Skip to content


  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

Calculation of lipophilicity for Pt(II) complexes: experimental comparison of several methods

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3 and
  • 2
Chemistry Central Journal20082 (Suppl 1) :P13

  • Published:


  • Platinum
  • Partition Coefficient
  • Quantum Chemical
  • Study Analyse
  • Experimental Comparison

Platinum containing compounds are promising antitumor agents, but must enter cells before reaching their main biological target, namely DNA. Their distribution within the body, and hence their activity is to a large extent determined by their lipophilicity, thus there is a strong interest to develop computational methods to predict this important property. This study analyses accuracy of five methods, namely ALOGPS [1], KOWWIN [2], CLOGP [3] and two quantum chemical approaches [4, 5], to predict octanol/water partition coefficients (logP) for sets of 43 and 12 Pt(II) complexes, collected from the literature and measured by the authors, respectively. Fragment-based methods for logP estimation give generally poor results due to lack of suitable values for metal-containing fragments. However, the ALOGPS program can be extended with data from the first set in LIBRARY mode [6, 7], and in this way resulted in the highest prediction ability for the measured molecules. The program was also able to correctly predict errors in calculated logP values for new molecules using the algorithm described in [8].

Authors’ Affiliations

GSF - National Research Centre for Environment and Health, Institute for Bioinformatics, Ingolstaedter Landstrasse 1, D-85764 Neuherberg, Germany
Wroclaw, Poland
Cardiff, UK


  1. Tetko IV, Tanchuk VY: Application of associative neural networks for prediction of lipophilicity in alogps 2.1 program. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2002, 42: 1136-1145. 10.1021/ci025515j.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Meylan WM, Howard PH: Atom/fragment contribution method for estimating octanol-water partition coefficients. J Pharm Sci. 1995, 84: 83-92. 10.1002/jps.2600840120.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Leo AJ, Hoekman D: Calculating log p(oct) with no missing fragments; the problem of estimating new interaction parameters. Perspect Drug Discov Des. 2000, 18: 19-38. 10.1023/A:1008739110753.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Platts JA, Hibbs DE, Hambley TW, Hall MD: Calculation of the hydrophobicity of platinum drugs. J Med Chem. 2001, 44: 472-474. 10.1021/jm001080k.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Platts JA, Oldfield SP, Reif MM, Palmucci A, Gabano E, Osella D: The rp-hplc measurement and qspr analysis of logp(o/w) values of several pt(ii) complexes. J Inorg Biochem. 2006, 100: 1199-1207. 10.1016/j.jinorgbio.2006.01.035.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Tetko IV, Poda GI: Application of ALOGPS 2.1 to predict log d distribution coefficient for Pfizer proprietary compounds. J Med Chem. 2004, 47: 5601-5604. 10.1021/jm049509l.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Tetko IV, Bruneau P: Application of ALOGPS to predict 1-octanol/water distribution coefficients, logP, and logD, of astrazeneca in-house database. J Pharm Sci. 2004, 93: 3103-3110. 10.1002/jps.20217.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Tetko IV, Bruneau P, Rohrer DC, Poda GI: Can we estimate the accuracy of adme-tox predictions?. Drug Discov Today. 2006, 11: 700-707. 10.1016/j.drudis.2006.06.013.View ArticleGoogle Scholar


© Tetko et al. 2008