Figure 1.
Molecular structures of drugs.
Prostate cancer is ranked as the fourth most prevalent cancer commonly diagnosed among males over 40 years of age, according to the WHO Cancer Fact Sheet 2020, and it is additionally a leading cause of cancer mortality among males. The incidence of prostate cancer and mortality varied significantly across the globe. Diagnosis of prostate cancer hinders easier management of cases, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use for screening of prostate cancer has poor specificity and sensitivity, thereby yielding overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. Radiologically guided (ultrasound/MRI) prostate biopsy, considered the gold standard, is invasive and can miss a significant number of metastatic cancers. Even though mild, other prostate biopsy complications occur on a large scale, and few severe ones are often recorded. Scientists intensify their search for biomarker(s) for non-invasive diagnosis of prostate cancer using proteomics, metabolomics, genomics, and bioinformatics—urinary biomarkers were uniquely on the lookout. Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP)/pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) receptor 1 (VPAC1), which is overexpressed (a thousandfold) in prostate cancer at the onset of oncogenesis and is excreted in the urine on tumor cells, is a contender in the prostate cancer biomarker quest. VPAC1 is ubiquitous, expressed by normal and malignant cells, and interwoven in their cell membranes. Therefore, using urine samples limits the possibility of making the wrong diagnosis, since VPAC1 is not normally excreted in the urine. Nevertheless, studying transmembrane receptors is intricate. However, producing monoclonal antibodies against the N-terminal end of VPAC1 can provide a promising target for designing a non-invasive diagnostic assay for early detection of prostate cancer using a urine sample.
Citation: Mansur Aliyu, Ali Akbar Saboor-Yaraghi, Shima Nejati, Behrouz Robat-Jazi. Urinary VPAC1: A potential biomarker in prostate cancer[J]. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(2): 42-63. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022006
| [1] | Deepalakshmi Sarkarai, Kalyani Desikan . QSPR/QSAR analysis of some eccentricity based topological descriptors of antiviral drugs used in COVID-19 treatment via Dε- polynomials. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(9): 17272-17295. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023769 |
| [2] | Saylé C. Sigarreta, Saylí M. Sigarreta, Hugo Cruz-Suárez . On degree–based topological indices of random polyomino chains. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 8760-8773. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022406 |
| [3] | Cheng-Peng Li, Cheng Zhonglin, Mobeen Munir, Kalsoom Yasmin, Jia-bao Liu . M-polynomials and topological indices of linear chains of benzene, napthalene and anthracene. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2384-2398. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020127 |
| [4] | Edil D. Molina, Paul Bosch, José M. Sigarreta, Eva Tourís . On the variable inverse sum deg index. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8800-8813. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023387 |
| [5] | José M. Sigarreta . Extremal problems on exponential vertex-degree-based topological indices. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(7): 6985-6995. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022329 |
| [6] | Fengwei Li, Qingfang Ye, Juan Rada . Extremal values of VDB topological indices over F-benzenoids with equal number of edges. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(3): 5169-5193. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023240 |
| [7] | Wanlin Zhu, Minglei Fang, Xianya Geng . Enumeration of the Gutman and Schultz indices in the random polygonal chains. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(11): 10826-10845. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022506 |
| [8] | Bo Sun, Ming Wei, Wei Wu, Binbin Jing . A novel group decision making method for airport operational risk management. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2402-2417. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020130 |
| [9] | Qingqun Huang, Muhammad Labba, Muhammad Azeem, Muhammad Kamran Jamil, Ricai Luo . Tetrahedral sheets of clay minerals and their edge valency-based entropy measures. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(5): 8068-8084. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023350 |
| [10] | Yi Liu, Xuan Zhao, Feng Mao . The synergy degree measurement and transformation path of China's traditional manufacturing industry enabled by digital economy. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(6): 5738-5753. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022268 |
Prostate cancer is ranked as the fourth most prevalent cancer commonly diagnosed among males over 40 years of age, according to the WHO Cancer Fact Sheet 2020, and it is additionally a leading cause of cancer mortality among males. The incidence of prostate cancer and mortality varied significantly across the globe. Diagnosis of prostate cancer hinders easier management of cases, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) use for screening of prostate cancer has poor specificity and sensitivity, thereby yielding overdiagnosis and unnecessary biopsies. Radiologically guided (ultrasound/MRI) prostate biopsy, considered the gold standard, is invasive and can miss a significant number of metastatic cancers. Even though mild, other prostate biopsy complications occur on a large scale, and few severe ones are often recorded. Scientists intensify their search for biomarker(s) for non-invasive diagnosis of prostate cancer using proteomics, metabolomics, genomics, and bioinformatics—urinary biomarkers were uniquely on the lookout. Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP)/pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide (PACAP) receptor 1 (VPAC1), which is overexpressed (a thousandfold) in prostate cancer at the onset of oncogenesis and is excreted in the urine on tumor cells, is a contender in the prostate cancer biomarker quest. VPAC1 is ubiquitous, expressed by normal and malignant cells, and interwoven in their cell membranes. Therefore, using urine samples limits the possibility of making the wrong diagnosis, since VPAC1 is not normally excreted in the urine. Nevertheless, studying transmembrane receptors is intricate. However, producing monoclonal antibodies against the N-terminal end of VPAC1 can provide a promising target for designing a non-invasive diagnostic assay for early detection of prostate cancer using a urine sample.
prostate-specific antigen;
vasoactive intestinal peptide;
pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating peptide;
VIP/PACAP receptor 1;
age-standardized rate;
benign prostatic hypertrophy;
5α-dihydrotestosterone;
quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction;
magnetic resonance imaging;
multiparametric MRI;
dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI;
diffusion-weighted imaging MRI;
trans-rectal ultrasound scan;
enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay;
prostate cancer antigen 3;
transmembrane protease serine 2;
glutathione S-transferase P1;
digital rectal examination;
area under the curve;
hepatocyte growth factor;
insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3;
Plasma osteopontin;
lymph node carcinoma of the prostate;
G protein-coupled receptors;
receptor activity modifying proteins;
seven-transmembrane domain;
extracellular domain;
Chinese hamster ovary;
TATA-box binding protein;
cyclooxygenase-2;
metalloproteinase 9;
urokinase plasminogen activator;
uPA receptor;
4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole;
adenylyl cyclase;
cAMP response element-binding protein;
phosphokinase A;
inducible nitric oxide synthase;
CREB binding protein;
nuclear factor-κβ;
extracellular signal-regulated kinase;
MAP/ERK kinase (MEK) kinase 1;
IFN regulatory factor-1;
inhibitory κβ kinase;
bombesin-like peptides;
gastrin-releasing peptide receptor;
phospholipase C;
diacylglycerol;
1,4,5-triphosphate;
protein kinase C;
mitogen-activated protein kinase;
mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase;
ETS like-1 protein;
serum response element
One of the life-threatening diseases world-wide is Malaria caused by the bite of female anopheles’ mosquitoes. There are 5 such parasite species that affect humans of which 2 of these viz., P. falciparum and P. vivax are the greatest threats. These two deadliest parasites are prevalent in African continent and Saharan Africa. It is an acute febrile illness which causes rapid onset of fever with headache and chills only after 10 to 15 days after the mosquito bite. If the symptoms are not treated immediately, it will lead to fatal in just one day [1].
In the year 2020, there was a high risk for nearly half the world population of contracting malaria. Some population groups with high risk include infants, and young children, pregnant women, and people with low immunity.
A considerable number of mortality and complications of morbidity is caused by malaria that has become a major health problem globally. As the resistant parasite strains emerge, the therapeutic options are limited which has led to the large spread of malaria. This can be prevented by potential public health emergency in designing new drugs, providing single dose cures and by introducing some novel mechanism of action. New excipients may be included in the medicine that could be effective in fighting the new variants of the strain. Using the available genomic techniques, advancement of the study of biology of the parasites can be developed for the new therapy.
In recent years, various advanced drug interventions have been revealed. This focusses on the discovery of antimalarial agents using the latest scientific and technological advances. There are many antimalarial targets that include proteins such as proteases, plasmodium sugar, farnesyltransferase inhibitor and DNA replication. World malaria report shows an increase of cases from 2019 to 2020 and an increase of almost 69,000 deaths in 2020 compared to 2019 [2].
To test the molecular properties in a laboratory consumes more time and money. This inconvenience can be avoided using quantitative structure activity relationship models to forecast different properties of various chemical compounds using topological descriptors. Topological indices find significant applications in various areas of mathematical chemistry [3,4] such as isomer discrimination, chirality, molecular complexity, drug design, selection of database, QSAR/QSPR/QSTR studies in the recent years [5].
The main objectives of this study are:
● QSPR analysis of the properties of the topological indices using regression models for the nine anti-malaria drugs.
● Computation of topological indices for the considered drugs.
● Comparison of topological indices with correlation coefficients of few physical properties and statistical parameters.
Identifying drug-like from non-drug-like molecules is very much necessary to reduce the cost and time with failed drug development. There are various approaches that screen chemical databases against biological targets in the progress of new potential leads. QSAR modelling is a significant approach in the discovery of drug that correlates the structure of the molecule with biological activities. There are different methods like 2D (topological indices) and 3D (structure-based) of which 2D requires less calculation time and hence used for the preliminary screening of the drug development. Academia, industry, and research institutions across the globe, widely use 2D approach.
The principal step involves the selection of the right descriptor for various reasons. Only few descriptorsgive a better understanding of the results and their interpretability, can reduce the risk of overfitting from redundant descriptors, and provides speedy and cost-effective models.
Topological index represents translations of molecular structures into structural descriptors that are expressed as numerical indices. These topological indices find their applications in drug design where the QSAR/QSPR/QSTR studies are involved. The QSAR/QSPR methods are based on the assumption that the activity or the property, such as a drug binding to DNA or toxic effect, of a certain chemical compound related to its structure through a certain mathematical algorithm.
For the chemical compound under the study, a series of parameters, called chemical descriptors are computed. Then, an algorithm that provides a quite accurate value, similar to theoretical experimental value is found. The final step is to check if the obtained algorithm is capable of predicting the activity/property values.
QSAR/QSPR/QSTR models are used to predict the association between the molecular structure and its activity/property/toxicity. Over the years many algorithms have been proposed and applied in QSAR/QSPR studies. The model framework includes molecular structure (graph) representation, calculation of molecular descriptors (graph invariants) and multiple linear regression method. The model will be validated through statistical parameters (r and r2). The same approach is employed in this work and the statistical parameters have shown significant results.
Recently, Adnan et. al. made a study on the QSPR analysis of anti tuberculosis drugs in which 15 drugs were considered for the regression analysis of 6 physico chemical properties. Eleven topological indices were computed for which the correlation analysis showed a high positive good correlation with all the 6 physico chemical properties. Shanmukha et.al. studied 21 breast cancer drugs for which QSPR analysis were carried out. Eleven topological indices were studied in the study and linear models for each index were carried out. In 2020, Sigarreta [6,7] provided new tools that obtained a unified way inequalities involving many different topological indices. Joseobtained new optimal bounds on the variable Zagreb indices, the variable sum-connectivity index, the variable geometric-arithmetic index and the variable inverse sum indeg index. Recently, Jose computed new lower and upper optimal bounds for general (exponential) indices of a graph. In the same direction, new inequalities involving some well-known topological indices like the generalized atom-bound connectivity index and the generalized second Zagreb index were shown. Some extremal problems for their corresponding exponential indices were computed.
The numerical representation of the arrangement of a molecule of a compound refers to topological index. Wiener index was one of the first topological indices proposed by Harold Wiener in 1947 which proved that his index correlated well with the boiling points of alkanes. At present, there are various indices introduced by various researchers which are divided into three categories, namely, degree-based, neighborhood degree-based and distance based topological indices [8,9,10]. Sixty years ago, QSAR was introduced that included modelling of biological activities of molecules which was extended to modelling of few physicochemical properties of molecules leading to QSPR studies. Initially, it was chemical interpretation of topological indices [11,12] which has now extended to modelling of structural characteristics of molecules with their biological activity leading to complex modelling of compounds in QSAR/QSPR/QSTR studies [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].
This model does not require any lab equipment to perform the analysis. It saves a lot of time and money and the results obtained using the QSPR model are compared with the actual values for further analysis.
A graph G(V, E) with vertex set V(G) and edge set E(G) is connected if there exists an edge between every pair of vertices in G.
The graphs used in this work are simple graphs and have no loops and multiple edges. The number of edges incident to vertex v is the degree of the vertex v, denoted by d_v. For graph terminologies and notations refer [26,27].
Some of the topological descriptors which are used in this work are given below.
