Despite the significant progress made in developing different in silico methodology for structure activity research over the past few decades. The ability to predict correlation structure activity (CSA) from absorption distribution metabolism excretion (ADME) descriptors to select indolizine compounds for human papilloma virus (HPV) anticancer activity continues to pose a challenge. This study employed five machine learning (ML) algorithms for classification, viz., stochastic gradient descent (SGD), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), convolutional neural network (CNN), and logistic regression (LR), to perform the classification based on ADME-related physiochemical descriptors of 8,900 indolizine compounds to predict the CSA. The present study focuses on 26 well-known parameters to optimize the results, which are utilized for ML models SGD, RF, SVM, CNN, and LR for classification. The CNN achieved the best results with the highest overall accuracy and average loss values of 98.33% and 0.16, respectively. On the other hand, the SGD, RF, SVM, and LR recorded the accuracy values of 95.32%, 93.23%, 96.03%, 94.03%, and loss values of 0.046, 0.067, 0.039, and 0.059, respectively. It is stated that from the obtained results, the CNN is performing better compared to other methods. The cross-validation and results are done with the relationship of descriptors, viz., accuracy, correlation, distribution, area under the receiver operating characteristic, area under the precision recall curve, and bootstrap error analysis. This study demonstrated the utility of ML to facilitate early prediction of indolizine compounds for HPV anticancer activity in preclinical development.
SiegelRL, GiaquintoAN, JemalA. Cancer statistics, 2024. CA Cancer J Clin, 2024; 74(1):12–49.
2.
Zur HausenH. Papillomaviruses and cancer: From basic studies to clinical application. Nat Rev Cancer, 2002; 2(5):342–350; doi: 10.1038/nrc798
3.
McLaughlin-DrubinMEand, MüngerK. Oncogenic activities of human papillomaviruses. Virus Res, 2009; 143(2):195–208.
4.
MoodyCAand, LaiminsLA. Human papillomavirus oncoproteins: Pathways to transformation. Nat Rev Cancer, 2010; 10(8):550–560.
5.
SchelhaasM. Come in and take your coat off–how host cells provide endocytosis for virus entry. Cell Microbiol, 2010; 12(10):1378–1388.
6.
DoorbarJ. The papillomavirus life cycle. Journal of Clinical Virology, 2005; 32:7–15.
7.
GrahamSV. The human papillomavirus replication cycle, and its links to cancer progression: A comprehensive review. Clin Sci (Lond), 2017; 131(17):2201–2221.
8.
AksoyP, GottschalkEY, MenesesPI. HPV entry into cells. Mutat Res Rev Mutat Res, 2017; 772:13–22.
9.
KonoT, OzawaH, LaiminsL. The roles of DNA damage repair and innate immune surveillance pathways in HPV pathogenesis. Virology, 2024; 600:110266.
10.
Ciurlă-LucescuL, BîcuE, BeleiD, et al.New indazole-indolizine-triazine hybrid molecules with farnesyltransferase inhibitory activity. Results Chem, 2024; 7:101451.
11.
SandeepC, VenugopalaKN, MohammedAK, et al.Review on chemistry of natural and synthetic indolizines with their chemical and pharmacological properties. J Basic Clin Pharm, 2016; 8:49–61.
12.
DawoodKM, AbbasAA. Inhibitory activities of indolizine derivatives: A patent review. Expert Opin Ther Pat, 2020; 30(9):695–714.
13.
KeriRS, et al.Indolizine derivatives as potential anticancer agents: Design, synthesis and biological evaluation. Eur J Med Chem, 2017; 127:107–120.
14.
KumarS, et al.Tubulin-targeting indolizine scaffolds as potent antiproliferative agents: NCI-60 screening and SAR analysis. Bioorg Chem, 2023; 132:106357.
15.
BhosleMR, et al.Design and synthesis of indolizine–phenothiazine hybrids as dual tubulin and farnesyltransferase inhibitors. Eur J Med Chem, 2020; 186:111877.
16.
GulevichAV, et al.Synthesis and antiproliferative activity of indolizine-fused lactones. RSC Adv, 2023; 13:21567–21577.
17.
ZhangL, et al.Novel indolizine derivatives as tubulin destabilizers with potent anticancer activity. J Med Chem, 2024; 67(4):3125–3140.
18.
HaddadM, et al.Anticancer activity of pyrido[2,3-b]indolizine derivatives in colorectal cancer models. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2014; 24(9):2137–2141.
19.
