Substructure mining using elaborate chemical representation

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 46, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 597-605

  Kazius, Jeroen ^a   Nijssen, Siegfried ^b,c   Kok, Joost ^b   Bäck, Thomas ^b,d   IJzerman, Adriaan P ^a  

^a LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^d NuTech Solutions GmbH   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHMS; ATOMIC PHYSICS; CHEMICAL ANALYSIS; DATA REDUCTION; DRUG PRODUCTS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MUTAGENESIS; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; SET THEORY;

2D SUBSTRUCTURE; DRUG DISCOVERY; GASTON LEARNED SUBSTRUCTURES; SUBSTRUCTURE MINING ALGORITHMS;

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

DRUG; MUTAGENIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; DATA BASE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; THEORETICAL MODEL;

DATABASES; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; MUTAGENS; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 33646238004     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci0503715     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (55)

1. Ashby, J. Fundamental Structural Alerts to Potential Carcinogenicity or Noncarcinogenicity. Environ. Mutagen. 1985, 7, 919-921.
2. Ashby, J.; Tennant, R. W. Definitive Relationships Among Chemical Structure, Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity for 301 Chemicals Tested by the U.S. NTP. Mutat. Res. 1991, 257, 229-306.
3. Llorens, O.; Perez, J. J.; Villar, H. O. Toward the Design of Chemical Libraries for Mass Screening Biased Against Mutagenic Compounds. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 2793-2804.
4. Helma, C.; Cramer, T.; Kramer, S.; De Raedt, L. Data Mining and Machine Learning Techniques for the Identification of Mutagenicity Inducing Substructures and Structure Activity Relationships of Non-congeneric Compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1402-1411.
5. Helma, C.; Kramer, S.; DeRaedt, L. The Molecular Feature Miner MOLFEA. In Proceedings of the Beilstein Workshop 2002: Molecular Informatics: Confronting Complexity; Beilstein Institut: Frankfurt, 2002.
6. Klopman, G. Artificial Intelligence Approach to Structure-Activity Studies: Computer Automated Structure Evaluation of Biological Activity of Organic Molecules. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1984, 106, 7315-7321.
7. Klopman, G. Multi-CASE: a Hierarchical Computer Automated Structure Evaluation Program. QSAR 1992, 11, 172-184.
8. Malacarne, D.; Pesenti, R.; Paolucci, M.; Parodi, S. Relationship Between Molecular Connectivity and Carcinogenic Activity: A Confirmation with a New Software Program Based on Graph Theory. Environ. Health Perspect. 1993, 101, 332-42.
9. Sanderson, D. M.; Earnshaw, C. G. Computer Prediction of Possible Toxic Action from Chemical Structure; the DEREK System. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 1991, 10, 261-273.
10. Smithing, M. P.; Darvas, F. Hazardexpert: an Expert System for Predicting Chemical Toxicity. In Food Safety Assessment; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1992; pp 192-200.
11. Enslein, K.; Gombar, V. K.; Blake, B. W. International Commission for Protection Against Environmental Mutagens and Carcinogens. Use of SAR in Computer-Assisted Prediction of Carcinogenicity and Mutagenicity of Chemicals by the TOPKAT Program. Mutat. Res. 1994, 305, 47-61.
12. Woo, Y. T.; Lai, D. Y.; Argus, M. F.; Arcos, J. C. Development of Structure-Activity Relationship Rules for Predicting Carcinogenic Potential of Chemicals. Toxicol. Lett. 1995, 79, 219-228.
13. Ridings, J. E.; Barratt, M. D.; Cary, R.; Earnshaw, C. G.; Eggington, C. E. et al. Computer Prediction of Possible Toxic Action from Chemical Structure: an Update on the DEREK System. Toxicology 1996, 106, 267-279.
14. King, R. D.; Muggleton, S. H.; Srinivasan, A.; Sternberg, M. J. Structure-Activity Relationships Derived by Machine Learning: the Use of Atoms and Their Bond Connectivities to Predict Mutagenicity by Inductive Logic Programming. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996, 93, 438-442.
15. Young, S. S.; Gombar, V. K.; Emptage, M. R.; Cariello, N. F.; Lambert, C. Mixture-Deconvolution and Analysis of Ames Mutagenicity Data. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2002, 60, 5-11.
16. Bacha, P. A.; Gruver, H. S.; Den Hartog, B. K.; Tamura, S. Y.; Nutt, R. F. Rule Extraction from a Mutagenicity Data Set Using Adaptively Grown Phylogenetic-Like Trees. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2002, 42, 1104-1111.
17. Votano. J. R.; Parham, M.; Hall, L. H.; Kier, L. B.; Oloff, S. et al. Three New Consensus QSAR Models for the Prediction of Ames Genotoxicity. Mutagenesis 2004, 19, 365-377.
18. Li, H.; Ung, C. Y.; Yap, C. W.; Xue, Y.; Li, Z. et al. Prediction of Genotoxicity of Chemical Compounds by Statistical Learning Methods. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 2005, 18, 1071-1080.
19. Mahe, P.; Ueda, N.; Akutsu, T.; Perret, J. L.; Vert, J. P. Graph Kernels for Molecular Structure-Activity Relationship Analysis with Support Vector Machines. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 939-951.
20. Kazius, J.; McGuire, R.; Bursi, R. Derivation and Validation of Toxicophores for Mutagenicity Prediction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 312-320.
21. Contrera, J. F.; Matthews, E. J.; Kruhlak, N. L.; Benz, R. D. In Silico Screening of Chemicals for Bacterial Mutagenicity Using Electro-topological E-State Indices and MDL QSAR Software. Regul. Toxicol Pharmacol. 2005, 43, 313-323.