The earliest set of topological indices are the first and the second version of Zagreb indices. They have been found impressive in finding the total π-electron energy of molecules. Gutman and Polansky [28] introduced these indices in the year 1986 and are defined as follows
| M1(G)=∑vw∈E(G)(dv+dw) | (1) |
| M2(G)=∑vw∈E(G)(dv×dw) | (2) |
Harmonic index is proposed and defined by Fatjlowicz [29] as
| H(G)=∑vw∈E(G)2(dv+dw) | (3) |
Forgotten index was first defined by Furtula and Gutman [30] in 2015. It became popular as its performance in prediction of the index analogues to that of the original Zagreb index and is defined as
| F(G)=∑vw∈E(G)(dv)2+(dw)2 | (4) |
A novel graph invariant called the SS index of a graph is proposed by Zhao et al. [31] and is stated as
| SS(G)=∑vw∈E(G)√dv×dwdv+dw | (5) |
Ranjini et al. [32] introduced redefined version of the second and third Zagreb indices and are defined as
| ReZG2(G)=∑vw∈E(G)dv×dwdv+dw | (6) |
| ReZG3(G)=∑vw∈E(G)(dv×dw)(dv+dw) | (7) |
In this study, anti-malaria drugs are modelled by simple graphs. To compute the TIs of the considered drug's structure, the employed methods are vertex partitioning, edge partitioning, neighbourhood vertex partitioning and computational techniques. For depicting the results in terms of graphs and verification of computed results, the work is equipped with SPSS17 version.
In this work, degree-based topological indices are computed for the drugs used in the treatment of malaria. The QSPR analysis of the computed indices are discussed, and it is observed that these indices are highly correlated with the physico chemical properties of the drugs that are used in the treatment of malaria.
The nine drugs viz., Chloroquine, Amodiaquine, Mefloquine, Piperaquine, Primaquine, Lumefrantrine, Atovaquone, Pyrimethamine and Doxycycline used in the malaria treatment are considered for the analysis. The molecular structures of these drugs are shown in Figure 1. It is modelled as a graph where the atoms are referred to as vertices while the bonds by its edges which is represented in Figure 2.
The six physical properties of the drugs viz., boiling point, enthalpy, flash point, molar refraction, molar volume and polarizability for the 9 drugs are studied. A linear regression model used in this work is given below.
| P=A+B[TI] | (8) |
where P→ Physical property of the drug, A,B→ constants, TI→ topological descriptor.
Using the linear regression equation discussed, the regression model for the above considered topological indices are defined.
The physical properties of anti-malaria drugs are considered as dependent variables and the topological indices for molecular graphs of 9 drugs are considered as independent variables. A linear regression model is fitted using SPSS software where the constants A and B in the regression equation (8) are calculated by using the training set in Tables 1 and 2.
| Drugs | BP (℃ at 760 mmHg) | Enthalpy (kj/mol) | Flash point (℃) | Molar refraction | Molar volume (cm3) | Polarizability |
| Chloroquine | 460.6 | 72.1 | 232.23 | 97.4 | 287.9 | 38.6 |
| Amodiaquine | 478 | 77 | 242.9 | 105.5 | 282.8 | 41.8 |
| Mefloquine | 415.7 | 70.5 | 205.2 | 83 | 273.4 | 32.9 |
| Piperoquine | 721.1 | 105.3 | 389.9 | 153.7 | 414.2 | 60.9 |
| Primaquine | 451.1 | 71 | 226.6 | 80.5 | 230.3 | 31.9 |
| Lumefrantrine | 642.5 | 99.6 | 342.3 | 151 | 422.3 | 59.9 |
| Atovaquine | 535 | 85.4 | 277.3 | 99.5 | 271.8 | 39.5 |
| Pyrimethamine | 368.4 | 61.5 | 176.6 | 67.1 | 180.2 | 26.6 |
| Doxycycline | 762.6 | 116.5 | 415 | 109 | 271.1 | 43.2 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drugs | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 106 | 120 | 10.3 | 262 | 23.9599 | 25.2333 | 584 |
| Amodiaquine | 128 | 149 | 11.7333 | 324 | 28.5664 | 30.5333 | 742 |
| Mefloquine | 114 | 137 | 9.5857 | 306 | 24.5829 | 26.631 | 728 |
| Piperoquine | 202 | 240 | 17.8 | 510 | 45.1804 | 48.9 | 1200 |
| Primaquine | 92 | 105 | 9 | 226 | 20.903 | 22.0833 | 512 |
| Lumefrantrine | 182 | 213 | 16.3666 | 466 | 40.3883 | 43.4333 | 1090 |
| Atovaquine | 158 | 194 | 12.6047 | 446 | 33.4116 | 36.5619 | 1064 |
| Pyrimethamine | 86 | 100 | 7.7667 | 222 | 18.9478 | 20.2167 | 506 |
| Doxycycline | 200 | 264 | 14.4164 | 608 | 40.4521 | 45.55 | 1594 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Using the linear regression equation discussed, the regression model for the above considered topological indices are defined.
| Boilingpoint=124.096+2.932[M1(G)] |
| Enthalpy=49.292+0.228[M1(G)] |
| Flashpoint=28.813+1.773[M1(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=28.194+0.546[M1(G)] |
| MolarVolume=114.389+1.265[M1(G)] |
| Polarizability=11.164+0.217[M1(G)] |
| Boilingpoint=161.996+2.219[M2(G)] |
| Enthalpy=33.198+0.302[M2(G)] |
| Flashpoint=51.729+1.342[M2(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=41.872+0.374[M2(G)] |
| MolarVolume=150.949+0.838[M2(G)] |
| Polarizability=16.589+0.148[M2(G)] |
| Boilingpoint=87.905+36.905[H(G)] |
| Enthalpy=25.031+4.870[H(G)] |
| Flashpoint=6.939+22.319[H(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=3.348+8.365[H(G)] |
| MolarVolume=44.044+20.421[H(G)] |
| Polarizability=1.318+3.317[H(G)] |
| Boilingpoint=177.821+0.960[F(G)] |
| Enthalpy=34.961+0.132[F(G)] |
| Flashpoint=61.301+0.581[F(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=48.115+0.152[F(G)] |
| MolarVolume=167.744+0.334[F(G)] |
| Polarizability=19.061+0.060[F(G)] |
| Boilingpoint=111.354+13.867[SS(G)] |
| Enthalpy=27.343+1.855[SS(G)] |
| Flashpoint=21.110+8.387[SS(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=18.858+2.811[SS(G)] |
| MolarVolume=87.819+6.670[SS(G)] |
| Polarizability=7.465+1.115[SS(G)] |
| Boilingpoint=123.738+12.440[RezG2(G)] |
| Enthalpy=28.782+1.671[RezG2(G)] |
| Flashpoint=28.597+7.524[RezG2(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=24.545+2.426[RezG2(G)] |
| MolarVolume=103.449+5.693[RezG2(G)] |
| Polarizability=9.720+0.962[RezG2(G)] |
| Boilingpoint=223.151+0.352[RezG3(G)] |
| Enthalpy=40.942+0.049[RezG3(G)] |
| Flashpoint=88.713+0.213[RezG3(G)] |
| MolarRefraction=59.754+0.051[RezG3(G)] |
| MolarVolume=196.894+0.107[RezG3(G)] |
| Polarizability=23.678+0.020[RezG3(G)] |
In Table 1, six physical properties of the anti-malaria drugs considered in the study are presented. Various degree-based topological indices mentioned above are computed and tabulated in Table 2. The correlation of the indices in this study against all the six physical properties are tabulated in Table 3. It is observed that the indices and their corresponding physical properties are highly correlated for most of the properties and the correlation coefficient of second Zagreb index with enthalpy being the highest value of correlation (0.978). The correlation coefficients of the discussed topological indices with physical properties and graphically presented in Figure 3. The statistical parameters viz., the sample size (N), constant (A), slope (b), correlation coefficient (r), the percentage of the dependent variable r2, and p-value for the QSPR study for all the above seven topological indices are studied. The null hypothesis is tested for p-value of each term is where the coefficient equals zero while the higher the p-value infers those changes in predictor are not related to changes in response. In this case, all the regression coefficients of a null hypothesis are zero while testing gives rise to F value. In such a case, the model does not have predictive capability. Using this test, one can compare their model with zero predictor variables to decide their coefficients improve the model.
| Drugs | BP | Enthalpy | Flash point | Molar refraction | Molar volume | Polarizability |
| M1(G) | 0.961 | 0.968 | 0.961 | 0.838 | 0.735 | 0.838 |
| M2(G) | 0.962 | 0.978 | 0.963 | 0.76 | 0.645 | 0.76 |
| H(G) | 0.908 | 0.894 | 0.908 | 0.963 | 0.891 | 0.964 |
| F(G) | 0.947 | 0.969 | 0.947 | 0.704 | 0.584 | 0.704 |
| SS(G) | 0.948 | 0.945 | 0.948 | 0.899 | 0.809 | 0.899 |
| ReZG2(G) | 0.957 | 0.958 | 0.957 | 0.873 | 0.776 | 0.873 |
| ReZG3(G) | 0.934 | 0.962 | 0.934 | 0.632 | 0.505 | 0.633 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Tables 4–10 represent the statistical parameters such as number of drugs considered, constant, regression coefficient, correlation coefficient, Fisher’s statistic, significant value, and standard error denoted by N, A, b, r, r2, F and p respectively, for all the considered topological indices and physical properties. Table 11 denotes the standard error of estimate for physical properties of drugs. Tables 12–17 denote the comparison of actual and computed values of all physical properties of anti-malaria drugs. Figure 3 depicts the graphical representation of physical properties and the topological indices.
