Naïve Bayes classification using 2D pharmacophore feature triplet vectors

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 48, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 166-178

  Watson, Paul ^a  

^a ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; CLASSIFICATION (OF INFORMATION); DATABASE SYSTEMS; DRUG PRODUCTS; FEATURE EXTRACTION; VECTORS;

PHARMACOPHORE; TOPOLOGICAL DISTANCES;

MOLECULAR STRUCTURE;

G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASE; PROTEINASE;

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGY; CLASSIFICATION; DRUG SCREENING; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; PROTEIN DATABASE; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYES THEOREM; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DATABASES, PROTEIN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; ENDOPEPTIDASES; PHOSPHOTRANSFERASES; RECEPTORS, G-PROTEIN-COUPLED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 39449088858     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci7003253     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Willett, P. Searching techniques for databases of two- and three-dimensional chemical structures. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 4183-4199.
2. Bender, A.; Glen, R. C. Molecular similarity: a key technique in molecular informatics. Org. Biomol. Chem 2004, 2, 3204-3218.
3. Willett, P. Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discovery Today 2006, 11, 1046-1053.
4. Bender, A.; Mussa, H. Y.; Glen, R. C.; Reiling, S. Similarity searching of chemical databases using atom environment descriptors (MOL-PRINT 2D): evaluation of performance. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1708-1718.
5. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. Comparison of topological descriptors for similarity-based virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org. Biomol. Chem 2004, 2, 3256-3266.
6. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D. J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1177-1185.
7. Vidal, D.; Thormann, M.; Pons, M. LINGO, an efficient holographic text based method to calculate biophysical properties and intermolecular similarities. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 386-393.
8. Rhodes, N.; Willett, P.; Calvet, A.; Dunbar, J. B.; Humblet, C. CLIP: similarity searching of 3D databases using clique detection. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 443-448.
9. Rush, T. S., III; Grant, J. A.; Mosyak, L.; Nicholls, A. A shape-based 3-D scaffold hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 1489-1495.
10. Rhodes, N.; Clark, D. E.; Willett, P. Similarity searching in databases of flexible 3D structures using autocorrelation vectors derived from smoothed bounded distance matrices. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 615-619.
11. Ballester, P. J.; Richards, W. G. Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes. J. Comput. Chem. 2007, 28, 1711-1723.
12. Good, A. C.; Hodgkin, E. E.; Richards, W. G. Similarity screening of molecular data sets. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1992, 6, 513-520.
13. Ewing, T. J.; Makino, S.; Skillman, A. G.; Kuntz, I. D. DOCK 4.0: search strategies for automated molecular docking of flexible molecule databases. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 411-428.
14. Friesner, R. A.; Banks, J. L.; Murphy, R. B.; Halgren, T. A.; Klicic, J. J.; Mainz, D. T.; Repasky, M. P.; Knoll, E. H.; Shelley, M.; Perry, J. K.; Shaw, D. E.; Francis, P.; Shenkin, P. S. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. Method and assessment of docking accuracy. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1739-1749.
15. Goodsell, D. S.; Morris, G. M.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking of flexible ligands: applications of AutoDock. J. Mol. Recognit. 1996, 9, 1-5.
16. Halgren, T. A.; Murphy, R. B.; Friesner, R. A.; Beard, H. S.; Frye, L. L.; Pollard, W. T.; Banks, J. L. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 2. Enrichment factors in database screening. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 1750-1759.
17. Jones, G.; Willett, P.; Glen, R. C.; Leach, A. R.; Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J. Mol. Biol. 1997, 267, 727-748.
18. McGann, M. R.; Almond, H. R.; Nicholls, A.; Grant, J. A.; Brown, F. K. Gaussian docking functions. Biopolymers 2003, 68, 76-90.
19. Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Huey, R.; Olson, A. J. Distributed automated docking of flexible ligands to proteins: parallel applications of AutoDock 2.4. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1996, 10, 293-304.
20. Rarey, M.; Kramer, B.; Lengauer, T.; Klebe, G. A fast flexible docking method using an incremental construction algorithm. J. Mol. Biol. 1996, 261, 470-489.
21. Taylor, R. D.; Jewsbury, P. J.; Essex, J. W. A review of protein-small molecule docking methods. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 151-166.
