented in 2007, QSAR predictions bridge data gaps, particularly for high-tonnage chemicals, by providing evidence in weight-of-evidence approaches for hazard identification. In , QSAR models predict acute and chronic toxicities to organisms such as , , and , often achieving classification accuracies exceeding 85% for diverse chemical datasets. Examples include statistically validated models using theoretical descriptors to forecast toxicity, with external predictivity validated against independent test sets. For mixtures, QSAR approaches estimate combined toxicities, as demonstrated in models for industrial chemical blends affecting salmon species, aiding regulatory prioritization. Chemical applications extend to predicting physicochemical properties relevant to and safety, such as and , via tools like models, which output environmental fate parameters with applicability domains defined by structural alerts. In pesticide regulation, EPA and NAFTA guidelines endorse QSAR for estimating endpoints like binding, reducing reliance on vertebrate testing while emphasizing model validation per principles. These applications underscore QSAR's role in causal inference for chemical-environment interactions, though predictions require domain-specific validation to mitigate extrapolation errors.

Limitations and Criticisms

The SAR Paradox and Structural Discontinuities

The SAR paradox refers to the discrepancy between the foundational of structure-activity relationships (SAR)—that structurally similar molecules tend to exhibit similar biological activities—and empirical observations where small chemical modifications yield disproportionately large changes in potency, undermining the assumption of smooth, continuous SAR landscapes. This paradox manifests in datasets where global QSAR models, reliant on linear or gradual descriptor-activity mappings, fail to capture abrupt potency shifts, as documented in analyses of pharmaceutical compound libraries showing that up to 20-30% of analog pairs in certain inhibitor sets exhibit such inconsistencies. Structural discontinuities, often termed activity cliffs, quantify these irregularities as pairs or clusters of compounds sharing high structural similarity (e.g., Tanimoto coefficients >0.7) yet displaying potency differentials exceeding predefined thresholds, such as a 100-fold difference in IC50 values or 2 log units in p-activity scales. These cliffs arise from mechanisms including altered binding conformations, disrupted key interactions like hydrogen bonds or π-stacking, or switches in metabolic stability, as evidenced in structure-activity landscape (SAL) studies of GPCR ligands where cliffs correlate with specific disruptions. In practice, activity cliffs constitute 5-15% of relationships in large-scale datasets, with higher prevalence in targets involving allosteric modulation or covalent binding. The presence of these discontinuities poses fundamental challenges to QSAR predictivity, as they introduce non-linearities that inflate error rates in regression-based models; for instance, QSAR approaches applied to cliff-rich datasets often report R2 drops of 0.1-0.3 units when cliffs are not explicitly addressed. To mitigate this, specialized techniques such as matched molecular pair analysis for cliff detection or network-based piecewise regression have been developed, enabling localized modeling around discontinuous regions while preserving interpretability of causal structural drivers. Empirical validation across benchmarks confirms that cliff-aware partitioning improves external predictivity by 10-20% in held-out test sets, highlighting the necessity of discontinuity recognition for robust QSAR deployment in lead optimization.