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 124.096 | 2.932 | 0.961 | 0.923 | 83.956 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 28.483 | 0.396 | 0.968 | 0.937 | 104.502 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 29.813 | 1.773 | 0.961 | 0.923 | 83.973 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 28.194 | 0.546 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 16.501 | 0.05 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 114.389 | 1.265 | 0.735 | 0.541 | 8.244 | 0.02 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 11.164 | 0.217 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 16.529 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 161.996 | 2.219 | 0.962 | 0.926 | 88.088 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 33.198 | 0.302 | 0.978 | 0.956 | 151.468 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 51.729 | 1.342 | 0.963 | 0.926 | 88.162 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 41.872 | 0.374 | 0.76 | 0.578 | 9.575 | 0.01 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 150.949 | 0.838 | 0.645 | 0.416 | 4.982 | 0.06 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 16.589 | 0.148 | 0.76 | 0.578 | 9.588 | 0.01 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 87.905 | 36.905 | 0.908 | 0.825 | 33.003 | 0.01 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 25.031 | 4.87 | 0.894 | 0.798 | 27.731 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 60939 | 22.319 | 0.908 | 0.825 | 32.986 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 3.348 | 8.365 | 0.963 | 0.928 | 90.501 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 44.044 | 20.421 | 0.891 | 0.795 | 27.106 | 0 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 1.318 | 3.317 | 0.964 | 0.928 | 90.704 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 177.821 | 0.96 | 0.947 | 0.897 | 60.643 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 34.961 | 0.132 | 0.969 | 0.94 | 109.495 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 61.301 | 0.581 | 0.947 | 0.897 | 60.678 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 48.115 | 0.152 | 0.704 | 0.495 | 6.865 | 0.03 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 167.744 | 0.334 | 0.584 | 0.341 | 3.619 | 0.09 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 19.061 | 0.06 | 0.704 | 0.496 | 6.877 | 0.03 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 111.354 | 13.867 | 0.948 | 0.898 | 61.748 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 27.343 | 1.855 | 0.945 | 0.894 | 58.818 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 21.11 | 8.387 | 0.948 | 0.898 | 61.739 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 18.858 | 2.811 | 0.899 | 0.808 | 29.522 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 87.819 | 6.67 | 0.809 | 0.654 | 13.222 | 0 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 7.465 | 1.115 | 0.899 | 0.809 | 29.572 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 123.738 | 12.44 | 0.957 | 0.915 | 75.323 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 28.782 | 1.671 | 0.958 | 0.918 | 77.887 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 28.597 | 7.524 | 0.957 | 0.915 | 75.331 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 24.545 | 2.426 | 0.873 | 0.762 | 22.437 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 103.449 | 5.693 | 0.776 | 0.603 | 10.626 | 0.01 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 9.72 | 0.962 | 0.873 | 0.762 | 22.47 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 223.151 | 0.352 | 0.934 | 0.873 | 47.933 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 40.942 | 0.049 | 0.962 | 0.925 | 86.586 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 88.713 | 0.213 | 0.934 | 0.873 | 47.97 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 59.754 | 0.051 | 0.632 | 0.4 | 4.665 | 0.05 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 196.894 | 0.107 | 0.505 | 0.255 | 2.4 | 0.05 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 23.678 | 0.02 | 0.633 | 0.4 | 4.671 | 0.05 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drugs | BP | Enthalpy | Flash point | Molar refraction | Molar volume | Polarizability |
| M1(G) | 41.3818 | 5.0133 | 25.0251 | 17.3965 | 56.9863 | 6.8934 |
| M2(G) | 40.4727 | 402053 | 24.4681 | 20.7148 | 64.279 | 8.21 |
| H(G) | 62.3993 | 8.9827 | 32.985 | 8.5408 | 38.0989 | 3.3828 |
| F(G) | 47.9859 | 4.9047 | 29.014 | 22.6488 | 68.2796 | 8.9761 |
| SS(G) | 47.5989 | 6.6252 | 28.7891 | 13.955 | 49.478 | 5.5292 |
| ReZG2(G) | 43.4975 | 5.7457 | 26.3056 | 15.5439 | 52.9971 | 6.1595 |
| ReZG3(G) | 53.2487 | 5.4722 | 32.1935 | 24.6926 | 72.5723 | 9.7875 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Boiling point ℃ (at 760 mmHg) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 460.6 ± 40.0 | 434.88 | 428.27 | 468.02 | 429.341 | 443.60 | 437.64 | 428.71 |
| Amodiaquine | 478.0 ± 45.0 | 499.39 | 492.62 | 520.92 | 488.861 | 507.48 | 503.57 | 484.33 |
| Mefloquine | 415.7 ± 40.0 | 458.34 | 465.99 | 441.66 | 471.581 | 452.24 | 455.02 | 479.40 |
| Piperoquine | 721.1 ± 60.0 | 716.36 | 694.55 | 744.81 | 667.421 | 737.87 | 732.05 | 645.55 |
| Primaquine | 451.1 ± 45.0 | 393.84 | 394.99 | 420.05 | 394.781 | 401.21 | 398.45 | 403.37 |
| Lumefrantrine | 642.5 ± 55.0 | 657.72 | 634.64 | 691.91 | 625.181 | 671.41 | 664.04 | 606.83 |
| Atovaquine | 535.0 ± 50.0 | 587.35 | 592.48 | 553.08 | 605.981 | 574.67 | 578.56 | 597.67 |
| Pyrimethamine | 368.4 ± 52.0 | 376.24 | 383.89 | 374.53 | 390.941 | 374.10 | 375.23 | 401.26 |
| Doxycycline | 762.6 ± 60.0 | 710.49 | 747.81 | 619.94 | 761.501 | 672.30 | 690.38 | 784.23 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Flash point (℃) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 232.23 ± 27.3 | 216.75 | 212.76 | 236.82 | 213.52 | 222.06 | 218.45 | 213.10 |
| Amodiaquine | 242.9 ± 28.7 | 255.75 | 251.68 | 268.81 | 249.54 | 260.69 | 258.32 | 246.75 |
| Mefloquine | 205.2 ± 27.3 | 230.93 | 235.58 | 220.88 | 239.08 | 227.28 | 228.96 | 243.77 |
| Piperoquine | 389.9 ± 32.9 | 386.95 | 373.80 | 404.21 | 357.61 | 400.03 | 396.52 | 344.31 |
| Primaquine | 226.6 ± 28.7 | 191.92 | 192.63 | 207.81 | 192.60 | 196.42 | 194.75 | 197.76 |
| Lumefrantrine | 342.3 ± 31.5 | 351.49 | 337.57 | 372.22 | 332.04 | 359.84 | 355.38 | 320.88 |
| Atovaquine | 277.3 ± 30.1 | 308.94 | 312.07 | 288.26 | 320.42 | 301.33 | 303.68 | 315.34 |
| Pyrimethamine | 176.6 ± 30.7 | 181.29 | 185.92 | 180.28 | 190.28 | 180.02 | 180.70 | 196.49 |
| Doxycycline | 415.0 ± 32.9 | 383.41 | 406.01 | 328.69 | 414.54 | 360.38 | 371.31 | 428.23 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Enthalpy (kj/mol) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 72.1 ± 3.0 | 73.46 | 69.438 | 75.19 | 69.545 | 71.78 | 70.94 | 69.55 |
| Amodiaquine | 77.0 ± 3.0 | 78.476 | 78.19 | 82.17 | 77.72 | 80.33 | 79.80 | 77.3 |
| Mefloquine | 70.5 ± 3.0 | 75.28 | 74.57 | 71.71 | 75.35 | 72.94 | 73.28 | 76.61 |
| Piperoquine | 105.3 ± 3.0 | 95.34 | 105.67 | 111.71 | 102.28 | 111.15 | 110.49 | 99.74 |
| Primaquine | 71.0 ± 3.0 | 70.268 | 64.90 | 68.86 | 64.79 | 66.11 | 65.68 | 66.03 |
| Lumefrantrine | 99.6 ± 3.0 | 90.788 | 97.52 | 104.73 | 96.47 | 102.26 | 101.35 | 94.35 |
| Atovaquine | 85.4 ± 3.0 | 85.316 | 91.78 | 86.41 | 93.83 | 89.31 | 89.87 | 93.07 |
| Pyrimethamine | 61.5 ± 3.0 | 68.9 | 63.39 | 62.85 | 64.26 | 62.48 | 62.56 | 65.73 |
| Doxycycline | 116.5 ± 3.0 | 94.892 | 112.92 | 95.23 | 115.21 | 102.37 | 104.89 | 119.04 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Molar refraction (cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 97.4 ± 0.3 | 86.07 | 86.75 | 89.50 | 87.93 | 86.20 | 85.76 | 89.53 |
| Amodiaquine | 105.5 ± 0.3 | 98.08 | 97.59 | 101.49 | 97.36 | 99.15 | 98.61 | 97.59 |
| Mefloquine | 83.0 ± 0.3 | 90.43 | 93.11 | 83.53 | 94.62 | 87.96 | 89.15 | 96.88 |
| Piperoquine | 153.7 ± 0.3 | 138.48 | 131.63 | 152.24 | 125.63 | 145.86 | 143.17 | 120.95 |
| Primaquine | 80.5 ± 0.3 | 78.42 | 81.14 | 78.63 | 82.46 | 77.61 | 78.11 | 85.86 |
| Lumefrantrine | 151.0 ± 0.3 | 127.56 | 121.53 | 140.25 | 118.94 | 132.38 | 129.91 | 115.34 |
| Atovaquine | 99.5 ± 0.3 | 114.46 | 114.42 | 108.78 | 115.90 | 112.77 | 113.24 | 114.01 |
| Pyrimethamine | 67.1 ± 0.5 | 75.15 | 79.27 | 68.31 | 81.85 | 72.12 | 73.59 | 85.56 |
| Doxycycline | 109 ± 0.4 | 137.39 | 140.60 | 123.94 | 140.53 | 132.56 | 135.04 | 141.04 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Molar volume (cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZzG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 287.9 ± 3.0 | 248.47 | 251.509 | 254.38 | 255.25 | 247.63 | 247.10 | 259.38 |
| Amodiaquine | 282.8 ± 3.0 | 276.30 | 275.811 | 283.64 | 275.96 | 278.35 | 277.27 | 276.28 |
| Mefloquine | 273.4 ± 3.0 | 258.59 | 265.755 | 239.79 | 269.94 | 251.78 | 255.05 | 274.79 |
| Piperoquine | 414.2 ± 3.0 | 369.91 | 352.069 | 407.53 | 338.08 | 389.17 | 381.83 | 325.29 |
| Primaquine | 230.3 ± 3.0 | 230.76 | 238.939 | 227.83 | 243.22 | 227.24 | 229.16 | 251.67 |
| Lumefrantrine | 422.3 ± 3.0 | 344.61 | 329.443 | 378.26 | 323.38 | 357.20 | 350.71 | 313.52 |
| Atovaquine | 271.8 ± 3.0 | 314.25 | 313.521 | 301.44 | 316.70 | 310.67 | 311.59 | 310.74 |
| Pyrimethamine | 180.2 ± 7.0 | 223.17 | 234.749 | 202.64 | 241.89 | 214.20 | 218.54 | 251.03 |
| Doxycycline | 271.1 ± 5.0 | 367.38 | 372.181 | 338.44 | 370.81 | 357.63 | 362.76 | 367.45 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Polarizability (10-24 cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 38.6 ± 0.5 | 34.16 | 34.34 | 35.48 | 34.78 | 34.18 | 33.99 | 35.35 |
| Amodiaquine | 41.8 ± 0.5 | 38.94 | 38.64 | 40.23 | 38.50 | 39.31 | 39.09 | 38.51 |
| Mefloquine | 32.9 ± 0.5 | 35.90 | 36.86 | 33.11 | 37.42 | 34.87 | 35.33 | 38.23 |
| Piperoquine | 60.9 ± 0.5 | 54.99 | 52.10 | 60.36 | 49.66 | 57.84 | 56.76 | 47.67 |
| Primaquine | 31.9 ± 0.5 | 31.12 | 32.12 | 31.17 | 32.62 | 30.77 | 30.96 | 33.91 |
| Lumefrantrine | 59.9 ± 0.5 | 50.65 | 48.11 | 55.60 | 47.02 | 52.49 | 51.50 | 45.47 |
| Atovaquine | 39.5 ± 0.5 | 45.45 | 45.30 | 43.12 | 45.82 | 44.71 | 44.89 | 44.95 |
| Pyrimethamine | 26.6 ± 0.5 | 29.82 | 31.38 | 27.08 | 32.38 | 28.59 | 29.16 | 33.79 |
| Doxycycline | 43.2 ± 0.5 | 54.56 | 55.66 | 49.13 | 55.54 | 52.56 | 53.53 | 55.55 |
DownLoad:
CSV
In this study, seven degree-based topological indices are computed for nine anti-malaria drugs which is presented in Table 2. The coefficient of correlation for the said indices against six physical properties are computed and tabulated in Table 3. It is observed from Table 3 that every topological index shows good correlation with its corresponding physical properties in which, considering second Zagreb index row wise, the correlation coefficient is high with that of enthalpy for M2(G). The first Zagreb index has a high correlation with enthalpy of 0.963. The Harmonic index shows good correlation with polarizability, Forgotten index with enthalpy having r = 0.969, SS index has highest correlation with boiling point and flash point, both being 0.948, while the redefined Zagreb indices with enthalpy having 0.947, 0.958 and 0.962 respectively for the three indices.
This work focusses on the drugs used for the treatment of malaria which is caused by mosquitoes. The analysis done in this paper may help the chemists and pharmaceutical industry researchers to design novel drugs using various excipients by the values of indices computed here. They may constitute different drugs for various ailments based on the available topological indices in the article. The correlation coefficients of various drugs help the chemists to choose the right composition based on the high correlation value to form a new drug for novel ailments. New tools to obtain a unified way of involving inequalities of various topological indices may be carried out. The extremal values for the considered indices may be computed for exponential version of the indices.
The author declare that they have no conflict of interest.
