Bioinformatics and cheminformatics: Where do the twain meet?

Current Opinion in Drug Discovery and Development

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 311-319

  Sukumar, N ^a   Krein, M ^a   Breneman, C M ^a  

^a Research Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioinformatics; Biological networks; Cheminformatics; Data fusion; QSAR; similarity assessment

Indexed keywords

BIOINFORMATICS; CHEMINFORMATICS; DNA SEQUENCE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NONHUMAN; PROTEIN DNA INTERACTION; PROTEIN PROTEIN INTERACTION; REVIEW; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

ANIMALS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DATABASES, GENETIC; DRUG DESIGN; HUMANS; MODELS, MOLECULAR; MOLECULAR STRUCTURE; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 42449139640     PISSN: 13676733     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (108)

1. Agrafiotis DK, Bandyopadhyay D, Farnum M: Radial clustergrams: Visualizing the aggregate properties of heirarchical clusters. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(1):69-75.
2. Agrafiotis DK, Shemanarev M, Connolly PJ, Farnum M, Lobanov VS: SAR maps: A new visualization technique for medicinal chemists. J Med Chem (2007) 50(24):5926-5937.
3. Bie TD, Tranchevent L-C, van Oeffelen LMM, Moreau Y: Kernel-based data fusion for gene prioritization. Bioinformatics (2007) 23(13):i125-i132.
4. Chen B, Harrison RF, Papadatos G, Willett P, Wood DJ, Lewell XQ, Greenidge P, Stiefl N: Evaluation of machine-learning methods for ligand-based virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2007) 21(1-3):53-62. • Describes the exploration of similarity, kernel and fusion methods in virtual high-throughput screens.
5. Fujibuchi W, Kato T: Classification of heterogeneous microarray data by maximum entropy kernel. BMC Bioinform (2007) 8:267. • Demonstrates that kernel entropy maximization improved robustness and prediction accuracy on heterogenous microarray data.
6. Rupp M, Proschak E, Schneider G: Kernel approach to molecular similarity based on iterative graph similarity. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(6):2280-2286.
7. Aerts S, Lambrechts D, Maity S, Van Loo P, Coessens B, De Smet F, Tranchevent LC, De Moor B, Marynen P, Hassan B, Carmeliet P et al: Gene prioritization through genomic data fusion. Nat Biotechnol (2006) 24(5):537-544. • Describes how the authors greatly improved their ability to prioritize genes implicated in disease by using data fusion and order statistics.
8. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, Acklin P, Azzaoui K, Jacoby E, Schuffenhauer A: New methods for ligand-based virtual screening: Use of data fusion and machine learning to enhance the effectiveness of similarity searching. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(2):462-470. •• Describes how group fusion (the use of several bioactive reference structures and the assumption that nearest neighbors in similarity space are also active) was shown to improve upon existing molecular similarity searching methods.
9. Huang C, Embrechts MJ, Sukumar N, Breneman CM: Data fusion and auto-fusion for quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR). In: Artificial Neural Networks - ICANN 2007. 17th International Conference, Porto, Portugal, September 9-13, 2007, Proceedings, Part I. Marques de Sá J, Alexandre LA, Duch W, Mandic D (Eds), Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany (2007):628-637.
10. Ginn CMR, Willett P, Bradshaw J: Combination of molecular similarity measures using data fusion. Perspec Drug Disc Des (2000) 20(1):1-16.
11. Jansen R, Yu H, Greenbaum D, Kluger Y, Krogan NJ, Chung S, Emili A, Snyder M, Greenblatt JF, Gerstein M: A Bayesian networks approach for predicting protein-protein interactions from genomic data. Science (2003) 302(5644):449-453.
12. Jansen R, Lan N, Qian J, Gerstein M: Integration of genomic datasets to predict protein complexes in yeast. J Struct Funct Genomics (2002) 2(2):71-81.
13. Hawkins DM, Basak SC, Kraker J, Geiss KT, Witzmann FA: Combining chemodescriptors and biodescriptors in quantitative structure-activity relationship modeling. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(1):9-16. • Demonstrates that the fusion of traditional chemical descriptors with biological descriptors has improved toxicity predictions.
14. Ge H, Walhout AJ, Vidal M: Integrating 'omic' information: A bridge between genomics and systems biology. Trends Genet (2003) 19(10):551-560. • Demonstrates that the fusion of 'omic' data from multiple sources has increased the reliability of correlations found in gene function annotation.
15. Balasubramanian K, Khokhani K, Basak SC: Complex graph matrix representations and characterizations of proteomic maps and chemically induced changes to proteomes. J Proteome Res (2006) 5(5):1133-1142. • Describes how graph theory was used to construct proteomic maps and define an adjacency matrix from 2D (mass and charge) gels.
16. Boguski MS, McIntosh MW: Biomedical informatics for proteomics. Nature (2003) 422(6928):233-237. • Argues that the field of proteomics needs to address biological variability, pre-analytic factors and the lack of analytical reproducibility as a necessity for obtaining predictive models.
17. Lan N, Montelione GT, Gerstein M: Ontologies for proteomics: Towards a systematic definition of structure and function that scales to the genome level. Curr Opin Chem Biol (2003) 7(1): 44-54.
18. Randić M: On graphical and numerical characterization of proteomics maps. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2001) 41(5):1330-1338.
19. Randić M: A graph theoretical characterization of proteomics maps. Int J Quantum Chem (2002) 90(2):848-858.
