Open mattodd opened 9 years ago
Now we have a few measured values I thought it might be useful to compare with calculated values. As you can see in the table below ChemDraw is poor a predicting values, ChemAxon seems to be better.
Very nice Chris. Where are the data from which you generated the image? The Chemaxon algorithm seems to be a decent predictor going forward, at least as a first pass. Presumably it's predicting for pH 7.4? The chemdraw cLogP seems to be not useful.
All calculated within vortex
Sent from Chris's iPhone
On 28 Jul 2015, at 13:51, Mat Todd notifications@github.com wrote:
Very nice Chris. Where are the data from which you generated the image? The Chemaxon algorithm seems to be a decent predictor going forward, at least as a first pass. Presumably it's predicting for pH 7.4? The chemdraw cLogP seems to be not useful.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.
logD - metabolism data plots, using data from the daughter sheet mentioned in the original post
In each plot, the matched pair MMV672723 and MMV672727 are the darker spots ( where R1 is O and F respectively)
That's fantastic, @MJTarnowski . What do you conclude? Do these trends tell us anything relevant about the discussion going on over in #358 - specifically the issue (here) related to whether the periphery of the compounds is responsible for fast clearance, or whether it's the triazolopyrazine ring that is the culprit?
We have measured logD data and metabolic clearance data for 8 compounds in Series 4, from Monash. The data are all contained in the main sheet, but I've extracted the data into this daughter sheet.
The plot of log D vs log CLint appears to give a fair scatter, with perhaps a vague trend for the MLM data.
Can anyone spot any clear trends here? I can't. Clearly the idea is that if we lower logD we might improve clearance and half-lives in a way that we're not doing currently.
Feel free to add to the daughter sheet. You can drag and drop images below.
Can discuss in Monday's meeting #317