| [1] |
Kimura T, Egawa S (2018) Epidemiology of prostate cancer in Asian countries. Int J Urol 25: 524-531. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13593 
|
| [2] |
Pernar CH, Ebot EM, Wilson KM, et al. (2018) The epidemiology of prostate cancer. Cold Spring Harbor Perspect Med 8: a030361-a030380. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a030361
|
| [3] |
Adeloye D, David RA, Aderemi AV, et al. (2016) An estimate of the incidence of prostate cancer in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 11: e0153496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153496
|
| [4] |
Kang DY, Li HJ (2015) The effect of testosterone replacement therapy on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels in men being treated for hypogonadism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 94: e410-e418. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000000410
|
| [5] |
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. (2019) Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 144: 1941-1953. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31937
|
| [6] | (2018) World Health OrganisationCancer Fact Sheets.WHO. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer |
| [7] |
Taitt HE (2018) Global trends and prostate cancer: a review of incidence, detection, and mortality as influenced by race, ethnicity, and geographic location. Am J Mens Health 12: 1807-1823. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988318798279
|
| [8] |
Campi R, Brookman-May SD, Subiela Henriquez JD, et al. (2018) Impact of metabolic diseases, drugs, and dietary factors on prostate cancer risk, recurrence, and survival: A systematic review by the European Association of Urology Section of Oncological Urology. Eur Urol Focus 5: 1029-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2018.04.001
|
| [9] |
Miah S, Catto J (2014) BPH and prostate cancer risk. Indian J Urol 30: 214-218. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-1591.126909
|
| [10] |
Fernández-Martínez AB, Bajo AM, Arenas ML, et al. (2010) Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) induces malignant transformation of the human prostate epithelial cell line RWPE-1. Cancer Lett 299: 11-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2010.07.019
|
| [11] |
Boyle P, Koechlin A, Bota M, et al. (2016) Endogenous and exogenous testosterone and the risk of prostate cancer and increased prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level: a meta-analysis. BJU Int 118: 731-741. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13417
|
| [12] |
Tan ME, Li J, Xu HE, et al. (2015) Androgen receptor: structure, role in prostate cancer and drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin 36: 3-23. https://doi.org/10.1038/aps.2014.18
|
| [13] |
Lee YJ, Park JE, Jeon BR, et al. (2013) Is prostate-specific antigen effective for population screening of prostate cancer? A systematic review. Ann Lab Med 33: 233-241. https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2013.33.4.233
|
| [14] |
Negoita S, Feuer EJ, Mariotto A, et al. (2018) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part II: Recent changes in prostate cancer trends and disease characteristics. Cancer 124: 2801-2814. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31549
|
| [15] |
Zhang K, Aruva MR, Shanthly N, et al. (2008) PET imaging of VPAC1 expression in experimental and spontaneous prostate cancer. J Nucl Med 49: 112-121. https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.107.043703
|
| [16] |
Litwin MS, Tan HJ (2017) The diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer: a review. JAMA 317: 2532-2542. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7248
|
| [17] |
Renard-Penna R, Cancel-Tassin G, Comperat E, et al. (2015) Functional magnetic resonance imaging and molecular pathology at the crossroad of the management of early prostate cancer. World J Urol 33: 929-936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1570-z
|
| [18] |
Ahmed HU, Bosaily ESA, Brown LC, et al. (2017) Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study. Lancet 389: 815-822. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
|
| [19] | Boesen L (2017) Multiparametric MRI in detection and staging of prostate cancer. Dan Med J 64: B5327. |
| [20] | Sosnowski R, Zagrodzka M, Borkowski T (2016) The limitations of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging also must be borne in mind. Cent Eur J Urol 69: 22-23. https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2016.e113 |
| [21] |
Saini S (2016) PSA and beyond: alternative prostate cancer biomarkers. Cell Oncol 39: 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13402-016-0268-6
|
| [22] |
Zhao L, Yu N, Guo T, et al. (2014) Tissue biomarkers for prognosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidem Biomar 23: 1047-1054. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0696
|
| [23] |
Jedinak A, Loughlin KR, Moses MA (2018) Approaches to the discovery of non-invasive urinary biomarkers of prostate cancer. Oncotarget 9: 32534-32550. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25946
|
| [24] |
Wu D, Ni J, Beretov J, et al. (2017) Urinary biomarkers in prostate cancer detection and monitoring progression. Crit Rev Oncol Hemat 118: 15-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2017.08.002
|
| [25] |
Tosoian JJ, Ross AE, Sokoll LJ, et al. (2016) Urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Urol Clin N Am 43: 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2015.08.003
|
| [26] |
Luo Y, Gou X, Huang P, et al. (2014) The PCA3 test for guiding repeat biopsy of prostate cancer and its cut-off score: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl 16: 487-492. https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.125390
|
| [27] |
Dijkstra S, Mulders PF, Schalken JA (2014) Clinical use of novel urine and blood based prostate cancer biomarkers: a review. Clin Biochem 47: 889-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2013.10.023
|
| [28] |
Larsen LK, Jakobsen JS, Abdul-Al A, et al. (2018) Noninvasive detection of high-grade prostate cancer by DNA methylation analysis of urine cells captured by microfiltration. J Uroly 200: 749-757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.067
|
| [29] |
Ratz L, Laible M, Kacprzyk LA, et al. (2017) TMPRSS2:ERG gene fusion variants induce TGF-β signaling and epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human prostate cancer cells. Oncotarget 8: 25115-25130. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.15931
|
| [30] |
Sequeiros T, Bastarós JM, Sánchez M, et al. (2015) Urinary biomarkers for the detection of prostate cancer in patients with high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia. Prostate 75: 1102-1113. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.22995
|
| [31] |
Mengual L, Lozano JJ, Ingelmo-Torres M, et al. (2016) Using gene expression from urine sediment to diagnose prostate cancer: development of a new multiplex mRNA urine test and validation of current biomarkers. BMC Cancer 16: 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-016-2127-2
|
| [32] |
Fryczkowski M, Bułdak R, Hejmo T, et al. (2018) Circulating levels of omentin, leptin, VEGF, and HGF and their clinical relevance with PSA marker in prostate cancer. Dis Markers 2018: 3852401. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3852401
|
| [33] | Dheeraj A, Tailor D, Deep G, et al. (2018) Insulin-like Growth Factor Binding Protein-3 (IGFBP-3) regulates mitochondrial dynamics, EMT, and angiogenesis in progression of prostate cancer. Cancer Res 78: 1095. https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2018-1095 |
| [34] | Wisniewski T, Zyromska A, Makarewicz R, et al. (2019) Osteopontin and angiogenic factors as new biomarkers of prostate cancer. Urol J 16: 134-140. |
| [35] |
Prager AJ, Peng CR, Lita E, et al. (2013) Urinary aHGF, IGFBP3, and OPN as diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for prostate cancer. Biomarkers Med 7: 831-841. https://doi.org/10.2217/bmm.13.112
|
| [36] |
Rivnyak A, Kiss P, Tamas A, et al. (2018) Review on PACAP-induced transcriptomic and proteomic changes in neuronal development and repair. Int J Mol Sci 19: 1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19041020
|
| [37] |
Ashina M, Martelletti P (2018) Pituitary adenylate-cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP): another novel target for treatment of primary headaches?. J Headache Pain 19: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-018-0860-4
|
| [38] |
Johnson GC, Parsons R, May V, et al. (2020) The role of pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide (PACAP) signaling in the hippocampal dentate gyrus. Front Cell Neurosci 14: 111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2020.00111
|
| [39] |
Hirabayashi T, Nakamachi T, Shioda S (2018) Discovery of PACAP and its receptors in the brain. J Headache Pain 19: 28. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-018-0855-1
|
| [40] |
Leyton J, Coelho T, Coy D, et al. (1998) PACAP (6–38) inhibits the growth of prostate cancer cells. Cancer Lett 125: 131-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3835(97)00525-9
|
| [41] |
Derand R, Montoni A, Bulteau-Pignoux L, et al. (2004) Activation of VPAC1 receptors by VIP and PACAP-27 in human bronchial epithelial cells induces CFTR-dependent chloride secretion. Brit J Pharmacol 141: 698-708. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0705597
|
| [42] |
Couvineau A, Ceraudo E, Tan YV, et al. (2012) The VPAC1 receptor: structure and function of a class B GPCR prototype. Front Endocrinol 3: 139. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2012.00139
|
| [43] |
Couvineau A, Tan YV, Ceraudo E, et al. (2013) Strategies for studying the ligand-binding site of GPCRs: Photoaffinity labeling of the VPAC1 receptor, a prototype of class B GPCRs. Method Enzymol 520: 219-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-391861-1.00010-1
|
| [44] |
Starr CG, Maderdrut JL, He J, et al. (2018) Pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide is a potent broad-spectrum antimicrobial peptide: Structure-activity relationships. Peptides 104: 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2018.04.006
|
| [45] |
Jayawardena D, Guzman G, Gill RK, et al. (2017) Expression and localization of VPAC1, the major receptor of vasoactive intestinal peptide along the length of the intestine. Am J Physiol-Gastr L 313: G16-G25. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpgi.00081.2017
|
| [46] |
Dorsam GP, Benton K, Failing J, et al. (2011) Vasoactive intestinal peptide signaling axis in human leukemia. World J Biol Chem 2: 146-160. https://doi.org/10.4331/wjbc.v2.i6.146
|
| [47] |
Garcı́a-Fernández MO, Solano RM, Carmena MJ, et al. (2003) Expression of functional PACAP/VIP receptors in human prostate cancer and healthy tissue. Peptides 24: 893-902. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-9781(03)00162-1
|
| [48] |
Moretti C, Mammi C, Frajese GV, et al. (2006) PACAP and type I PACAP receptors in human prostate cancer tissue. Ann NY Acad Sci 1070: 440-449. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1317.059
|
| [49] |
Tamas A, Javorhazy A, Reglodi D, et al. (2016) Examination of PACAP-like immunoreactivity in urogenital tumor samples. J Mol Neurosci 59: 177-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12031-015-0652-0
|
| [50] |
Ibrahim H, Barrow P, Foster N (2011) Transcriptional modulation by VIP: a rational target against inflammatory disease. Clin Epigenet 2: 213-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13148-011-0036-4
|
| [51] |
Gomariz RP, Juarranz Y, Carrión M, et al. (2019) An overview of VPAC receptors in rheumatoid arthritis: biological role and clinical significance. Front Endocrinol 10: 729. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00729