Issues with Overfitting, Extrapolation, and Predictivity

Overfitting in QSAR models occurs when a model captures or irrelevant patterns in the rather than the underlying structure-activity relationship, leading to inflated performance on sets but poor to new compounds. This issue is exacerbated in QSAR by the high dimensionality of spaces, where the number of descriptors often exceeds the number of observations, promoting spurious correlations. For instance, variable selection methods can inadvertently select noise-driven features, resulting in models that fit with high R² values (e.g., >0.9) but show significant drops in external predictivity, as evidenced by comparisons where internal Q² metrics overestimate true performance by up to 20-30%. Detection typically involves cross-validation techniques like leave-one-out (LOO), though LOO itself can yield over-optimistic estimates, necessitating stricter external validation to confirm robustness. Extrapolation poses a fundamental limitation, as QSAR models are inherently interpolative within the chemical space defined by the training set's applicability domain (AD), but predictions degrade sharply outside it due to uncharted structural or physicochemical variations. Studies analyzing AD coverage across diverse datasets reveal that common QSAR descriptors span only a fraction of broader chemical spaces—for example, less than 50% for partitioning properties in environmental chemicals—leaving models unreliable for novel scaffolds or distant analogs. Activity cliffs, where small structural changes cause large activity shifts, further amplify extrapolation errors by violating linear assumptions in descriptor-activity mappings, with empirical benchmarks showing prediction errors exceeding 1-2 log units beyond AD boundaries. Techniques like distance-based AD definitions (e.g., Mahalanobis distance) aim to flag extrapolations, but their effectiveness depends on comprehensive training data, which is often limited in proprietary or sparse datasets. Assessing predictivity remains challenging due to the scarcity of truly independent external sets and the risk of data leakage in validation protocols, often resulting in models that appear predictive internally but fail in prospective applications. External validation, considered the gold standard, requires splitting into and unseen sets, yet small sizes in QSAR (typically 50-500 compounds) limit statistical power, with studies showing that inadequate splits can inflate Q²_ext by 10-15%. Multiple metrics, such as RMSEP or concordance coefficients, are recommended for comprehensive evaluation, but real-world predictivity assessments—e.g., against prospective —frequently reveal systematic biases, with error rates doubling outside congeneric series due to unmodeled biological complexities. Double cross-validation has been proposed to unbiasedly estimate errors under model uncertainty, yet it underscores that no single method fully mitigates over-optimism without domain-specific tuning.

Interpretability and Causal Inference Problems

Modern QSAR models, particularly those leveraging nonlinear machine learning algorithms such as random forests or neural networks, often operate as "black boxes," rendering the contributions of individual molecular descriptors to predictions opaque and difficult to dissect. This lack of transparency stems from the high dimensionality and interdependence of descriptors, including topological indices and hashed fingerprints, which prioritize predictive accuracy over mechanistic clarity. As a result, practitioners struggle to identify which structural features drive activity, limiting the utility of these models for hypothesis generation or targeted molecular optimization in drug design. In contrast, earlier linear QSAR approaches, like in Hansch-Fujita analysis, offer greater interpretability through regression coefficients that quantify descriptor impacts, though and descriptor selection biases can still confound reliable attribution. Efforts to enhance interpretability include post-hoc techniques such as feature importance scores or SHAP values, but these approximations may not fully capture nonlinear interactions and remain vulnerable to model-specific artifacts. Benchmarks for evaluating interpretability, such as consistency across perturbations or alignment with , highlight persistent gaps, with many models failing to provide actionable chemical insights despite high predictive metrics. QSAR's reliance on observational data exacerbates causal inference challenges, as models predominantly identify statistical associations between structures and activities without establishing mechanistic causation, increasing susceptibility to spurious correlations driven by variables like experimental artifacts or unmodeled environmental factors. For instance, nano-QSAR studies have demonstrated that apparent descriptor-activity links may reflect data artifacts rather than true causal pathways, necessitating supplementary causal graphs or experimental interventions to validate inferences. Without such integration, predictions risk failing in scenarios where underlying biological mechanisms—such as receptor binding kinetics or metabolic transformations—diverge from training assumptions, as evidenced by poor generalizability in forecasting beyond congeneric series. This correlative nature underscores QSAR's role as a screening tool rather than a substitute for causal experimentation, with regulatory applications demanding explicit acknowledgment of these limitations to avoid overreliance on non-causal proxies.

