4.6 Article

Combined computational-experimental approach to predict blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeation based on green salting-out thin layer chromatography supported by simple molecular descriptors

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2017.05.041

关键词

Blood-brain barrier (BBB); Salting-out thin layer chromatography (SOTLC); Multiple linear regression (MLR); Orthogonal partial least squares (OPLS); Partial least-squares (PLS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this paper is to build QSRR/QSAR model for predicting the blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability. The obtained models are based on salting-out thin layer chromatography (SOTLC) constants and calculated molecular descriptors. Among chromatographic methods SOTLC was chosen, since the mobile phases are free of organic solvent. As consequences, there are less toxic, and have lower environmental impact compared to classical reserved phases liquid chromatography (RPLC). During the study three stationary phase silica gel, cellulose plates and neutral aluminum oxide were examined. The model set of solutes presents a wide range of log BB values, containing compounds which cross the BBB readily and molecules poorly distributed to the brain including drugs acting on the nervous system as well as peripheral acting drugs. Additionally, the comparison of three regression models: multiple linear regression (MLR), partial least-squares (PLS) and orthogonal partial least squares (OPLS) were performed. The designed QSRR/QSAR models could be useful to predict BBB of systematically synthesized newly compounds in the drug development pipeline and are attractive alternatives of time-consuming and demanding directed methods for log BB measurement. The study also shown that among several regression techniques, significant differences can be obtained in models performance, measured by R-2 and Q(2), hence it is strongly suggested to evaluate all available options as MLR, PLS and OPLS. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据