|
| [52] |
Couvineau A, Laburthe M (2012) VPAC receptors: structure, molecular pharmacology, and interaction with accessory proteins. Brit J Pharmacol 166: 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01676.x
|
| [53] |
Tripathi S, Trabulsi EJ, Gomella L, et al. (2016) VPAC1 targeted (64)Cu-TP3805 positron emission tomography imaging of prostate cancer: preliminary evaluation in man. Urology 88: 111-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.10.012
|
| [54] |
Arms L, Vizzard MA (2011) Neuropeptides in lower urinary tract function. Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology : 395-423. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16499-6_19
|
| [55] |
Inbal U, Alexandraki K, Grozinsky-Glasberg S (2018) Gastrointestinal hormones in cancer. Encyclopedia of Endocrine Diseases. Oxford: Academic Press 579-586. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801238-3.95875-6
|
| [56] |
Tang B, Yong X, Xie R, et al. (2014) Vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor-based imaging and treatment of tumors (Review). Int J Oncol 44: 1023-1031. https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2014.2276
|
| [57] |
Reubi JC (2000) In vitro evaluation of VIP/PACAP receptors in healthy and diseased human tissues: clinical implications. Ann NY Acad Sci 921: 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2000.tb06946.x
|
| [58] | Thakur ML (2016) Targeting VPAC1 genomic receptors for optical imaging of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43: S662-S663. |
| [59] |
Tang B, Wu J, Zhu MX, et al. (2019) VPAC1 couples with TRPV4 channel to promote calcium-dependent gastric cancer progression via a novel autocrine mechanism. Oncogene 38: 3946-3961. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-019-0709-6
|
| [60] |
Truong H, Gomella LG, Thakur ML, et al. (2018) VPAC1-targeted PET/CT scan: improved molecular imaging for the diagnosis of prostate cancer using a novel cell surface antigen. World J Urol 36: 719-726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-018-2263-1
|
| [61] |
Liu S, Zeng Y, Li Y, et al. (2014) VPAC1 overexpression is associated with poor differentiation in colon cancer. Tumour Biol 35: 6397-6404. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-1852-x
|
| [62] | Tang B, Xie R, Xiao YF, et al. (2017) VIP promotes gastric cancer progression via the VPAC1/TRPV4/Ca2+ signaling pathway. J Dig Dis 152: S836. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5085(17)32886-X |
| [63] | Tripathi S, Trabulsi E, Kumar P, et al. (2015) VPAC1 targeted detection of genitourinary cancer: A urinary assay. J Nuclear Med 56: 388. |
| [64] |
Delgado M, Pozo D, Ganea D (2004) The significance of vasoactive intestinal peptide in immunomodulation. Pharmacol Rev 56: 249-290. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.56.2.7
|
| [65] |
Ganea D, Hooper KM, Kong W (2015) The neuropeptide vasoactive intestinal peptide: direct effects on immune cells and involvement in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Acta Physiol 213: 442-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/apha.12427
|
| [66] |
Wu F, Song G, de Graaf C, et al. (2017) Structure and function of peptide-binding G protein-coupled receptors. J Mol Biol 429: 2726-2745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmb.2017.06.022
|
| [67] |
Moody TW (2019) Peptide receptors as cancer drug targets. Ann NY Acad Sci 1455: 141-148. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14100
|
| [68] |
Latek D, Langer I, Krzysko K, et al. (2019) A molecular dynamics study of vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor 1 and the basis of its therapeutic antagonism. Int J Mol Sci 20: 4348-4369. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20184348
|
| [69] |
Langer I (2012) Conformational switches in the VPAC1 receptor. Brit J Pharmacol 166: 79-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01616.x
|
| [70] |
Santos R, Ursu O, Gaulton A, et al. (2017) A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets. Nat Rev Drug Discov 16: 19-34. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.230
|
| [71] |
de Graaf C, Song G, Cao C, et al. (2017) Extending the structural view of class B GPCRs. Trends Biochem Sci 42: 946-960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2017.10.003
|
| [72] |
Solano RM, Langer I, Perret J, et al. (2001) Two basic residues of the h-VPAC1 receptor second transmembrane helix are essential for ligand binding and signal transduction. J Biol Chem 276: 1084-1088. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M007696200
|
| [73] |
Jazayeri A, Doré AS, Lamb D, et al. (2016) Extra-helical binding site of a glucagon receptor antagonist. Nature 533: 274. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17414
|
| [74] |
Parthier C, Reedtz-Runge S, Rudolph R, et al. (2009) Passing the baton in class B GPCRs: peptide hormone activation via helix induction?. Trends Biochem Sci 34: 303-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2009.02.004
|
| [75] |
Ceraudo E, Hierso R, Tan YV, et al. (2012) Spatial proximity between the VPAC1 receptor and the amino terminus of agonist and antagonist peptides reveals distinct sites of interaction. FASEB J 26: 2060-2071. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.11-196444
|
| [76] |
Hutchings CJ, Koglin M, Olson WC, et al. (2017) Opportunities for therapeutic antibodies directed at G-protein-coupled receptors. Nat Rev Drug Discov 16: 787-810. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2017.91
|
| [77] |
Peyrassol X, Laeremans T, Lahura V, et al. (2018) Development by genetic immunization of monovalent antibodies against human vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor 1 (VPAC1), new innovative, and versatile tools to study VPAC1 receptor function. Front Endocrinol 9: 153. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00153
|
| [78] |
Freson K, Peeters K, De Vos R, et al. (2008) PACAP and its receptor VPAC1 regulate megakaryocyte maturation: therapeutic implications. Blood 111: 1885-1893. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2007-06-098558
|
| [79] |
Hermann RJ, Van der Steen T, Vomhof-Dekrey EE, et al. (2012) Characterization and use of a rabbit-anti-mouse VPAC1 antibody by flow cytometry. J Immunol Methods 376: 20-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jim.2011.10.009
|
| [80] |
Langlet C, Langer I, Vertongen P, et al. (2005) Contribution of the carboxyl terminus of the VPAC1 receptor to agonist-induced receptor phosphorylation, internalization, and recycling. J Biol Chem 280: 28034-28043. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M500449200
|
| [81] |
Ramos-Álvarez I, Mantey SA, Nakamura T, et al. (2015) A structure-function study of PACAP using conformationally restricted analogs: Identification of PAC1 receptor-selective PACAP agonists. Peptides 66: 26-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2015.01.009
|
| [82] |
Van Rampelbergh J, Juarranz MG, Perret J, et al. (2000) Characterization of a novel VPAC1 selective agonist and identification of the receptor domains implicated in the carboxyl-terminal peptide recognition. Brit J Pharmacol 130: 819-826. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0703384
|
| [83] |
Dickson L, Aramori I, McCulloch J, et al. (2006) A systematic comparison of intracellular cyclic AMP and calcium signalling highlights complexities in human VPAC/PAC receptor pharmacology. Neuropharmacol 51: 1086-1098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2006.07.017
|
| [84] |
Moody TW, Nuche-Berenguer B, Jensen RT (2016) Vasoactive intestinal peptide/pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide, and their receptors and cancer. Curr Opin Endocrinol 23: 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1097/MED.0000000000000218
|
| [85] |
Moody TW, Chan D, Fahrenkrug J, et al. (2003) Neuropeptides as autocrine growth factors in cancer cells. Curr Pharm Design 9: 495-509. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612033391621
|
| [86] |
Fernández-Martínez AB, Carmena MJ, Bajo AM, et al. (2015) VIP induces NF-κB1-nuclear localisation through different signalling pathways in human tumour and non-tumour prostate cells. Cell Signal 27: 236-244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cellsig.2014.11.005
|
| [87] |
Iwasaki M, Akiba Y, Kaunitz JD (2019) Recent advances in vasoactive intestinal peptide physiology and pathophysiology: focus on the gastrointestinal system. F1000Research 8: 1629-1642. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.18039.1
|
| [88] |
Langer I (2012) Mechanisms involved in VPAC receptors activation and regulation: lessons from pharmacological and mutagenesis studies. Front Endocrin 3: 129. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2012.00129
|
| [89] |
Harmar AJ, Fahrenkrug J, Gozes I, et al. (2012) Pharmacology and functions of receptors for vasoactive intestinal peptide and pituitary adenylate cyclase—activating polypeptide: IUPHAR Review 1. Brit J Pharmacol 166: 4-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-5381.2012.01871.x
|
| [90] |
Langer I, Robberecht P (2007) Molecular mechanisms involved in vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor activation and regulation: current knowledge, similarities to and differences from the A family of G-protein-coupled receptors. Biochem Soc Trans 35: 724-728. https://doi.org/10.1042/BST0350724
|
| [91] |
Igarashi H, Fujimori N, Ito T, et al. (2011) Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) and VIP receptors-elucidation of structure and function for therapeutic applications. Int J Clin Med 2: 500-508. https://doi.org/10.4236/ijcm.2011.24084
|
| [92] |
Delgado M, Ganea D (2000) Inhibition of IFN-gamma-induced Janus kinase-1-STAT1 activation in macrophages by vasoactive intestinal peptide and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide. J Immunol 165: 3051-3057. https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.165.6.3051
|
| [93] |
Smalley SGR, Barrow PA, Foster N (2009) Immunomodulation of innate immune responses by vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP): its therapeutic potential in inflammatory disease. Clin Exp Immunol 157: 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2249.2009.03956.x
|
| [94] |
Shaywitz AJ, Greenberg ME (1999) CREB: a stimulus-induced transcription factor activated by a diverse array of extracellular signals. Annu Rev Biochem 68: 821-861. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.biochem.68.1.821
|
| [95] |
Delgado M, Ganea D (2001) Vasoactive intestinal peptide and pituitary adenylate cyclase-activating polypeptide inhibit nuclear factor-kappa B-dependent gene activation at multiple levels in the human monocytic cell line THP-1. J Biol Chem 276: 369-380. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M006923200
|
| [96] |
Dickson L, Finlayson K (2009) VPAC and PAC receptors: From ligands to function. Pharmacol Therapeut 121: 294-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2008.11.006
|
| [97] |
Laburthe M, Couvineau A, Tan V (2007) Class II G protein-coupled receptors for VIP and PACAP: Structure, models of activation and pharmacology. Peptides 28: 1631-1639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2007.04.026
|
| [98] |
Collado B, Sánchez MG, Díaz-Laviada I, et al. (2005) Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) induces c-fos expression in LNCaP prostate cancer cells through a mechanism that involves Ca2+ signalling. Implications in angiogenesis and neuroendocrine differentiation. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 1744: 224-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2005.04.009
|
| [99] |
