Novel statistical approach for primary high-throughput screening hit selection

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 45, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1784-1790

  Yan, S Frank ^a   Asatryan, Hayk ^a   Li, Jing ^a   Zhou, Yingyao ^a  

^a Genomics Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG PRODUCTS; KNOWLEDGE BASED SYSTEMS; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; STATISTICAL METHODS; THROUGHPUT;

DRUG DISCOVERY; HIGH-QUALITY; STATISTICAL APPROACH;

DATA REDUCTION;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG SCREENING; KNOWLEDGE BASE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; KNOWLEDGE BASES; MODELS, STATISTICAL; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 28944449789     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0502808     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (48)

1. Oprea, T. I. Chemoinformatics in lead discovery. Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2005; pp 25-41.
2. McFadyen, I.; Walker, G.; Alvarez, J. Enhancing hit quality and diversity within assay throughput constraints. Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, 2005; pp 143-173.
3. Walters, W. P.; Namchuk, M. Designing screens: how to make your hits a hit. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2, 259-266.
4. Hann, M. M.; Oprea, T. I. Pursuing the leadlikeness concept in pharmaceutical research. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2004, 8, 255-263.
5. Alanine, A.; Nettekoven, M.; Roberts, E.; Thomas, A. W. Lead generation-enhancing the success of drug discovery by investing in the hit to lead process. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2003, 6, 51-66.
6. Oprea, T. I. Current trends in lead discovery: are we looking for the appropriate properties? J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 325-334.
7. Fogel, P.; Collette, P.; Dupront, A.; Garyantes, T.; Guedin, D. The confirmation rate of primary hits: a predictive model. J. Biomol. Screen. 2002, 7, 175-190.
8. Bleicher, K. H.; Bohm, H. J.; Muller, K.; Alanine, A. I. Hit and lead generation: beyond high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2, 369-378.
9. Parker, C. N.; Schreyer, S. K. Application of chemoinformatics to high-throughput screening: practical considerations. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 275, 85-110.
10. Harper, G.; Pickett, S. D.; Green, D. V. Design of a compound screening collection for use in high throughput screening. Comb. Chem. High Throughput Screen. 2004, 7, 63-70.
11. Kubinyi, H. Drug research: myths, hype and reality. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2003, 2, 665-668.
12. Lahana, R. Who wants to be irrational? Drug Discov. Today 2003, 8, 655-656.
13. Smith, A. Screening for drug discovery: the leading question. Nature 2002, 418, 453-459.
14. Drews, J. Drug discovery: a historical perspective. Science 2000, 257, 1960-1964.
15. Young, S. S.; Hawkins, D. M. Using recursive partitioning analysis to evaluate compound selection methods. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 275, 317-334.
16. Lam, R. L.; Welch, W. J.; Young, S. S. Cell-based analysis of high-throughput screening data for drug discovery; Research Report RR-02-02; Institute for Improvement in Quality and Productivity, University of Waterloo, 2002.
17. Xue, L.; Stahura, F. L.; Bajorath, J. Cell-based partitioning. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 275, 279-290.
18. Willett, P. Evaluation of molecular similarity and molecular diversity methods using biological activity data. Methods Mol. Biol. 2004, 275, 51-64.
19. van Rhee, A. M. Use of recursion forests in the sequential screening process: consensus selection by multiple recursion trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 941-948.
20. Schreyer, S. K.; Parker, C. N.; Maggiora, G. M. Data shaving: a focused screening approach. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 470-479.
21. Hopfinger, A. J.; Duca, J. S. Extraction of pharmacophore information from high-throughput screens. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol 2000, 11, 97-103.
22. Nicolaou, C. A.; Tamura, S. Y.; Kelley, B. P.; Bassett, S. I.; Nutt, R. F. Analysis of large screening data sets via adaptively grown phylogenetic-like trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1069-1079.