22. McGaughey, G. B.; Sheridan, R. P.; Bayly, C. I.; Culberson, J. C.; Kreatsoulas, C.; Lindsley, S.; Maiorov, V.; Trachon, J. F.; Cornell, W. D. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 1504-1519.
23. Hawkins, P. C.; Skillman, A. G.; Nicholls, A. Comparison of shape-matching and docking as virtual screening tools. J. Med. Chem. 2007, 50, 74-82.
24. Goldman, B.; Walters, P. Machine Learning In Computational Chemistry. Annu. Rep. Comput. Chem. 2006, 2, 127-140.
25. Witten, I. H.; Frank E. Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations, 1st ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, 2000.
26. Muller, K. R.; Ratsch, G.; Sonnenburg, S.; Mika, S.; Grimm, M.; Heinrich, N. Classifying 'drug-likeness' with kernel-based learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 249-253.
27. Byvatov, E.; Fechner, U.; Sadowski, J.; Schneider, G. Comparison of support vector machine and artificial neural network systems for drug/nondrug classification. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1882-1889.
28. Byvatov, E.; Schneider, G. SVM-based feature selection for characterization of focused compound collections. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 993-999.
29. Byvatov, E.; Schneider, G. Support vector machine applications in bioinformatics. Appl. Bioinformatics 2003, 2, 67-77.
30. Svetnik, V.; Liaw, A.; Tong, C.; Culberson, J. C.; Sheridan, R. P.; Feuston, B. P. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1947-1958.
31. Buontempo, F. V.; Wang, X. Z.; Mwense, M.; Horan, N.; Young, A.; Osborn, D. Genetic programming for the induction of decision trees to model ecotoxicity data. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 904-912.
32. Li, H.; Yap, C. W.; Ung, C. Y.; Xue, Y.; Cao, Z. W.; Chen, Y. Z. Effect of selection of molecular descriptors on the prediction of blood-brain barrier penetrating and nonpenetrating agents by statistical learning methods. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1376-1384.
33. Bazeley, P. S.; Prithivi, S.; Struble, C. A.; Povinelli, R. J.; Sem, D. S. Synergistic use of compound properties and docking scores in neural network modeling of CYP2D6 binding: predicting affinity and conformational sampling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2698-2708.
34. Bernazzani, L.; Duce, C.; Micheli, A.; Mollica, V.; Sperduti, A.; Starita, A.; Tine, M. R. Predicting physical-chemical properties of compounds from molecular structures by recursive neural networks. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2030-2042.
35. Selzer, P.; Ertl, P. Applications of self-organizing neural networks in virtual screening and diversity selection. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 2319-2323.
36. Xia, X.; Maliski, E. G.; Gallant, P.; Rogers, D. Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 4463-4470.
37. Bender, A.; Mussa, H. Y.; Gill, G. S.; Glen, R. C. Molecular surface point environments for virtual screening and the elucidation of binding patterns (MOLPRINT 3D). J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 6569-6583.
38. Bender, A.; Mussa, H. Y.; Glen, R. C. Screening for dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors using MOLPRINT 2D, a fast fragment-based method employing the naive Bayesian classifier: limitations of the descriptor and the importance of balanced chemistry in training and test sets. J. Biomol. Screening 2005, 10, 658-666.
39. Sun, H. A naive bayes classifier for prediction of multidrug resistance reversal activity on the basis of atom typing. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 4031-4039.
40. O'Brien, S. E.; de Groot, M. J. Greater than the sum of its parts: combining models for useful ADMET prediction. J. Med. Chem. 2005, 48, 1287-1291.
41. Truchon, J. F.; Bayly, C. I. Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the "early recognition" problem. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 488-508.
42. Weininger, D. SMILES: A Chemical Language and Information System: 1. Introduction to Methodology and Encoding Rules. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1988, 28, 31-36.
43. Weininger, D.; Weininger, J. L. SMILES 2: Algorithm for Generation of Unique SMILES Notation. J. Chem. inf. Comput. Sci. 1989, 29, 97-101.
44. Bruno, I. J.; Cole, J. C.; Lommerse, J. P.; Rowland, R. S.; Taylor, R.; Verdonk, M. L. IsoStar: a library of information about nonbonded interactions. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 525-537.
45. Schuffenhauer, A.; Floersheim, P.; Acklin, P.; Jacoby, E. Similarity metrics for ligands reflecting the similarity of the target proteins. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 391-405.
46. Olah, M.; Mracec, M.; Ostopovici, L.; Rad, R.; Hadaruga, N.; Olah, I.; Banda, M.; Simon, Z.; Mracec, M.; Oprea, T. I. WOMBAT: World of Molecular Bioactivity. In Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Oprea, T. I., Ed.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2004; pp 223-239.
47. Durant, J. L.; Leland, B. A.; Henry, D. R.; Nourse, J. G. Reoptimization of MDL keys for use in drug discovery. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci 2002, 42, 1273-1280.