Park MH, Hong JT (2016) Roles of NF-κB in cancer and inflammatory diseases and their therapeutic approaches. Cells 5: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells5020015
|
| [100] |
Grosset AA, Ouellet V, Caron C, et al. (2019) Validation of the prognostic value of NF-κB p65 in prostate cancer: A retrospective study using a large multi-institutional cohort of the Canadian Prostate Cancer Biomarker Network. PLoS Med 16: e1002847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002847
|
| [101] |
Staal J, Beyaert R (2018) Inflammation and NF-κB signaling in prostate cancer: mechanisms and clinical implications. Cells 7: 122. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells7090122
|
| [102] |
Thomas-Jardin SE, Dahl H, Nawas AF, et al. (2020) NF-κB signaling promotes castration-resistant prostate cancer initiation and progression. Pharmacol Therapeut 211: 107538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107538
|
| [103] |
Jain G, Cronauer MV, Schrader M, et al. (2012) NF-kappaB signaling in prostate cancer: a promising therapeutic target?. World J Urol 30: 303-310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-011-0792-y
|
| [104] |
Moreno P, Ramos-Álvarez I, Moody TW, et al. (2016) Bombesin-related peptides/receptors and their promising therapeutic roles in cancer imaging, targeting, and treatment. Expert Opin Ther Targets 20: 1055-1073. https://doi.org/10.1517/14728222.2016.1164694
|
| [105] |
Ramos-Álvarez I, Moreno P, Mantey SA, et al. (2015) Insights into bombesin receptors and ligands: Highlighting recent advances. Peptides 72: 128-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2015.04.026
|
| [106] |
Baratto L, Jadvar H, Iagaru A (2018) Prostate cancer theranostics targeting gastrin-releasing peptide receptors. Mol Imaging Biol 20: 501-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11307-017-1151-1
|
| [107] |
Moody TW, Ramos-Alvarez I, Jensen RT (2018) Neuropeptide G protein-coupled receptors as oncotargets. Front Endocrinol 9: 345-345. https://doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00345
|
| [108] | Dai J, Shen R, Sumitomo M, et al. (2002) Synergistic activation of the androgen receptor by bombesin and low-dose androgen. Clin Cancer Res 8: 2399. |
| [109] |
Putney JW, Tomita T (2012) Phospholipase C signaling and calcium influx. Adv Biol Regul 52: 152-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advenzreg.2011.09.005
|
| [110] |
Weber HC (2009) Regulation and signaling of human bombesin receptors and their biological effects. Curr Opin Endocrinol 16: 66-71. https://doi.org/10.1097/MED.0b013e32831cf5aa
|
| [111] |
Fujita K, Pavlovich CP, Netto GJ, et al. (2009) Specific detection of prostate cancer cells in urine by multiplex immunofluorescence cytology. Hum Pathol 40: 924-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2009.01.004
|
| [112] |
Fujita K, Nonomura N (2018) Urinary biomarkers of prostate cancer. Int J Urol 25: 770-779. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.13734
|
| [113] |
Wei JT (2015) Urinary biomarkers for prostate cancer. Curr Opin Urol 25: 77-82. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOU.0000000000000133
|
| [114] |
Trabulsi EJ, Tripathi SK, Gomella L, et al. (2017) Development of a voided urine assay for detecting prostate cancer non-invasively: a pilot study. BJU Int 119: 885-895. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13775
|
| [115] |
Trabulsi E, Tripathi S, Calvaresi A, et al. (2016) VPAC1 in shed urinary cells—A potential genitourinary cancer biomarker. J Urol 195: e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.1880
|
| [116] | Hoepel J (2021) Unraveling the mechanisms of antibody-dependent inflammation [PhD's thesis]. University of Amsterdam, Netherlands . |
| [117] |
Lagerström MC, Schiöth HB (2008) Structural diversity of G protein-coupled receptors and significance for drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7: 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd2518
|
| [118] |
Pediani JD, Ward RJ, Marsango S, et al. (2018) Spatial intensity distribution analysis: studies of G protein-coupled receptor oligomerisation. Trends Pharmacol Sci 39: 175-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tips.2017.09.001
|
| [119] |
Hutchings CJ, Koglin M, Marshall FH (2010) Therapeutic antibodies directed at G protein-coupled receptors. mAbs 2: 594-606. https://doi.org/10.4161/mabs.2.6.13420
|
| 1. | Rongbing Huang, Abid Mahboob, Muhammad Waheed Rasheed, Sajid Mahboob Alam, Muhammad Kamran Siddiqui, On molecular modeling and QSPR analysis of lyme disease medicines via topological indices, 2023, 138, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-03867-9 | |
| 2. | Muhammad Waheed Rasheed, Abid Mahboob, Iqra Hanif, An Estimation of the Physicochemical Properties of Heart Attack Treatment Medicines by Using Molecular Descriptors, 2023, 10269185, 10.1016/j.sajce.2023.04.003 | |
| 3. | Xiujun Zhang, Muhammad Jawwad Saif, Nazeran Idrees, Salma Kanwal, Saima Parveen, Fatima Saeed, QSPR Analysis of Drugs for Treatment of Schizophrenia Using Topological Indices, 2023, 8, 2470-1343, 41417, 10.1021/acsomega.3c05000 | |
| 4. | Dongming Zhao, Muhammad Farhan Hanif, Hasan Mahmood, Muhammad Kamran Siddiqui, Mazhar Hussain, Nazir Hussain, Topological analysis of entropy measure using regression models for silver iodide, 2023, 138, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04432-0 | |
| 5. | Mazhar Hussain, Muhammad Kamran Siddiqui, Muhammad Farhan Hanif, Hasan Mahmood, Zohaib Saddique, Samuel Asefa Fufa, On K-Banhatti indices and entropy measure for rhodium (III) chloride via linear regression models, 2023, 9, 24058440, e20935, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20935 | |
| 6. | Ali N. A. Koam, Muhammad Faisal Nadeem, Ali Ahmad, Hassan A. Eshaq, Weighted Asymmetry Index: A New Graph-Theoretic Measure for Network Analysis and Optimization, 2024, 12, 2227-7390, 3397, 10.3390/math12213397 | |
| 7. | Muhammad Waheed Rasheed, Abid Mahboob, Iqra Hanif, Uses of degree-based topological indices in QSPR analysis of alkaloids with poisonous and healthful nature, 2024, 12, 2296-424X, 10.3389/fphy.2024.1381887 | |
| 8. | Micheal Arockiaraj, J. Celin Fiona, Arul Jeya Shalini, Comparative Study of Entropies in Silicate and Oxide Frameworks, 2024, 16, 1876-990X, 3205, 10.1007/s12633-024-02892-2 | |
| 9. | Asad Ullah, Safina Jabeen, Shahid Zaman, Anila Hamraz, Summeira Meherban, Predictive potential of K‐Banhatti and Zagreb type molecular descriptors in structure–property relationship analysis of some novel drug molecules, 2024, 71, 0009-4536, 250, 10.1002/jccs.202300450 | |
| 10. | Tahreem Ashraf, Nazeran Idrees, Topological indices based VIKOR assisted multi-criteria decision technique for lung disorders, 2024, 12, 2296-2646, 10.3389/fchem.2024.1407911 | |
| 11. | Abid Mahboob, Muhammad Waheed Rasheed, Iqra Hanif, Laiba Amin, Abdu Alameri, Role of molecular descriptors in quantitative structure‐property relationship analysis of kidney cancer therapeutics, 2024, 124, 0020-7608, 10.1002/qua.27241 | |
| 12. | B. Vijayakumar, B. Karthikeyan, A. Nelson, K. Arputha Christy, Synthesis, characterisation and topological indices approach of hydrazone derivatives of disubstituted-2,6-diaryl piperidin-4-one, catalysed by CdO-SnO2 nanocatalyst, 2024, 1306, 00222860, 137843, 10.1016/j.molstruc.2024.137843 | |
| 13. | Abdul Hakeem, Nek Muhammad Katbar, Fazal Muhammad, Nisar Ahmed, On the molecular structure modelling of gamma graphyne and armchair graphyne nanoribbon via reverse degree-based topological indices, 2024, 122, 0026-8976, 10.1080/00268976.2023.2259510 | |
| 14. | Deepa Balasubramaniyan, Natarajan Chidambaram, Vignesh Ravi, Muhammad Kamran Siddiqui, QSPR analysis of anti‐asthmatic drugs using some new distance‐based topological indices: A comparative study, 2024, 124, 0020-7608, 10.1002/qua.27372 | |
| 15. | Ali Raza, Muhammad Mobeen Munir, Exploring spectrum-based descriptors in pharmacological traits through quantitative structure property (QSPR) analysis, 2024, 12, 2296-424X, 10.3389/fphy.2024.1348407 | |
| 16. | Muhammad Waheed Rasheed, Abid Mahboob, Iqra Hanif, On QSAR modeling with novel degree-based indices and thermodynamics properties of eye infection therapeutics, 2024, 12, 2296-2646, 10.3389/fchem.2024.1383206 | |
| 17. | Asma Jabeen, Shahzad Ahmad, Shahid Zaman, The study of regression model based on CoM-polynomial in blood cancer drug properties, 2024, 9, 26668181, 100648, 10.1016/j.padiff.2024.100648 | |
| 18. | Deepa Balasubramaniyan, Natarajan Chidambaram, On some neighbourhood degree-based topological indices with QSPR analysis of asthma drugs, 2023, 138, 2190-5444, 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04439-7 | |
| 19. | Abid Mahboob, Muhammad Waheed Rasheed, Aya Mohammed Dhiaa, Iqra Hanif, Laiba Amin, On quantitative structure-property relationship (QSPR) analysis of physicochemical properties and anti-hepatitis prescription drugs using a linear regression model, 2024, 10, 24058440, e25908, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25908 | |
| 20. | Deepalakshmi Sarkarai, Vignesh Ravi, Kalyani Desikan, 2024, 3180, 0094-243X, 020014, 10.1063/5.0224422 | |
| 21. | Esra Öztürk Sözen, Elif Eryaşar, Şükriye Çakmak, Szeged-like topological descriptors and COM -polynomials for graphs of some Alzheimer’s agents , 2024, 122, 0026-8976, 10.1080/00268976.2024.2305853 | |
| 22. | Xiujun Zhang, Shamaila Yousaf, Anisa Naeem, Ferdous M. Tawfiq, Adnan Aslam, Analyzing topological descriptors of guar gum and its derivatives for predicting physical properties in carbohydrates, 2024, 253, 01697439, 105203, 10.1016/j.chemolab.2024.105203 | |
| 23. | Gayathri K. B, S. Roy, Quantitative structure property relationship study of postpartum depression medications using topological indices and regression models, 2024, 20904479, 103194, 10.1016/j.asej.2024.103194 | |
| 24. | Fatima Saeed, Nazeran Idrees, Integrating Structural Modeling and Decision-Making for Anti-psychotic Drugs through Topological Indices, 2025, 15, 2191-1630, 10.1007/s12668-024-01732-2 | |
| 25. | Deepa Balasubramaniyan, Natarajan Chidambaram, Vignesh Ravi, 2024, Chapter 29, 978-3-031-69145-4, 380, 10.1007/978-3-031-69146-1_29 | |
| 26. | W. Tamilarasi, B. J. Balamurugan, New reverse sum Revan indices for physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties of anti-filovirus drugs, 2024, 12, 2296-2646, 10.3389/fchem.2024.1486933 | |
| 27. | Muneeba Mansha, Sarfraz Ahmad, Zahid Raza, Eccentric indices based QSPR evaluation of drugs for schizophrenia treatment, 2025, 11, 24058440, e42222, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42222 | |
| 28. | Micheal Arockiaraj, J. J. Jeni Godlin, S. Radha, Comparative study of degree and neighborhood degree sum-based topological indices for predicting physicochemical properties of skin cancer drug structures, 2025, 0217-9849, 10.1142/S0217984925501064 | |
| 29. | Adnan Asghar, QSPR analysis of anti-hepatitis prescription drugs using degree based topological indices through M-polynomial and NM-polynomial, 2025, 12, 2411-1414, 10.15826/chimtech.2025.12.2.06 | |
| 30. | S. Gayathri, K. Dhanalakshmi, Ebenezer Bonyah, QSPR analysis of vitiligo treatment of some drugs using reverse degree-based topological indices, 2025, 24682276, e02636, 10.1016/j.sciaf.2025.e02636 |
Figures(3)
Mansur Aliyu, Ali Akbar Saboor-Yaraghi, Shima Nejati, Behrouz Robat-Jazi. Urinary VPAC1: A potential biomarker in prostate cancer[J]. AIMS Allergy and Immunology, 2022, 6(2): 42-63. doi: 10.3934/Allergy.2022006
| Drugs | BP (℃ at 760 mmHg) | Enthalpy (kj/mol) | Flash point (℃) | Molar refraction | Molar volume (cm3) | Polarizability |
| Chloroquine | 460.6 | 72.1 | 232.23 | 97.4 | 287.9 | 38.6 |
| Amodiaquine | 478 | 77 | 242.9 | 105.5 | 282.8 | 41.8 |
| Mefloquine | 415.7 | 70.5 | 205.2 | 83 | 273.4 | 32.9 |
| Piperoquine | 721.1 | 105.3 | 389.9 | 153.7 | 414.2 | 60.9 |
