{"id":899,"date":"2014-05-08T10:22:56","date_gmt":"2014-05-08T09:22:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nextmovesoftware.com\/blog\/?p=899"},"modified":"2015-06-22T16:52:49","modified_gmt":"2015-06-22T15:52:49","slug":"qualitative-structure-activity-at-uk-qsar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nextmovesoftware.com\/blog\/2014\/05\/08\/qualitative-structure-activity-at-uk-qsar\/","title":{"rendered":"Qualitative structure-activity at UK-QSAR"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’ve been wondering whether my Matched Series work<\/a> falls under QSAR, as it does not use a numerical model nor does it make absolute activity predictions. Everything it does is based on relative activity\/property orders. So perhaps this is not a Quantitative<\/em> Structure-Activity Relationship, but rather a Qualitative<\/em> Structure-Activity Relationship (let’s call it QualSAR for short). Is this a useful distinction? Are there additional areas of cheminformatics that would fall under this (MMPA springs to mind)?<\/p>\n

But until the whole QualSAR field takes off as a separate discipline, I guess I’m going to continue to file my work under QSAR. Earlier this year, I was invited to contribute a brief description of the algorithm to the current UK-QSAR newsletter<\/a> (direct link here<\/a>).<\/p>\n

And last week I presented the Matsy algorithm at UK-QSAR<\/a>, hosted by Eli Lilly. Here’s the poster I presented, which summarises the recent paper<\/a> and also has some additional examples of the sort of predictions generated (better quality PDF available here<\/a>).<\/p>\n