Recent Advances and Future Directions

Integration with AI and Machine Learning

The integration of (AI) and (ML) into quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling has transformed traditional statistical approaches by enabling the handling of nonlinear relationships, high-dimensional chemical spaces, and large datasets from . Classical QSAR methods, such as multiple and partial least squares, often assume linearity and struggle with complex molecular interactions, whereas ML algorithms like random forests (RF) and support vector machines (SVM) capture intricate patterns without such assumptions, improving predictive accuracy in bioactivity estimation. For instance, RF ensembles aggregate multiple decision trees to reduce variance and , achieving superior performance in for drug candidates compared to linear models. This shift leverages computational advances and molecular databases, allowing QSAR to scale to millions of compounds. Deep learning (DL) subsets, including deep neural networks (DNNs) and graph neural networks (GNNs), further advance QSAR by directly learning hierarchical representations from raw molecular data, such as SMILES strings or graph encodings of atomic connectivity, bypassing manual descriptor engineering. DNNs have demonstrated enhanced predictivity in and affinity forecasting, with studies from 2020 onward reporting root-mean-square errors reduced by 20-30% over shallow ML on benchmark datasets like those from the Therapeutic Data Commons. GNNs excel in modeling spatial and topological features, outperforming traditional descriptors in protein-ligand binding predictions. Ensemble DL approaches, combining convolutional and recurrent layers, address data scarcity through from pretrained models on vast chemical corpora. Recent applications include AI-augmented QSAR for de novo drug design, where generative adversarial networks (GANs) or variational autoencoders produce novel structures scored via integrated QSAR predictors, accelerating lead optimization. In a 2023 analysis, such hybrid systems identified DPP-4 inhibitors with micromolar potency from virtual libraries exceeding 10^6 molecules. For regulatory toxicology, ML-QSAR models predict endpoints like acute aquatic toxicity with external validation R^2 values above 0.8, supporting read-across under REACH guidelines. Future directions emphasize explainable AI (XAI) techniques, such as SHAP values for feature attribution in black-box models, to enhance causal interpretability and regulatory acceptance, alongside quantum ML for handling incomplete datasets in sparse chemical spaces. These integrations promise to bridge QSAR's empirical foundations with , though validation against prospective data remains essential to mitigate risks.

Improvements in Descriptors and Datasets

Advancements in molecular descriptors have focused on incorporating quantum chemical calculations to capture electronic properties such as molecular orbitals, charge distributions, and reactivity indices, which traditional topological or physicochemical descriptors often overlook, thereby improving predictions for endpoints involving electronic interactions. These descriptors, derived from or semiempirical methods, enable more precise QSAR models by quantifying quantum-level features like , softness, and electrophilicity, with applications demonstrated in bioactivity and predictions as of 2021. Additionally, graph-theoretic descriptors, including atom-bond connectivity (ABC) indices and Zagreb indices, have evolved through to better represent molecular and branching, enhancing model interpretability and generalization in diverse chemical spaces. Higher-dimensional descriptors (3D and 4D) now integrate conformational flexibility and dynamic properties, addressing limitations of 2D representations by accounting for spatial arrangements and . Datasets for QSAR have seen substantial improvements through systematic curation of public repositories, emphasizing standardization, error removal, and quality filtering to mitigate issues like assay variability and structural inconsistencies. The ChEMBL database, a primary source, expanded to approximately 2.5 million distinct compounds with millions of bioactivity measurements by 2023, supporting diverse QSAR applications via standardized IC50, Ki, and Kd values. Specialized efforts, such as the Papyrus dataset released in 2023, aggregate data from ChEMBL version 30, ExCAPE-DB, and other sources into 1.27 million unique structures and 59.8 million compound-protein pairs across 6,926 targets, with annotations classifying data quality (high, medium, low) based on assay reliability and standardization pipelines using tools like OpenBabel for tautomer and salt handling. These curated datasets incorporate high-throughput screening (HTS) data preprocessing to exclude outliers and ensure endpoint consistency, enabling more robust model training and external validation compared to earlier, smaller or unfiltered collections. Ongoing trends prioritize larger, diverse datasets to cover chemical space adequately, reducing extrapolation risks and improving predictivity for underrepresented scaffolds.