| Primaquine | 451.1 | 71 | 226.6 | 80.5 | 230.3 | 31.9 |
| Lumefrantrine | 642.5 | 99.6 | 342.3 | 151 | 422.3 | 59.9 |
| Atovaquine | 535 | 85.4 | 277.3 | 99.5 | 271.8 | 39.5 |
| Pyrimethamine | 368.4 | 61.5 | 176.6 | 67.1 | 180.2 | 26.6 |
| Doxycycline | 762.6 | 116.5 | 415 | 109 | 271.1 | 43.2 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drugs | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 106 | 120 | 10.3 | 262 | 23.9599 | 25.2333 | 584 |
| Amodiaquine | 128 | 149 | 11.7333 | 324 | 28.5664 | 30.5333 | 742 |
| Mefloquine | 114 | 137 | 9.5857 | 306 | 24.5829 | 26.631 | 728 |
| Piperoquine | 202 | 240 | 17.8 | 510 | 45.1804 | 48.9 | 1200 |
| Primaquine | 92 | 105 | 9 | 226 | 20.903 | 22.0833 | 512 |
| Lumefrantrine | 182 | 213 | 16.3666 | 466 | 40.3883 | 43.4333 | 1090 |
| Atovaquine | 158 | 194 | 12.6047 | 446 | 33.4116 | 36.5619 | 1064 |
| Pyrimethamine | 86 | 100 | 7.7667 | 222 | 18.9478 | 20.2167 | 506 |
| Doxycycline | 200 | 264 | 14.4164 | 608 | 40.4521 | 45.55 | 1594 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drugs | BP | Enthalpy | Flash point | Molar refraction | Molar volume | Polarizability |
| M1(G) | 0.961 | 0.968 | 0.961 | 0.838 | 0.735 | 0.838 |
| M2(G) | 0.962 | 0.978 | 0.963 | 0.76 | 0.645 | 0.76 |
| H(G) | 0.908 | 0.894 | 0.908 | 0.963 | 0.891 | 0.964 |
| F(G) | 0.947 | 0.969 | 0.947 | 0.704 | 0.584 | 0.704 |
| SS(G) | 0.948 | 0.945 | 0.948 | 0.899 | 0.809 | 0.899 |
| ReZG2(G) | 0.957 | 0.958 | 0.957 | 0.873 | 0.776 | 0.873 |
| ReZG3(G) | 0.934 | 0.962 | 0.934 | 0.632 | 0.505 | 0.633 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 124.096 | 2.932 | 0.961 | 0.923 | 83.956 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 28.483 | 0.396 | 0.968 | 0.937 | 104.502 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 29.813 | 1.773 | 0.961 | 0.923 | 83.973 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 28.194 | 0.546 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 16.501 | 0.05 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 114.389 | 1.265 | 0.735 | 0.541 | 8.244 | 0.02 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 11.164 | 0.217 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 16.529 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 161.996 | 2.219 | 0.962 | 0.926 | 88.088 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 33.198 | 0.302 | 0.978 | 0.956 | 151.468 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 51.729 | 1.342 | 0.963 | 0.926 | 88.162 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 41.872 | 0.374 | 0.76 | 0.578 | 9.575 | 0.01 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 150.949 | 0.838 | 0.645 | 0.416 | 4.982 | 0.06 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 16.589 | 0.148 | 0.76 | 0.578 | 9.588 | 0.01 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 87.905 | 36.905 | 0.908 | 0.825 | 33.003 | 0.01 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 25.031 | 4.87 | 0.894 | 0.798 | 27.731 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 60939 | 22.319 | 0.908 | 0.825 | 32.986 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 3.348 | 8.365 | 0.963 | 0.928 | 90.501 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 44.044 | 20.421 | 0.891 | 0.795 | 27.106 | 0 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 1.318 | 3.317 | 0.964 | 0.928 | 90.704 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 177.821 | 0.96 | 0.947 | 0.897 | 60.643 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 34.961 | 0.132 | 0.969 | 0.94 | 109.495 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 61.301 | 0.581 | 0.947 | 0.897 | 60.678 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 48.115 | 0.152 | 0.704 | 0.495 | 6.865 | 0.03 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 167.744 | 0.334 | 0.584 | 0.341 | 3.619 | 0.09 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 19.061 | 0.06 | 0.704 | 0.496 | 6.877 | 0.03 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 111.354 | 13.867 | 0.948 | 0.898 | 61.748 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 27.343 | 1.855 | 0.945 | 0.894 | 58.818 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 21.11 | 8.387 | 0.948 | 0.898 | 61.739 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 18.858 | 2.811 | 0.899 | 0.808 | 29.522 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 87.819 | 6.67 | 0.809 | 0.654 | 13.222 | 0 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 7.465 | 1.115 | 0.899 | 0.809 | 29.572 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 123.738 | 12.44 | 0.957 | 0.915 | 75.323 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 28.782 | 1.671 | 0.958 | 0.918 | 77.887 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 28.597 | 7.524 | 0.957 | 0.915 | 75.331 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 24.545 | 2.426 | 0.873 | 0.762 | 22.437 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 103.449 | 5.693 | 0.776 | 0.603 | 10.626 | 0.01 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 9.72 | 0.962 | 0.873 | 0.762 | 22.47 | 0 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 223.151 | 0.352 | 0.934 | 0.873 | 47.933 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 40.942 | 0.049 | 0.962 | 0.925 | 86.586 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 88.713 | 0.213 | 0.934 | 0.873 | 47.97 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 59.754 | 0.051 | 0.632 | 0.4 | 4.665 | 0.05 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 196.894 | 0.107 | 0.505 | 0.255 | 2.4 | 0.05 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 23.678 | 0.02 | 0.633 | 0.4 | 4.671 | 0.05 | Significant |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drugs | BP | Enthalpy | Flash point | Molar refraction | Molar volume | Polarizability |
| M1(G) | 41.3818 | 5.0133 | 25.0251 | 17.3965 | 56.9863 | 6.8934 |
| M2(G) | 40.4727 | 402053 | 24.4681 | 20.7148 | 64.279 | 8.21 |
| H(G) | 62.3993 | 8.9827 | 32.985 | 8.5408 | 38.0989 | 3.3828 |
| F(G) | 47.9859 | 4.9047 | 29.014 | 22.6488 | 68.2796 | 8.9761 |
| SS(G) | 47.5989 | 6.6252 | 28.7891 | 13.955 | 49.478 | 5.5292 |
| ReZG2(G) | 43.4975 | 5.7457 | 26.3056 | 15.5439 | 52.9971 | 6.1595 |
| ReZG3(G) | 53.2487 | 5.4722 | 32.1935 | 24.6926 | 72.5723 | 9.7875 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Boiling point ℃ (at 760 mmHg) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 460.6 ± 40.0 | 434.88 | 428.27 | 468.02 | 429.341 | 443.60 | 437.64 | 428.71 |
| Amodiaquine | 478.0 ± 45.0 | 499.39 | 492.62 | 520.92 | 488.861 | 507.48 | 503.57 | 484.33 |
| Mefloquine | 415.7 ± 40.0 | 458.34 | 465.99 | 441.66 | 471.581 | 452.24 | 455.02 | 479.40 |
| Piperoquine | 721.1 ± 60.0 | 716.36 | 694.55 | 744.81 | 667.421 | 737.87 | 732.05 | 645.55 |
| Primaquine | 451.1 ± 45.0 | 393.84 | 394.99 | 420.05 | 394.781 | 401.21 | 398.45 | 403.37 |
| Lumefrantrine | 642.5 ± 55.0 | 657.72 | 634.64 | 691.91 | 625.181 | 671.41 | 664.04 | 606.83 |
| Atovaquine | 535.0 ± 50.0 | 587.35 | 592.48 | 553.08 | 605.981 | 574.67 | 578.56 | 597.67 |
| Pyrimethamine | 368.4 ± 52.0 | 376.24 | 383.89 | 374.53 | 390.941 | 374.10 | 375.23 | 401.26 |
| Doxycycline | 762.6 ± 60.0 | 710.49 | 747.81 | 619.94 | 761.501 | 672.30 | 690.38 | 784.23 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Flash point (℃) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 232.23 ± 27.3 | 216.75 | 212.76 | 236.82 | 213.52 | 222.06 | 218.45 | 213.10 |
| Amodiaquine | 242.9 ± 28.7 | 255.75 | 251.68 | 268.81 | 249.54 | 260.69 | 258.32 | 246.75 |
| Mefloquine | 205.2 ± 27.3 | 230.93 | 235.58 | 220.88 | 239.08 | 227.28 | 228.96 | 243.77 |
| Piperoquine | 389.9 ± 32.9 | 386.95 | 373.80 | 404.21 | 357.61 | 400.03 | 396.52 | 344.31 |
| Primaquine | 226.6 ± 28.7 | 191.92 | 192.63 | 207.81 | 192.60 | 196.42 | 194.75 | 197.76 |
| Lumefrantrine | 342.3 ± 31.5 | 351.49 | 337.57 | 372.22 | 332.04 | 359.84 | 355.38 | 320.88 |
| Atovaquine | 277.3 ± 30.1 | 308.94 | 312.07 | 288.26 | 320.42 | 301.33 | 303.68 | 315.34 |
| Pyrimethamine | 176.6 ± 30.7 | 181.29 | 185.92 | 180.28 | 190.28 | 180.02 | 180.70 | 196.49 |
| Doxycycline | 415.0 ± 32.9 | 383.41 | 406.01 | 328.69 | 414.54 | 360.38 | 371.31 | 428.23 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Enthalpy (kj/mol) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 72.1 ± 3.0 | 73.46 | 69.438 | 75.19 | 69.545 | 71.78 | 70.94 | 69.55 |
| Amodiaquine | 77.0 ± 3.0 | 78.476 | 78.19 | 82.17 | 77.72 | 80.33 | 79.80 | 77.3 |
| Mefloquine | 70.5 ± 3.0 | 75.28 | 74.57 | 71.71 | 75.35 | 72.94 | 73.28 | 76.61 |
| Piperoquine | 105.3 ± 3.0 | 95.34 | 105.67 | 111.71 | 102.28 | 111.15 | 110.49 | 99.74 |
| Primaquine | 71.0 ± 3.0 | 70.268 | 64.90 | 68.86 | 64.79 | 66.11 | 65.68 | 66.03 |
| Lumefrantrine | 99.6 ± 3.0 | 90.788 | 97.52 | 104.73 | 96.47 | 102.26 | 101.35 | 94.35 |
| Atovaquine | 85.4 ± 3.0 | 85.316 | 91.78 | 86.41 | 93.83 | 89.31 | 89.87 | 93.07 |
| Pyrimethamine | 61.5 ± 3.0 | 68.9 | 63.39 | 62.85 | 64.26 | 62.48 | 62.56 | 65.73 |
| Doxycycline | 116.5 ± 3.0 | 94.892 | 112.92 | 95.23 | 115.21 | 102.37 | 104.89 | 119.04 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Molar refraction (cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 97.4 ± 0.3 | 86.07 | 86.75 | 89.50 | 87.93 | 86.20 | 85.76 | 89.53 |
| Amodiaquine | 105.5 ± 0.3 | 98.08 | 97.59 | 101.49 | 97.36 | 99.15 | 98.61 | 97.59 |
| Mefloquine | 83.0 ± 0.3 | 90.43 | 93.11 | 83.53 | 94.62 | 87.96 | 89.15 | 96.88 |
| Piperoquine | 153.7 ± 0.3 | 138.48 | 131.63 | 152.24 | 125.63 | 145.86 | 143.17 | 120.95 |
| Primaquine | 80.5 ± 0.3 | 78.42 | 81.14 | 78.63 | 82.46 | 77.61 | 78.11 | 85.86 |
| Lumefrantrine | 151.0 ± 0.3 | 127.56 | 121.53 | 140.25 | 118.94 | 132.38 | 129.91 | 115.34 |
| Atovaquine | 99.5 ± 0.3 | 114.46 | 114.42 | 108.78 | 115.90 | 112.77 | 113.24 | 114.01 |
| Pyrimethamine | 67.1 ± 0.5 | 75.15 | 79.27 | 68.31 | 81.85 | 72.12 | 73.59 | 85.56 |
| Doxycycline | 109 ± 0.4 | 137.39 | 140.60 | 123.94 | 140.53 | 132.56 | 135.04 | 141.04 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Molar volume (cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZzG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 287.9 ± 3.0 | 248.47 | 251.509 | 254.38 | 255.25 | 247.63 | 247.10 | 259.38 |
| Amodiaquine | 282.8 ± 3.0 | 276.30 | 275.811 | 283.64 | 275.96 | 278.35 | 277.27 | 276.28 |
| Mefloquine | 273.4 ± 3.0 | 258.59 | 265.755 | 239.79 | 269.94 | 251.78 | 255.05 | 274.79 |
| Piperoquine | 414.2 ± 3.0 | 369.91 | 352.069 | 407.53 | 338.08 | 389.17 | 381.83 | 325.29 |
| Primaquine | 230.3 ± 3.0 | 230.76 | 238.939 | 227.83 | 243.22 | 227.24 | 229.16 | 251.67 |
| Lumefrantrine | 422.3 ± 3.0 | 344.61 | 329.443 | 378.26 | 323.38 | 357.20 | 350.71 | 313.52 |
| Atovaquine | 271.8 ± 3.0 | 314.25 | 313.521 | 301.44 | 316.70 | 310.67 | 311.59 | 310.74 |
| Pyrimethamine | 180.2 ± 7.0 | 223.17 | 234.749 | 202.64 | 241.89 | 214.20 | 218.54 | 251.03 |
| Doxycycline | 271.1 ± 5.0 | 367.38 | 372.181 | 338.44 | 370.81 | 357.63 | 362.76 | 367.45 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drug | Polarizability (10-24 cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 38.6 ± 0.5 | 34.16 | 34.34 | 35.48 | 34.78 | 34.18 | 33.99 | 35.35 |
| Amodiaquine | 41.8 ± 0.5 | 38.94 | 38.64 | 40.23 | 38.50 | 39.31 | 39.09 | 38.51 |
| Mefloquine | 32.9 ± 0.5 | 35.90 | 36.86 | 33.11 | 37.42 | 34.87 | 35.33 | 38.23 |
| Piperoquine | 60.9 ± 0.5 | 54.99 | 52.10 | 60.36 | 49.66 | 57.84 | 56.76 | 47.67 |
| Primaquine | 31.9 ± 0.5 | 31.12 | 32.12 | 31.17 | 32.62 | 30.77 | 30.96 | 33.91 |
| Lumefrantrine | 59.9 ± 0.5 | 50.65 | 48.11 | 55.60 | 47.02 | 52.49 | 51.50 | 45.47 |
| Atovaquine | 39.5 ± 0.5 | 45.45 | 45.30 | 43.12 | 45.82 | 44.71 | 44.89 | 44.95 |
| Pyrimethamine | 26.6 ± 0.5 | 29.82 | 31.38 | 27.08 | 32.38 | 28.59 | 29.16 | 33.79 |
