Use of recursion forests in the sequential screening process: Consensus selection by multiple recursion trees

Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 941-948

  Van Rhee, A Michiel ^a  

^a Icagen Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SEQUENTIAL SCREENING;

CALCIUM; DATA REDUCTION; IONS; ROBUSTNESS (CONTROL SYSTEMS); TREES (MATHEMATICS);

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING;

ARTICLE; COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY; DRUG SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

COMBINATORIAL CHEMISTRY TECHNIQUES; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; MODELS, STATISTICAL; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 0037498077     PISSN: 00952338     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci034023j     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Abt, M.; Lim, Y. B.; Sacks, J.; Xie, M.,; Young, S. S. A Sequential Approach for Identifying Lead Compounds in Large Chemical Databases. Natl. Inst. Stat. Sci., Technical Report 2002, 105, 1-32.
2. Holzgrabe, U.; Mohr, K. Allosteric Modulators of Ligand Binding to Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors. Drug Discovery Today 1998, 5, 214-222.
3. Zwart, R.; Vijverberg, H. P. Potentiation and Inhibition of Neuronal Nicotinic Receptors by Atropine: Competitive and Noncompetitive Effects. Mol. Pharmacol. 1997, 52, 886-895.
4. Chen, H. S.; Liptin, S. A. Mechanism of Memantine Block of NMDA-activated Channels in Rat Retinal Ganglion Cells: Uncompetitive Antagonism. J. Physiol. 1997, 499 (Pt 1), 27-46.
5. van Rhee, A. M.; Stocker, J.; Printzenhoff, D.; Creech, C.; Wagoner, P. K.; Spear, K. L. Retrospective Analysis of an Experimental High-Throughput Screening Data Set by Recursive Partitioning. J. Combi. Chem. 2001, 3, 267-277.
6. Rusinko, A.; Young, S. S.; Drewry, D. H.; Gerritz, S. W. Optimization of Focused Chemical Libraries Using Recursive Partitioning. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screening 2002, 5, 125-133.
7. Breiman, L.; Friedman, J. H.; Olshen, R. A.; Stone, C. J. Classification and Regression Trees; Wadsworth: Boca Raton, FL, 1984.
8. Cook, E. F.; Goldman, L. Empiric Comparison of Multivariate Analytic Techniques: Advantages and Disadvantages of Recursive Partitioning Analysis. J. Chron. Dis. 1984, 37, 721-731.
9. Young, S. S.; Hawkins, D. M. Analysis of a 29 Full Factorial Chemical Library. J. Med. Chem. 1995, 38, 2784-2788.
10. Rusinko, A. R.; Farmen, M. W.; Lambert, C. G.; Brown, P. L.; Young, S. S. Analysis of a Large Structure/Biological Activity Data Set Using Recursive Partitioning. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1999, 39, 1017-1026.
11. Harper, G.; Bradshaw, J.; Gittins, J. C.; Green, D. V. S.; Leach, A. R. Prediction of Biological Activity for High-Througput Screening Using Binary Kernel Discrimination. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1295-1300.
12. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning 2001, 45, 5-32.
13. Ho, T. K. The Random Subspace Method for Constructing Decision Forests. IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis Machine Intelligence 1998, 20(8), 832-844.
14. Dietterich, T. An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization. Machine Learning 2000, 40(2), 139-157.
15. Ravi, M.; Hopfinger, A. J.; Hormann, R. E.; Dinan, L. 4D-QSAR Analysis of a Set of Ecdysteroids and a Comparison to CoMFA Modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1587-1604.
16. Charifson, P. S.; Corkery, J. J.; Murcko, M. A.; Walters, W. P. Consensus Scoring: A Method for Obtaining Improved Hit Rates from Docking Databases of Three-Dimensional Structures into Proteins. J. Med. Chem. 1999, 42, 5100-5109.
17. Kastenholz, M. A.; Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; Haaksma, E. E. J.; Fox, T. GRID/CPCA: A New Computational Tool to Design Selective Ligands. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3033-3044.