Emerging Hybrid and Multidimensional Models

Hybrid QSAR models integrate traditional chemical structure descriptors with auxiliary data sources, such as results or docking scores, to improve predictive accuracy beyond standalone structural correlations. These approaches address limitations in conventional QSAR by incorporating biological context, enabling models to capture nonlinear interactions and enhance to novel chemical spaces. For instance, hybrid models employing genetic algorithms with support vector regression or have demonstrated superior performance in predicting receptor binding affinities for derivatives. Recent hybrid frameworks combine algorithms like random forests, , and support vector machines in consensus schemes, utilizing diverse features including Morgan fingerprints, MACCS keys, and physicochemical properties derived from tools like RDKit. Applied to prediction across eight endpoints—such as cardiac, dermal, and respiratory irritation—these models achieved area under the curve (AUC) scores ranging from 0.78 to 0.90, with cardiac reaching 0.90 AUC, 0.82 accuracy, 0.89 sensitivity, and 0.75 specificity, outperforming single-model baselines through ensemble averaging. Published on December 11, 2024, this methodology leverages datasets like STopTox and RespiraTox for validation, highlighting hybrid integration's role in regulatory hazard assessment. Multidimensional QSAR models extend beyond 2D or 3D representations by accounting for conformational ensembles, dynamic ligand-receptor interactions, or multi-target activities, often via multi-instance learning algorithms that treat molecules as bags of conformations. Deep learning variants, such as those processing high-dimensional graph representations, handle vast datasets—e.g., Uni-Mol's 19 million molecules and 210 million conformations—for robust activity predictions, surpassing traditional methods in tasks like binding affinity forecasting. This dimensionality captures spatial and energetic variability, as seen in 4D-QSAR revivals powered by graphics processing units, which model induced-fit effects and grid-based interactions for enhanced predictivity. Emerging hybrids fuse multidimensional QSAR with generative AI, such as diffusion-based models for scaffold hopping, where E(3)-equivariant graph diffusion generates diverse scaffolds with improved docking scores on datasets like PDBBind. Multimodal integrations, like MoleSG (2024), combine SMILES strings and molecular graphs for state-of-the-art performance across 14 QSAR benchmarks, facilitating de novo design by bridging structural multiplicity with activity landscapes. Multi-task frameworks further amplify this by jointly modeling correlated endpoints, yielding consistent accuracy gains in inhibitor predictions when fused with experimental data. These advances, propelled by machine learning's capacity for nonlinear, high-dimensional since the 2013 Merck challenge, prioritize large, curated datasets to mitigate while advancing through interpretable ensembles.