| Doxycycline | 43.2 ± 0.5 | 54.56 | 55.66 | 49.13 | 55.54 | 52.56 | 53.53 | 55.55 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Drugs | BP (℃ at 760 mmHg) | Enthalpy (kj/mol) | Flash point (℃) | Molar refraction | Molar volume (cm3) | Polarizability |
| Chloroquine | 460.6 | 72.1 | 232.23 | 97.4 | 287.9 | 38.6 |
| Amodiaquine | 478 | 77 | 242.9 | 105.5 | 282.8 | 41.8 |
| Mefloquine | 415.7 | 70.5 | 205.2 | 83 | 273.4 | 32.9 |
| Piperoquine | 721.1 | 105.3 | 389.9 | 153.7 | 414.2 | 60.9 |
| Primaquine | 451.1 | 71 | 226.6 | 80.5 | 230.3 | 31.9 |
| Lumefrantrine | 642.5 | 99.6 | 342.3 | 151 | 422.3 | 59.9 |
| Atovaquine | 535 | 85.4 | 277.3 | 99.5 | 271.8 | 39.5 |
| Pyrimethamine | 368.4 | 61.5 | 176.6 | 67.1 | 180.2 | 26.6 |
| Doxycycline | 762.6 | 116.5 | 415 | 109 | 271.1 | 43.2 |
| Drugs | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 106 | 120 | 10.3 | 262 | 23.9599 | 25.2333 | 584 |
| Amodiaquine | 128 | 149 | 11.7333 | 324 | 28.5664 | 30.5333 | 742 |
| Mefloquine | 114 | 137 | 9.5857 | 306 | 24.5829 | 26.631 | 728 |
| Piperoquine | 202 | 240 | 17.8 | 510 | 45.1804 | 48.9 | 1200 |
| Primaquine | 92 | 105 | 9 | 226 | 20.903 | 22.0833 | 512 |
| Lumefrantrine | 182 | 213 | 16.3666 | 466 | 40.3883 | 43.4333 | 1090 |
| Atovaquine | 158 | 194 | 12.6047 | 446 | 33.4116 | 36.5619 | 1064 |
| Pyrimethamine | 86 | 100 | 7.7667 | 222 | 18.9478 | 20.2167 | 506 |
| Doxycycline | 200 | 264 | 14.4164 | 608 | 40.4521 | 45.55 | 1594 |
| Drugs | BP | Enthalpy | Flash point | Molar refraction | Molar volume | Polarizability |
| M1(G) | 0.961 | 0.968 | 0.961 | 0.838 | 0.735 | 0.838 |
| M2(G) | 0.962 | 0.978 | 0.963 | 0.76 | 0.645 | 0.76 |
| H(G) | 0.908 | 0.894 | 0.908 | 0.963 | 0.891 | 0.964 |
| F(G) | 0.947 | 0.969 | 0.947 | 0.704 | 0.584 | 0.704 |
| SS(G) | 0.948 | 0.945 | 0.948 | 0.899 | 0.809 | 0.899 |
| ReZG2(G) | 0.957 | 0.958 | 0.957 | 0.873 | 0.776 | 0.873 |
| ReZG3(G) | 0.934 | 0.962 | 0.934 | 0.632 | 0.505 | 0.633 |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 124.096 | 2.932 | 0.961 | 0.923 | 83.956 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 28.483 | 0.396 | 0.968 | 0.937 | 104.502 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 29.813 | 1.773 | 0.961 | 0.923 | 83.973 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 28.194 | 0.546 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 16.501 | 0.05 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 114.389 | 1.265 | 0.735 | 0.541 | 8.244 | 0.02 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 11.164 | 0.217 | 0.838 | 0.702 | 16.529 | 0 | Significant |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 161.996 | 2.219 | 0.962 | 0.926 | 88.088 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 33.198 | 0.302 | 0.978 | 0.956 | 151.468 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 51.729 | 1.342 | 0.963 | 0.926 | 88.162 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 41.872 | 0.374 | 0.76 | 0.578 | 9.575 | 0.01 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 150.949 | 0.838 | 0.645 | 0.416 | 4.982 | 0.06 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 16.589 | 0.148 | 0.76 | 0.578 | 9.588 | 0.01 | Significant |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 87.905 | 36.905 | 0.908 | 0.825 | 33.003 | 0.01 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 25.031 | 4.87 | 0.894 | 0.798 | 27.731 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 60939 | 22.319 | 0.908 | 0.825 | 32.986 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 3.348 | 8.365 | 0.963 | 0.928 | 90.501 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 44.044 | 20.421 | 0.891 | 0.795 | 27.106 | 0 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 1.318 | 3.317 | 0.964 | 0.928 | 90.704 | 0 | Significant |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 177.821 | 0.96 | 0.947 | 0.897 | 60.643 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 34.961 | 0.132 | 0.969 | 0.94 | 109.495 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 61.301 | 0.581 | 0.947 | 0.897 | 60.678 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 48.115 | 0.152 | 0.704 | 0.495 | 6.865 | 0.03 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 167.744 | 0.334 | 0.584 | 0.341 | 3.619 | 0.09 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 19.061 | 0.06 | 0.704 | 0.496 | 6.877 | 0.03 | Significant |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 111.354 | 13.867 | 0.948 | 0.898 | 61.748 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 27.343 | 1.855 | 0.945 | 0.894 | 58.818 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 21.11 | 8.387 | 0.948 | 0.898 | 61.739 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 18.858 | 2.811 | 0.899 | 0.808 | 29.522 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 87.819 | 6.67 | 0.809 | 0.654 | 13.222 | 0 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 7.465 | 1.115 | 0.899 | 0.809 | 29.572 | 0 | Significant |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 123.738 | 12.44 | 0.957 | 0.915 | 75.323 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 28.782 | 1.671 | 0.958 | 0.918 | 77.887 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 28.597 | 7.524 | 0.957 | 0.915 | 75.331 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 24.545 | 2.426 | 0.873 | 0.762 | 22.437 | 0 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 103.449 | 5.693 | 0.776 | 0.603 | 10.626 | 0.01 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 9.72 | 0.962 | 0.873 | 0.762 | 22.47 | 0 | Significant |
| Phy. Pro, | N | A | b | r | r2 | F | p | Indicator |
| BP | 9 | 223.151 | 0.352 | 0.934 | 0.873 | 47.933 | 0 | Significant |
| EN | 9 | 40.942 | 0.049 | 0.962 | 0.925 | 86.586 | 0 | Significant |
| FP | 9 | 88.713 | 0.213 | 0.934 | 0.873 | 47.97 | 0 | Significant |
| MR | 9 | 59.754 | 0.051 | 0.632 | 0.4 | 4.665 | 0.05 | Significant |
| MV | 9 | 196.894 | 0.107 | 0.505 | 0.255 | 2.4 | 0.05 | Significant |
| PO | 9 | 23.678 | 0.02 | 0.633 | 0.4 | 4.671 | 0.05 | Significant |
| Drugs | BP | Enthalpy | Flash point | Molar refraction | Molar volume | Polarizability |
| M1(G) | 41.3818 | 5.0133 | 25.0251 | 17.3965 | 56.9863 | 6.8934 |
| M2(G) | 40.4727 | 402053 | 24.4681 | 20.7148 | 64.279 | 8.21 |
| H(G) | 62.3993 | 8.9827 | 32.985 | 8.5408 | 38.0989 | 3.3828 |
| F(G) | 47.9859 | 4.9047 | 29.014 | 22.6488 | 68.2796 | 8.9761 |
| SS(G) | 47.5989 | 6.6252 | 28.7891 | 13.955 | 49.478 | 5.5292 |
| ReZG2(G) | 43.4975 | 5.7457 | 26.3056 | 15.5439 | 52.9971 | 6.1595 |
| ReZG3(G) | 53.2487 | 5.4722 | 32.1935 | 24.6926 | 72.5723 | 9.7875 |
| Drug | Boiling point ℃ (at 760 mmHg) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 460.6 ± 40.0 | 434.88 | 428.27 | 468.02 | 429.341 | 443.60 | 437.64 | 428.71 |
| Amodiaquine | 478.0 ± 45.0 | 499.39 | 492.62 | 520.92 | 488.861 | 507.48 | 503.57 | 484.33 |
| Mefloquine | 415.7 ± 40.0 | 458.34 | 465.99 | 441.66 | 471.581 | 452.24 | 455.02 | 479.40 |
| Piperoquine | 721.1 ± 60.0 | 716.36 | 694.55 | 744.81 | 667.421 | 737.87 | 732.05 | 645.55 |
| Primaquine | 451.1 ± 45.0 | 393.84 | 394.99 | 420.05 | 394.781 | 401.21 | 398.45 | 403.37 |
| Lumefrantrine | 642.5 ± 55.0 | 657.72 | 634.64 | 691.91 | 625.181 | 671.41 | 664.04 | 606.83 |
| Atovaquine | 535.0 ± 50.0 | 587.35 | 592.48 | 553.08 | 605.981 | 574.67 | 578.56 | 597.67 |
| Pyrimethamine | 368.4 ± 52.0 | 376.24 | 383.89 | 374.53 | 390.941 | 374.10 | 375.23 | 401.26 |
| Doxycycline | 762.6 ± 60.0 | 710.49 | 747.81 | 619.94 | 761.501 | 672.30 | 690.38 | 784.23 |
| Drug | Flash point (℃) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 232.23 ± 27.3 | 216.75 | 212.76 | 236.82 | 213.52 | 222.06 | 218.45 | 213.10 |
| Amodiaquine | 242.9 ± 28.7 | 255.75 | 251.68 | 268.81 | 249.54 | 260.69 | 258.32 | 246.75 |
| Mefloquine | 205.2 ± 27.3 | 230.93 | 235.58 | 220.88 | 239.08 | 227.28 | 228.96 | 243.77 |
| Piperoquine | 389.9 ± 32.9 | 386.95 | 373.80 | 404.21 | 357.61 | 400.03 | 396.52 | 344.31 |
| Primaquine | 226.6 ± 28.7 | 191.92 | 192.63 | 207.81 | 192.60 | 196.42 | 194.75 | 197.76 |
| Lumefrantrine | 342.3 ± 31.5 | 351.49 | 337.57 | 372.22 | 332.04 | 359.84 | 355.38 | 320.88 |
| Atovaquine | 277.3 ± 30.1 | 308.94 | 312.07 | 288.26 | 320.42 | 301.33 | 303.68 | 315.34 |
| Pyrimethamine | 176.6 ± 30.7 | 181.29 | 185.92 | 180.28 | 190.28 | 180.02 | 180.70 | 196.49 |
| Doxycycline | 415.0 ± 32.9 | 383.41 | 406.01 | 328.69 | 414.54 | 360.38 | 371.31 | 428.23 |
| Drug | Enthalpy (kj/mol) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 72.1 ± 3.0 | 73.46 | 69.438 | 75.19 | 69.545 | 71.78 | 70.94 | 69.55 |
| Amodiaquine | 77.0 ± 3.0 | 78.476 | 78.19 | 82.17 | 77.72 | 80.33 | 79.80 | 77.3 |
| Mefloquine | 70.5 ± 3.0 | 75.28 | 74.57 | 71.71 | 75.35 | 72.94 | 73.28 | 76.61 |
| Piperoquine | 105.3 ± 3.0 | 95.34 | 105.67 | 111.71 | 102.28 | 111.15 | 110.49 | 99.74 |
| Primaquine | 71.0 ± 3.0 | 70.268 | 64.90 | 68.86 | 64.79 | 66.11 | 65.68 | 66.03 |
| Lumefrantrine | 99.6 ± 3.0 | 90.788 | 97.52 | 104.73 | 96.47 | 102.26 | 101.35 | 94.35 |
| Atovaquine | 85.4 ± 3.0 | 85.316 | 91.78 | 86.41 | 93.83 | 89.31 | 89.87 | 93.07 |
| Pyrimethamine | 61.5 ± 3.0 | 68.9 | 63.39 | 62.85 | 64.26 | 62.48 | 62.56 | 65.73 |
| Doxycycline | 116.5 ± 3.0 | 94.892 | 112.92 | 95.23 | 115.21 | 102.37 | 104.89 | 119.04 |
| Drug | Molar refraction (cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 97.4 ± 0.3 | 86.07 | 86.75 | 89.50 | 87.93 | 86.20 | 85.76 | 89.53 |
| Amodiaquine | 105.5 ± 0.3 | 98.08 | 97.59 | 101.49 | 97.36 | 99.15 | 98.61 | 97.59 |
| Mefloquine | 83.0 ± 0.3 | 90.43 | 93.11 | 83.53 | 94.62 | 87.96 | 89.15 | 96.88 |
| Piperoquine | 153.7 ± 0.3 | 138.48 | 131.63 | 152.24 | 125.63 | 145.86 | 143.17 | 120.95 |
| Primaquine | 80.5 ± 0.3 | 78.42 | 81.14 | 78.63 | 82.46 | 77.61 | 78.11 | 85.86 |
| Lumefrantrine | 151.0 ± 0.3 | 127.56 | 121.53 | 140.25 | 118.94 | 132.38 | 129.91 | 115.34 |
| Atovaquine | 99.5 ± 0.3 | 114.46 | 114.42 | 108.78 | 115.90 | 112.77 | 113.24 | 114.01 |
| Pyrimethamine | 67.1 ± 0.5 | 75.15 | 79.27 | 68.31 | 81.85 | 72.12 | 73.59 | 85.56 |
| Doxycycline | 109 ± 0.4 | 137.39 | 140.60 | 123.94 | 140.53 | 132.56 | 135.04 | 141.04 |
| Drug | Molar volume (cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZzG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 287.9 ± 3.0 | 248.47 | 251.509 | 254.38 | 255.25 | 247.63 | 247.10 | 259.38 |
| Amodiaquine | 282.8 ± 3.0 | 276.30 | 275.811 | 283.64 | 275.96 | 278.35 | 277.27 | 276.28 |
| Mefloquine | 273.4 ± 3.0 | 258.59 | 265.755 | 239.79 | 269.94 | 251.78 | 255.05 | 274.79 |
| Piperoquine | 414.2 ± 3.0 | 369.91 | 352.069 | 407.53 | 338.08 | 389.17 | 381.83 | 325.29 |
| Primaquine | 230.3 ± 3.0 | 230.76 | 238.939 | 227.83 | 243.22 | 227.24 | 229.16 | 251.67 |
| Lumefrantrine | 422.3 ± 3.0 | 344.61 | 329.443 | 378.26 | 323.38 | 357.20 | 350.71 | 313.52 |
| Atovaquine | 271.8 ± 3.0 | 314.25 | 313.521 | 301.44 | 316.70 | 310.67 | 311.59 | 310.74 |
| Pyrimethamine | 180.2 ± 7.0 | 223.17 | 234.749 | 202.64 | 241.89 | 214.20 | 218.54 | 251.03 |
| Doxycycline | 271.1 ± 5.0 | 367.38 | 372.181 | 338.44 | 370.81 | 357.63 | 362.76 | 367.45 |
| Drug | Polarizability (10-24 cm3) | M1(G) | M2(G) | H(G) | F(G)) | SS(G) | ReZG2(G) | ReZG3(G) |
| Chloroquine | 38.6 ± 0.5 | 34.16 | 34.34 | 35.48 | 34.78 | 34.18 | 33.99 | 35.35 |
| Amodiaquine | 41.8 ± 0.5 | 38.94 | 38.64 | 40.23 | 38.50 | 39.31 | 39.09 | 38.51 |
| Mefloquine | 32.9 ± 0.5 | 35.90 | 36.86 | 33.11 | 37.42 | 34.87 | 35.33 | 38.23 |
| Piperoquine | 60.9 ± 0.5 | 54.99 | 52.10 | 60.36 | 49.66 | 57.84 | 56.76 | 47.67 |
| Primaquine | 31.9 ± 0.5 | 31.12 | 32.12 | 31.17 | 32.62 | 30.77 | 30.96 | 33.91 |
| Lumefrantrine | 59.9 ± 0.5 | 50.65 | 48.11 | 55.60 | 47.02 | 52.49 | 51.50 | 45.47 |
| Atovaquine | 39.5 ± 0.5 | 45.45 | 45.30 | 43.12 | 45.82 | 44.71 | 44.89 | 44.95 |
| Pyrimethamine | 26.6 ± 0.5 | 29.82 | 31.38 | 27.08 | 32.38 | 28.59 | 29.16 | 33.79 |
| Doxycycline | 43.2 ± 0.5 | 54.56 | 55.66 | 49.13 | 55.54 | 52.56 | 53.53 | 55.55 |
