Hidden active information in a random compound library: Extraction using a pseudo-structure-activity relationship model

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 575-582

  Fukunishi, Hiroaki ^a   Teramoto, Reiji ^a   Shimada, Jiro ^a  

^a NEC CORPORATION   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DOCKING; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; LEARNING SYSTEMS;

PSEUDO-STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP (PSAR); QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP (QSAR);

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS;

PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; CHEMICAL STRUCTURE; CHEMISTRY; ROC CURVE; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION;

MODELS, MOLECULAR; PROTEINS; ROC CURVE; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 42149179358     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci7003384     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Kuntz, I. D.; Blaney, J. M.; Oatley, S. J.; Sheridan, R. P.; Langridge, R.; Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 1982, 161, 269-288.
2. 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.
3. Welch, W.; Ruppert, J.; Jain, A. N. Hammerhead: fast, fully automated docking of flexible ligands to protein binding sites. Chem. Biol. 1996, 3, 449-462.
4. Jones, G.; Wilett, 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.
5. McMartin, C.; Bohacek, R. QXP: Powerful, rapid computer algorithms for structure-based drug design. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1997, 11, 333-344.
6. Morris, G. M.; Goodsell, D. S.; Halliday, R.; Huey, R.; Hart, W. E.; Belew, R. K.; Olson, A. J. Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 1998, 19, 1639-1662.
7. Baxter, C. A.; Murray, C. W.; Clark, D. E.; Westhead, D. R.; Eldridge, M. D. Flexible docking using Tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins 1998, 33, 367-382.
8. Hou, T.; J., W.; Chen, L.; Xu, X. Automated docking of peptides and proteins by using a genetic algorithm combined with a tabu search. Protein Eng. 1999, 12, 639-647.
9. Liu, M.; Wang, S. MCDOCK: a Monte Carlo simulation approach to the molecular docking problem. J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 1999, 13, 435-451.
10. Perola, E.; Xu, K.; Kollmeyer, T. M.; Kaufmann, S. H.; Prendergast, F. G.; Pang, Y. P. Successful virtual screening of a chemical database for farnesyltransferase inhibitor leads. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 401-408.
11. 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.
12. Zavodszky, M. I.; Sanschagrin, P. C.; Korde, R. S.; Kuhn, L. A. Distilling the essential features of a protein surface for improving protein, ligand docking, scoring, and virtual screening. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 2002, 16, 883-902.
13. Jain, A. N. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similarity-based search engine. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 499-511.
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. FlexSIS. BioSolvelT GmbH: Sankt Augustin, Germany.
16. Kellenberger, E.; Rodrigo, J.; Muller, P.; Rognan, D. Comparative evaluation of eight docking tools for docking and virtual screening accuracy. Proteins 2004, 57, 225-242.
17. Perola, E.; Walters, W. P.; Charifson, P. S. A detailed comparison of current docking and scoring methods on systems of pharmaceutical relevance. Proteins 2004, 56, 235-249.
18. Kontoyianni, M.; McClellan, L. M.; Sokol, G. S. Evaluation of docking performance: Comparative data on docking algorithms. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 56, 235-249.
19. Kroemer, R. T.; Vulpetti, A.; McDonald, J. J.; Rohrer, D. C.; Trosset, J. Y.; Giordanetto, F.; Cotesta, S.; McMartin, C.; Kihlen, M.; Stouten, P. F. W. Assessment of docking poses: Interactions-based accuracy classification (IBAC) versus crystal structure deviations. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 871-881.
20. Kontoyianni, M.; Sokol, G. S.; McClellan, L. M. Evaluation of library ranking efficacy in virtual screening. J. Comput. Chem. 2005, 26, 11-22.
21. Warren, G. L.; Andrews, C. W.; Capelli, A.-M.; Clarke, B.; LaLonde, J.; Lambert, M. H.; Lindvall, M.; Nevins, N.; Semus, S. F.; Senger, S.; Tedesco, G.; Wall, I. D.; Woolven, J. M.; Peishoff, C. E.; Head, M. S. A critical assessment of docking programs and scoring functions. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 5912-5931.
22. 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.
23. Bissantz, C.; Folkers, G.; Rognan, D. Protein-based virtual screening of chemical databases: 1. Evaluation of different docking/scoring combinations. J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 4759-4767.
24. Stahl, M.; Rarey, M.; Detailed analysis of scoring functions for virtual screening. J. Med. Chem. 2001, 44, 1035-1042.
25. Clark, R. D.; Strizhev, A.; Leonard, J. M.; Blake, J. F.; Matthew, J. B. Consensus scoring for ligand/protein interactions. J. MoI. Graph. Model. 2002, 20, 281-295.
26. Wang, R.; Lu, Y.; Wang, S. Comparative evaluation of 11 scoring functions for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 2287-2303.
27. Jacobsson, M.; Liden, P.; Stjernschantz, E.; Bostrom, H.; Norinder, U. Improvement structure-based virtual screening by multivariate analysis of scoring data. J. Med. Chem. 2003, 46, 5781-5789.
28. Verdonk, M. L.; Berdini, V.; Hartshorn, M. J.; Mooij, W. T. M.; Murray, C. W.; Taylor, T. D.; Watson, P. Virtual screening using protein-ligand docking: Avoiding artificial enrichment. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 793-806.
29. Yang, J. M.; Chen, Y. F.; Shen, T. W.; Kristal, B. S.; Hsu, D. F. Consensus scoring criteria for improving enrichment in virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1134-1146.
30. Ycon, S.; Smellie, A.; Hartsough, D.; Filikov, A. Surrogate docking: structure-based virtual screening at high throughput speed. J. Comput.Aided Mol. Des. 2005, 19, 483-497.
31. Cherkasov, A.; Ban, F.; Li, Y.; Fallahi, M.; Hammond, G. L. Progress Docking: A Hybrid QSAR/Docking Approach for Accelerating In Silico High Throughput Screening. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 7466-7478.
32. Tripos; St. Louis, MO.
33. Huang, N.; Schoichet, K. B.; Irwin, J. J.; Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
34. Breiman, L. Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 2001, 45, 5-32.
35. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2005.
36. Svetnki, V.; Liaw, A.; Tong, C.; Culberson, C.; Sheridan, R. P.; Feuston, B. P. Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2003, 43, 1947-1958.
37. Sheridan, R. P.; Feuston, B. P.; Maiorov, V. N.; Kearsley, S. K. Similarity to Molecules in the Training Set Is a Good Discriminator for Prediction Accuracy in QSAR. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2004, 44, 1912-1928.
38. Svetnik, V.; Wang, T.; Tong, C.; Liaw, A.; Sheridan, R. P.; Song, Q. Boosting: An Ensemble Learning Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 786-799.
39. Plewczynski, D.; Spieser, S. A. H.; Koch, U. Assessing Difference Classification Methods for Virtual Screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 46, 1098-1106.
40. Bruce, C. L.; Melville, J. L.; Pickett, S. D.; Hirst, J. D. Contemporary QSAR Classifiers Compared. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 219-227.
41. Ehrman, T. M.; Barlow, D. J.; Hylands, P. J. Virtual Screening of Chinese Herbs with Random Forest. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 264-278.
42. Palmer, D. S.; O'Boyle, N. M.; Glen, R. C.; Mitchell, J. B. O. Random Forest Models To Predict Aqueous Solubility. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2006, 47, 150-158.
43. Teramoto, R.; Fukunishi, H. Supervised consensus scoring for docking and virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2007, 47, 526-534.