WangJ, et al.Synthesis and anticancer evaluation of indolizine–chalcone hybrids as apoptosis inducers. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2018; 28(23):3645–3649.
20.
LiX, et al.Indolizine-based small molecules trigger mitochondrial apoptosis in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 2019; 27(15):3300–3310.
21.
Di FrancescoL, et al.Pyrimidopyrrolizine derivatives as P-glycoprotein inhibitors and anticancer agents. Eur J Med Chem, 2021; 210:112987.
22.
ChenY, et al.Indolizine derivatives induce ER stress-mediated apoptosis through PI3K/Akt pathway inhibition in lung cancer cells. Bioorg Chem, 2020; 99:103827.
23.
DoorbarJ, QuintW, BanksL, et al.The biology and life-cycle of human papillomaviruses. Vaccine, 2012; 30(Suppl 5):F55–F70.
24.
Hoppe-SeylerK, BosslerF, BraunJA, HerrmannAL, Hoppe-SeylerF. The HPV E6/E7 oncogenes: Key factors for viral carcinogenesis and therapeutic targets. Trends Microbiol, 2018; 26(2):158–168.
25.
MesriEA, FeitelsonMA, MungerK. Human viral oncogenesis: A cancer hallmarks analysis. Cell Host Microbe, 2014; 15(3):266–282.
26.
WangX, WangH-K, LiY, et al.MicroRNAs are biomarkers of oncogenic human papillomavirus infections. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2014; 111(11):4262–4267.
27.
YuanCH, FilippovaM, MonksA, et al.Small-molecule inhibitors of the HPV16–E6 interaction with caspase 8. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012; 109(10):3789–3794.
28.
LeemansCR, SnijdersPJF, BrakenhoffRH. The molecular landscape of head and neck cancer. Nat Rev Cancer, 2018; 18(5):269–282.
29.
GillisonML, TrottiAM, HarrisJ, et al.Radiotherapy plus cetuximab or cisplatin for human papillomavirus–positive oropharyngeal cancer: A randomized, multicentre, non-inferiority trial. N Engl J Med, 2019; 381(2):189–199.
30.
MayrA, KlambauerG, UnterthinerT, HochreiterS. DeepTox: Toxicity prediction using deep learning. Front Environ Sci, 2016; 3:80.
31.
LusciA, PollastriG, BaldiP. Deep architectures and deep learning in chemoinformatics: The prediction of aqueous solubility for drug-like molecules. J Chem Inf Model, 2013; 53(7):1563–1575.
32.
WijnhovenRGJ, WithPHN. Fast training of object detection using stochastic gradient descent. In: 2010 10th International Conference on Pattern Recognition. IEEE; 2010. p. 112.
33.
DeepaN, PrabadeviB, MaddikuntaPK, et al.An AI-based intelligent system for healthcare analysis using Ridge-Adaline stochastic gradient descent classifier. J Supercomput, 2021; 77(2):1998–2017.
34.
BoukeMA, AlramliOI, AbdullahA. XAIRF-WFP: A novel XAI-based random forest classifier for advanced email spam detection. Int J Inf Secur, 2025; 24(1).
35.
ZhangHY, ChenQY, XiangML, et al.In silico prediction of mitochondrial toxicity by using GA-CG-SVM approach. Toxicol In Vitro, 2009; 23(1):134–140.
36.
KumariA, AkhtarM, TanveerM, et al.Diagnosis of breast cancer using a flexible pinball loss support vector machine. Appl Soft Comput, 2024; 157:111454.
37.
YangSY, HuangQ, LiLL, et al.An integrated scheme for feature selection and parameter setting in the support vector machine modelling and its application to the prediction of pharmacokinetic properties of drugs. Artif Intell Med, 2009; 46(2):155–163.
38.
KaurS, GuptaS, GuptaD, et al.High-accuracy lung disease classification via logistic regression and advanced feature extraction techniques. Egypt Inform J, 2025; 29:100596.
39.
ManicaM, OskooeiA, BornJ, SubramanianV, Sáez-RodríguezJ, MartínezMR. Towards explainable anticancer compound sensitivity prediction via multimodal attention-based convolutional encoders. Bioinformatics, 2019; 35(14):i313–i321.
40.
CherkasovA, MuratovEN, FourchesD, et al.QSAR modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going? J Med Chem, 2014; 57(12):4977–5010.
41.
MendezD, GaultonA, BentoAP, et al.ChEMBL: Towards direct deposition of bioassay data. Nucleic Acids Res, 2019; 47(D1):D930–D940.
42.