References

  1. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/3/1206
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9300454/
  3. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01422
  4. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-01/documents/qsar-guidance.pdf
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111322000391
  6. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c00648
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166128002006164
  8. https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1897/01-171
  9. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/iccvam/meetings/commprac-2016/tropsha-508.pdf
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6815455/
  11. https://www.excli.de/vol8/Prachayasittikul_04_2009/Prachayasittikul_050509_proof.pdf
  12. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/cr9400976
  13. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9933080/
  14. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcms.1096
  15. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S022352340600225X
  16. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/qsar.19880070303
  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0169743995000712
  18. https://www.pharmatutor.org/articles/history-revolution-of-qsar-quantitative-structural-activity-relationship
  19. https://www.pharmacy180.com/article/historical-development-of-qsar-2088/
  20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252172555_A_SHORT_HISTORY_OF_QSAR_EVOLUTION
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317289723_The_History_and_Development_of_Quantitative_Structure-Activity_Relationships_QSARs
  22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12470285/
  23. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/0471266949.bmc001.pub2
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12369983/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12201292/
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291953482_The_History_and_Development_of_Quantitative_Structure-Activity_Relationships_QSARs
  27. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/minf.201300180
  28. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2020/cs/d0cs00098a
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4074254/
  30. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-017-0256-5
  31. https://bmcchem.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13065-022-00856-4
  32. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338639486_Best_Practices_for_Constructing_Reproducible_QSAR_Models
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5618105/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5657146/
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338639897_Importance_of_Data_Curation_in_QSAR_Studies_Especially_While_Modeling_Large-Size_Datasets
  36. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004221010208
  37. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c01332
  38. https://analyticalsciencejournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cem.2915
  39. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/api-gateway/chemrxiv/assets/orp/resource/item/67a995e86dde43c9083f817a/original/py-descriptor-ca-descriptor-calculation-tool-for-decoding-chirality-cliffs-and-revealing-hidden-patterns-in-drug-discovery.pdf
  40. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcms.1187
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/two-dimensional-quantitative-structure-activity-relationship
  42. https://drugdesign.org/chapters/qsar/
  43. https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2411303.pdf
  44. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm00227a003
  45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/immunology-and-microbiology/two-dimensional-quantitative-structure-activity-relationship
  46. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365537124_2D_QSAR_Models_Hansch_and_FreeAiWilson_Analyses
  47. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Free-Wilson-Analysis.-Theory%252C-Applications-and-its-Kubinyi/27c41a5057e749551b5281d98957656406123ea4
  48. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ci00016a005
  49. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12924569/
  50. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19929826/
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644697010799
  52. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12470286/
  53. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26369822/
  54. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24724896/
  55. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24195665/
  56. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/10/5212
  57. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm011005p
  58. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ci0342526
  59. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/HQSAR%253A-A-New%252C-Highly-Predictive-QSAR-Technique-Naumann-Lowis/efb9de3a7d30dc445dfc0904da4ff225237be50c
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4852576/
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1740674920300111
  62. https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/620beab07d068a5cde20c9bc
  63. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8657702/
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S153204642030112X
  65. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.5c05094
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5807924/
  67. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jpestics/38/2/38_D12-082/_html/-char/en
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17168765/
  69. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644697010799
  70. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ci4001376
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11813812/
  72. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ci960487o
  73. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037014600350
  74. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9090857/
  75. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.3c07386
  76. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1062936X.2025.2540820
  77. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-023-00832-0
  78. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S3050787125000137
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10380192/
  80. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01061-w
  81. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00564-6
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037016300848
  83. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00173
  84. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4658635/
  85. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-014-0048-0
  86. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jm200452d
  87. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261747818_Matched_Molecular_Pair_Analysis_Significance_and_the_Impact_of_Experimental_Uncertainty
  88. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17365961/
  89. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.8b01647
  90. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016974391100061X
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21521150/
  92. https://basicmedicalkey.com/validation-of-qsar-models/
  93. https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/12/12/8626
  94. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/assessment-of-chemicals/oecd-principles-for-the-validation-for-regulatory-purposes-of-quantitative-structure-activity-relationship-models.pdf
  95. https://protoqsar.com/en/publications/statistical-techniques/
  96. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.7b00274
  97. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00571-7
  98. https://neovarsity.org/blogs/cheminformatics-qsar-beginner-guides
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9396839/
  100. https://www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/risk-assessment/37849783.pdf
  101. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/minf.201000061
  102. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30524275/
  103. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.01275/full
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328631957_QSAR_and_Lead_Optimization
  105. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18600573/
  106. https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/wcms.1472
  107. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32348219/
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37964128/
  109. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27311476/
  110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111324000288
  111. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2023/11/q-sar-assessment-framework-guidance-for-the-regulatory-assessment-of-quantitative-structure-activity-relationship-models-and-predictions_9b064821/d96118f6-en.pdf
  112. https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/CBC/MONO%282023%2932/en/pdf
  113. https://echa.europa.eu/support/registration/how-to-avoid-unnecessary-testing-on-animals/qsar-models
  114. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8998180/
  115. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-08/documents/usepa_use_of_qsar_and_category_approaches_jun08.pdf
  116. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8564854/
  117. https://qsartoolbox.org/
  118. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2984107/
  119. https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/1626882
  120. https://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/toxicity-estimation-software-tool-test
  121. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935123020431
  122. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ci050212l
  123. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12008129/
  124. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-018-0263-1
  125. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2024/11/q-sar-assessment-framework-guidance-for-the-regulatory-assessment-of-quantitative-structure-activity-relationship-models-and-predictions-second-edition_cc89955e/bbdac345-en.pdf
  126. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/quantitative-structure-activity-relationship
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6740043/
  128. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.9b02221
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10107580/
  130. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-022-00676-7
  131. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00708-w
  132. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10822-019-00228-6
  133. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3159128/
  134. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111321000578
  135. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6353/
  136. https://variationalai.substack.com/p/applicability-domains-are-common
  137. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c05643
  138. https://www.people.iup.edu/nate/wikis/chem581/docs/ci700332k.pdf
  139. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00114
  140. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-014-0047-1
  141. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ci8000088
  142. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01235
  143. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10134429/
  144. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ci700332k
  145. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-021-00519-x
  146. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12408718/
  147. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8157407/
  148. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/nr/c5nr08279j
  149. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1382668924002370
  150. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468111324000409
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12525248/
  152. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00029-y
  153. https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-0716-1787-8_10
  154. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-73681-1
  155. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38066301/
  156. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.03.31.646336.full.pdf
  157. https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article-abstract/203/1/52/7762650
  158. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.13395
  159. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949866X24000650
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169743921001520
  161. https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/article/158/20/201001/2892525/Quantum-chemical-descriptors-based-on
  162. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44371-025-00186-z
  163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169743924002181
  164. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/
  165. https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-022-00672-x
  166. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340891696_Insight_prediction_of_receptor_binding_activity_of_a_set_of_benzamide_derivatives_using_hybrid_QSAR_models_GA-MLR_and_GA-SVR
  167. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsomega.4c09356
  168. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00017-2
  169. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00692
  170. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8156896/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.