23. Engels, M. F. M.; Venkatarangan, P. Smart screening: approaches to efficient HTS. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2001, 4, 275-283.
24. Young, S. S.; Lam, R. L.; Welch, W. J. Initial compound selection for sequential screening. Curr. Opin. Drug Discov. Dev. 2002, 5, 422-427.
25. Rusinko, A., III.; 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.
26. Zhang, J. H.; Chung, T. D.; Oldenburg, K. R. A simple statistical parameter for use in evaluation and validation of high throughput screening assays. J. Biomol. Screen. 1999, 4, 67-73.
27. Zhang, J. H.; Chung, T. D.; Oldenburg, K. R. Confirmation of primary active substances from high throughput screening of chemical and biological populations: a statistical approach and practical considerations. J. Comb. Chem. 2000, 2, 258-265.
28. Fay, N.; Ullmann, D. Leveraging process integration in early drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 2002, 7, S181-S186.
29. Brideau, C.; Gunter, B.; Pikounis, B.; Liaw, A. Improved statistical methods for hit selection in high-throughput screening. J. Biomol. Screen. 2003, 8, 634-647.
30. Engels, M. F. M.; Wouters, L.; Verbeeck, R.; Vanhoof, G. Outlier mining in high throughput screening experiments. J. Biomol. Screen. 2002, 7, 341-351.
31. Roberts, G.; Myatt, G. J.; Johnson, W. P.; Cross, K. P.; Blower, P. E., Jr. LeadScope: software for exploring large sets of screening data. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 1302-1314.
32. Nilakantan, R.; Bauman, N.; Haraki, K. S. Database diversity assessment: new ideas, concepts, and tools. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 447-452.
33. Pearlman, R. S.; Smith, K. M. Novel software tools for chemistry diversity. Perspect. Drug Discov. Des. 1998, 9, 339-353.
34. Lam, R. L.; Welch, W. J.; Young, S. S. Uniform coverage designs for molecule selection. Technometrics 2002, 44, 99-109.
35. Welch, W. J.; Lam, R. L.; Young, S. S. Cell-based analysis of high throughput screening data for drug discovery, PCT Int. Appl. WO 02/12568 A2, 2002.
36. Golebiowski, A.; Klopfenstein, S. R.; Portlock, D. E. Lead compounds discovered from libraries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2001, 5, 273-284.
37. Golebiowski, A.; Klopfenstein, S. R.; Portlock, D. E. Lead compounds discovered from libraries: part 2. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2003, 7, 308-325.
38. Oprea, T. I. Chemical space navigation in lead discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2002, 6, 384-389.
39. Rose, S.; Stevens, A. Computational design strategies for combinatorial libraries. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2003, 7, 331-339.
40. Bajorath, J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2002, 1, 882-894.
41. McGovern, S. L.; Caselli, E.; Grigorieff, N.; Shoichet, B. K. A common mechanism underlying promiscuous inhibitors from virtual and high-throughput screening. J. Med. Chem. 2002, 45, 1712-1722.
42. Feng, B. Y.; Shelat, A.; Doman, T. N.; Guy, R. K.; Shoichet, B. K. High-throughput assays for promiscuous inhibitors. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2005, 1, 146-148.
43. Zhou, Y.; Young, J. A.; Santrosyan, A.; Chen, K.; Yan, S. F.; Winzeler, E. A. In silico gene function prediction using ontology-based pattern identification. Bioinformatics 2005, 21, 1237-1245.
44. Young, J. A.; Fivelman, Q. L.; Blair, P. L.; de la Vega, P.; Le Roch, K. G.; Zhou, Y.; Carucci, D. J.; Baker, D. A.; Winzeler, E. A. The Plasmodium falciparum sexual development transcriptome: a microarray analysis using ontology-based pattern identification. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol. 2005, 143, 67-79.
45. James, C. A.; Weininger, D.; Delany, J. Daylight Theory Manual: Daylight Version 4.9; Daylight Chemical Information Systems, Inc.: Mission Viejo, CA, 2005.
46. Zar, J. H. Biostatistical Analysis; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1999.
47. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 1995, 57, 289-300.
48. Wilton, D.; Willett, P.; Lawson, K.; Mullier, G. Comparison of ranking methods for virtual screening in lead-discovery programs. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 469-474.