GomesLR, CabralRJ, SilvaVA, et al.Functionalized indolizines with potent anticancer activity. Eur J Med Chem, 2016; 121:1–11.
43.
ChávezH, de la CruzMG, LópezY, MenaE. Novel indolizine derivatives with cytotoxic activity against human cancer cells. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters, 2020; 30(9):127021.
44.
HewittL, TigheA, SantaguidaS, et al.Sustained Mps1 activity is required in mitosis to recruit O-Mad2 to the Mad1–C-Mad2 core complex. J Med Chem, 2010; 53(22):8477–8480.
45.
MaiaARR, de ManJ, BoonU, et al.Inhibition of Mps1 promotes chromosome missegregation and suppresses tumor growth. Cancer Cell, 2015; 27(5):762–775.
46.
KochA, MaiaARR, JanssenA, et al.Selective inhibitor of the spindle assembly checkpoint kinase TTK (BAY 1217389) in cancer therapy. Mol Cancer Ther, 2021; 20(5):859–870.
CaoS, ZhengY, YangS. Anticancer properties of Amaryllidaceae alkaloids: A review. Phytochemistry Reviews, 2020; 19:327–361.
49.
Lamoral-TheysD, AndolfiA, Van GoietsenovenG, et al.Lycorine induces apoptosis in cancer cells. Biochem Pharmacol, 2009; 78(3):319–328.
50.
LiaoCH, HsuMR, LinWH, et al.Anticancer activities of phenanthroindolizidine and tylophorine derivatives. Cancer Res, 2005; 65(15):6712–6719.
51.
LiangY, LiS, ZhengG. DCB-3503 inhibits translation and suppresses breast cancer progression. Oncotarget, 2016; 7(4):4599–4613.
52.
SottoAD, ValipourM, AzariA, et al.Benzoindolizidine alkaloids tylophorine and lycorine and their analogues with antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and anticancer properties: Promises and challenges. Biomedicines, 2023; 11:2619.
53.
ZhouJ, XuX, FuG, ZhangL, KangY. Antiproliferative and pro-apoptotic effects of oxindole alkaloids (mitraphylline, uncarine E, isorhynchophylline) in cancer cells. J Ethnopharmacol, 2017; 195:232–240.
KavanaughA, GenoveseMC, SmolenJS. Filgotinib: A selective JAK1 inhibitor in clinical development. Arthritis & Rheumatology, 2017; 69(4):599–609.
56.
JordanMA, WilsonL. Microtubules as a target for anticancer drugs. Nat Rev Cancer, 2004; 4(4):253–265.
57.
MahaurS, UpadhyayS. Indolizine: In-silico identification of inhibitors against mutated BCR-ABL protein of chronic myeloid leukemia. Research Journal of Pharmacology, 2021:2321–5836.
58.
DainaA, MichielinO, ZoeteV. SwissADME: A free web tool to evaluate pharmacokinetics, drug likeness and medicinal chemistry friendliness of small molecules. Sci Rep, 2017; 7:42717.
59.
DainaA, MichielinO, ZoeteV. iLOGP: A simple, robust and efficient description of n-octanol/water partition coefficient for drug-design using the GB/SA approach. J Chem Inf Model, 2014; 54(12):3284–3301.
60.
DainaA, MichielinO, ZoeteV. A BOILED-egg to predict gastrointestinal absorption and brain penetration of small molecules. Chem Med Chem, 2016; 11(11):1117–1121.
61.
JannuzziAT, GolerAMY, BiswasA, et al.Prospects for prostate cancer chemotherapy: Cytotoxic evaluation and mechanistic insights of quinoline quinones with ADME/PK profile. Biomedicines, 2024; 12(6):1241.
62.
MaltarolloVGC, GertrudesJC, OliveiraPR, et al.Applying machine learning techniques for ADME-tox prediction: A review. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol, 2015; 11(2):259–271.
63.
BanerjeeS, HalderAK, GhoshK. Computational approaches for anticancer drug design. Expert Opin Drug Discov, 2018; 13(9):809–823.
64.
Cortés-CirianoI, MurrellDS, van WestenGJP, BenderA, MalliavinTE, GlenRC. Machine-learning models for kinase inhibitor bioactivity prediction. J Cheminform, 2016; 8:27.
65.
LipinskiCA, LombardoF, DominyBW, et al.Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 1997; 23(1–3):3–25.
66.
Shwartz-ZivR, ArmonA. (2022). Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need. In Proceedings of the NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Data-Centric Machine Learning.