22. Klopman, G.; Rosenkranz, H. S. Testing by Artificial Intelligence: Computational Alternatives to the Determination of Mutagenicity. Mutat. Res. 1992, 272, 59-71.
23. Perrotta, A.; Malacarne, D.; Taningher, M.; Pesenti, R.; Paolucci, M.; Parodi, S. A Computerized Connectivity Approach for Analyzing the Structural Basis of Mutagenicity in Salmonella and its Relationship with Rodent Carcinogenicity. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 1996, 28, 31 -50.
24. Zeiger, E.; Ashby, J.; Bakale, G.; Enslein, K.; Klopman, G. et al. Prediction of Salmonella Mutagenicity. Mutagenesis 1996, 11, 471 -484.
25. Pearl, G. M.; Livingston-Carr, S.; Durham, S. K. Integration of Computational Analysis as a Sentinel Tool in Toxicological Assessments. Curr. Top. Med. Chem. 2001, 1, 247-255.
26. Dearden, J. C.; Barratt, M. D.; Benigni, R.; Bristol, D. W.; Combes, R. D.; et al. The Development and Validation of Expert Systems for Predicting Toxicity: Report and Recommendations of an ECVAM/ ECB Workshop (ECVAM Workshop 24). ATLA 1997, 25, 223-252.
27. White, A. C.; Mueller, R. A.; Gallavan, R. H.; Aaron, S.; Wilson, A. G. A Multiple In Silico Program Approach for the Prediction of Mutagenicity from Chemical Structure. Mutat. Res. 2003, 539, 77-89.
28. Snyder, R. D.; Pearl, G. S.; Mandakas, G.; Choy, W. N.; Goodsaid, F.; et al. Assessment of the Sensitivity of the Computational Programs DEREK, TOPKAT, and MCASE in the Prediction of the Genotoxicity of Pharmaceutical Molecules. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 2004, 43, 143-158.
29. Klopman, G.; Zhu, H.; Fuller, M. A.; Saiakhov, R. D. Searching for an Enhanced Predictive Tool for Mutagenicity. SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 2004, 15, 251-263.
30. Inokuchi, A.; Washio, T.; Motoda, H. An Apriori-Based Algorithm for Mining Frequent Substructures from Graph Data. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Principles of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PKDD); 2000; pp 13-23.
31. Kuramochi, M.; Karypis G. Frequent Subgraph Discovery. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM); 2001; pp 313-320.
32. Borgelt, C.; Berthold, M. R. Mining Molecular Fragments: Finding Relevant Substructures of Molecules. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM); 2002; pp 51-58.
33. Yan, X.; Han, J. gSpan: Graph-Based Substructure Pattern Mining. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM); 2002; pp 721-724.
34. Nijssen, S.; Kok, J. N. A Quickstart in Frequent Structure Mining can make a Difference. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD); 2004; pp 647-652.
35. Nijssen, S. Gaston at http://www.liacs.nl/~snijssen/gaston/.
36. Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System is available through TOXNET at http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov.
37. Weininger, D. SMILES, a Chemical Language and Information System 1. Introduction and Encoding Rules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1988, 28, 31-36.
38. CACTVS, at http://www.xemistry.com/.
39. Ihlenfeldt, W. D.; Takahashi, Y.; Abe, S.; Sasaki, S. Computation and Management of Chemical Properties in CACTVS: An Extensible Networked Approach Toward Modularity and Flexibility. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 109-116.
40. The used CACTVS-Tcl script was kindly provided by Dr. Marc Nicklaus.
41. Frowns, at http://frowns.sourceforge.net/.
42. For the purpose of comparison, the settings handled in the present study (settings of chemical representation (choice of atom and bond groupings), frequency constraints (≥70 mutagens), and data mining (≥60% mutagenic)) were based on the corresponding settings used to extract general toxicophores in the previous analysis (Kazius et al., 2005).
43. Judson, P. N. Rule Induction for Systems Predicting Biological Activity. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 148-153.
44. Hofer, H.; Borgelt, C.; Berthold, M. R. Large Scale Mining of Molecular Fragments with Wildcards. In Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis V (IDA); 2003; pp 380-389.
45. OpenBabel, at http://openbabel.sourceforge.net/.
46. Daylight Chemical Information, Inc., Santa Fe, at www.daylight.com/ dayhhtml/doc/theory/theory.smarts.html.
47. An overview of subgraph mining methods is available at http://hms.liacs.nl/.
48. Agrawal, R.; Srikant, R. Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases (VLDB); 1994; pp 487-499.
49. Wörlein, M.; Meinl, T.; Fischer, I.; Philippsen, M. A Quantitative Comparison of the Subgraph Miners MoFa, gSpan, FFSM, and Gaston. In Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Principles of Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (PKDD); 2005.
50. Clark, P.; Niblett, T. The CN2 Induction Algorithm. Machine Learn. 1989, 3, 261-284.
51. C4.5, release 8, at http://rulequest.com/.
52. Quinlan, J. R. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning; Morgan Kaufmann: San Mateo, 1993.
53. Inokuchi, A.; Washio, T.; Okada, T.; Motoda, H. Applying the Apriori-Based Graph Mining Method to Mutagenesis Data Analysis. J. Comput.-Aided Chem, 2001, 2, 87-92.
54. Benigni, R.; Giuliani, A. Computer Assisted Analysis of Interlaboratory Ames Test Variability. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 1988, 25, 135-146.
55. Piegorsch, W. W.; Zeiger, E. Measuring Intra-Assay Agreement for the Ames Salmonella Assay. In Lecture notes in Medical Informatics; Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, 1991; pp 35-41.