↓ Skip to main content

The great descriptor melting pot: mixing descriptors for the common good of QSAR models

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
Title
The great descriptor melting pot: mixing descriptors for the common good of QSAR models
Published in
Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design, December 2011
DOI 10.1007/s10822-011-9511-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yufeng J. Tseng, Anton J. Hopfinger, Emilio Xavier Esposito

Abstract

The usefulness and utility of QSAR modeling depends heavily on the ability to estimate the values of molecular descriptors relevant to the endpoints of interest followed by an optimized selection of descriptors to form the best QSAR models from a representative set of the endpoints of interest. The performance of a QSAR model is directly related to its molecular descriptors. QSAR modeling, specifically model construction and optimization, has benefited from its ability to borrow from other unrelated fields, yet the molecular descriptors that form QSAR models have remained basically unchanged in both form and preferred usage. There are many types of endpoints that require multiple classes of descriptors (descriptors that encode 1D through multi-dimensional, 4D and above, content) needed to most fully capture the molecular features and interactions that contribute to the endpoint. The advantages of QSAR models constructed from multiple, and different, descriptor classes have been demonstrated in the exploration of markedly different, and principally biological systems and endpoints. Multiple examples of such QSAR applications using different descriptor sets are described and that examined. The take-home-message is that a major part of the future of QSAR analysis, and its application to modeling biological potency, ADME-Tox properties, general use in virtual screening applications, as well as its expanding use into new fields for building QSPR models, lies in developing strategies that combine and use 1D through nD molecular descriptors.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 4%
United States 2 4%
Germany 2 4%
Bulgaria 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Russia 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 43 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 25%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 11%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 7 13%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 20 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 18%
Computer Science 9 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Mathematics 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 January 2012.
All research outputs
#17,348,916
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#736
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,577
of 249,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives in Drug Discovery and Design
#24
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 249,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.