Selection of Molecular Descriptors with Artificial Intelligence for the Understanding of HIV-1 Protease Peptidomimetic Inhibitors-activity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative Structure Activity Relationship (QSAR) techniques are used routinely by computational chemists in drug discovery and development to analyze datasets of compounds. Quantitative numerical methods like Partial Least Squares (PLS) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) have been used on QSAR to establish correlations between molecular properties and bioactivity. However, ANN may be advantageous over PLS because it considers the interrelations of the modeled variables. This study focused on the HIV-1 Protease (HIV-1 Pr) inhibitors belonging to the peptidomimetic class of compounds. The main objective was to select molecular descriptors with the best predictive value for antiviral potency (Ki). PLS and ANN were used to predict Ki activity of HIV-1 Pr inhibitors and the results were compared. To address the issue of dimensionality reduction, Genetic Algorithms (GA) were used for variable selection and their performance was compared against that of ANN. Finally, the structure of the optimum ANN achieving the highest Pearson's-R coefficient was determined. On the basis of Pearson's-R, PLS and ANN were compared to determine which exhibits maximum performance. Training and validation of models was performed on 15 random split sets of the master dataset consisted of 231 compounds. For each compound 192 molecular descriptors were considered. The molecular structure and constant of inhibition (Ki) were selected from the NIAID database. Study findings suggested that non-covalent interactions such as hydrophobicity, shape and hydrogen bonding describe well the antiviral activity of the HIV-1 Pr compounds. The significance of lipophilicity and relationship to HIV-1 associated hyperlipidemia and lipodystrophy syndrome warrant further investigation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".