20. Zhang LV, Wong SL, King OD, Roth FP: Predicting co-complexed protein pairs using genomic and proteomic data integration. BMC Bioinform (2004) 5:38.
21. Fliri AF, Loging WT, Thadeio PF, Volkmann RA: Biospectra analysis: Model proteome characterization for linking molecular structure and biological response. J Med Chem (2005) 48(22):6918-6925. • Describes the classification of molecules through hierarchal clustering and bioassay inhibition profiling.
22. Yildirim MA, Goh K-I, Cusick ME, Barabási A-L, Vidal M: Drug-target network. Nat Biotechnol (2007) 25(10):1119- 1126. • Demonstrates how FDA-approved drugs and their targets were used to construct a bipartite graph of protein-drug interactions, which was then decomposed into two network projections: a drug network and a complementary target protein network. Strong local clustering of drugs and a recent slow trend toward greater promiscuity and more diversified targets was noted.
23. Guimerà R, Nunes Amaral LA: Functional cartography of complex metabolic networks. Nature (2005) 433(7028):895-900. • Describes the construction of a cartographic representation of metabolic networks for 12 organisms, which showed a modular structure with metabolites connecting different modules being more strongly conserved than within-module hubs.
24. Laederach A: Informatics challenges in structured RNA. Briefings Bioinform (2007) 8(5):294-303. • Points of interest include folding dynamics and nucleic acid recognition in RNA interference.
25. Steinbeck C, Hoppe C, Kuhn S, Floris M, Guha R, Willighagen EL: Recent developments of the Chemistry Development Kit (CDK) - An open-source Java library for chemo- and bioinformatics. Curr Pharm Design (2006) 12(17):2111-2120. • Describes new biologically and chemically relevant features of the opensource software toolkit CDK.
26. Ballester PJ, Richards WG: Ultrafast shape recognition for similarity search in molecular databases. Proc R Soc A (2007) 463(2081):1307-1321.
27. Ballester PJ, Richards WG: Ultrafast shape recognition to search compound databases for similar molecular shapes. J Comput Chem (2007) 28(10):1711-1723. • USR is a rapid, alignment-free similarity measure based on molecular shape moments, which demonstrated good performance at shape classification.
28. Grant JA, Haigh JA, Pickup BT, Nicholls A, Sayle RA: Lingos, finite state machines and fast similarity searching. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(5):1912-1918. • Introduces the Lingo method, based on encoding molecular structure into canonical SMILES strings, which were decomposed into a set of overlapping character sub-strings. Molecular similarity assessment is therefore reduced to comparing Lingos.
29. Koch MA, Breinbauer R, Waldmann H: Protein structure-similarity as guiding principle for combinatorial library design. Biol Chem (2003) 384(9):1265-1272.
30. Melville JL, Riley JF, Hirst JD: Similarity by compression. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(1):25-33. •• Demonstrates the use of a novel similarity score: the normalized compression distance as a complementary alternative to Tanimoto similarity.
31. Bender A, Glen RC: Molecular similarity: A key technique in molecular informatics. Org Biomol Chem (2004) 2(22):3204-3218.
32. Bender A, Glen RC: A discussion of measures of enrichment in virtual screening: Comparing the information content of descriptors with increasing levels of sophistication. J Chem Inf Model (2005) 45(5):1369-1375. • Discusses the efficacy and performance of different molecular descriptors in virtual high-throughput screens. Compared with simple molecular descriptors (such as atom and bond counts), 2D fingerprints were found to enrich only by a factor of two, with often no improvement seen in VHTS screening modes.
33. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Li Q, Adams SE, Cannon EO, Glen RC: Molecular similarity: Advances in methods, applications, and validations in virtual screening and QSAR. Ann Rep Comp Chem (2006) 188(2):141-168. • Provides a good introductory review of molecular similarity and QSARs.
34. Bender A, Mussa HY, Glen RC, Reiling S: Molecular similarity searching using atom environments, information-based feature selection, and a naïve Bayesian classifier. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2004) 44(1):170-178.
35. Benigni R, Cotta-Ramusino M, Giorgi F, Gallo G: Molecular similarity matrices and quantitative structure-activity relationships: A case study with methodological implications. J Med Chem (1995) 38(4):629-635.
36. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, 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(22):3256-3266.
37. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, 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(3):1177-1185.
38. Renner S, Schneider G: Scaffold-hopping potential of ligand-based similarity concepts. ChemMedChem (2006) 1(2):181-185.
39. Bredel M, Jacoby E: Chemogenomics: An emerging strategy for rapid target and drug discovery. Nat Rev Genet (2004) 5(4):262-275.
40. Mestres J: Computational chemogenomics approaches to systematic knowledge-based drug discovery. Curr Opin Drug Discovery Dev (2004) 7(3):304-313.
41. Vieth M, Higgs RE, Robertson DH, Shapiro M, Gragg EA, Hemmerle H: Kinomics-structural biology and chemogenomics of kinase inhibitors and targets. Biochim Biophys Acta (2004) 1697 (1-2):243-257.
42. Agrafiotis DK, Bandyopadhyay D, Wegner JK, van Vlijmen H: Recent advances in cheminformatics. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(4):1279-1293. • Presents new developments in molecular mining, structure-activity relationships, chemogenomics and de novo and fragment-based molecular design.
43. Bodenreider O, Stevens R: Bio-ontologies: Current trends and future directions. Briefings Bioinform (2007) 7(3):256-274. • Indicates that the future of bio-ontologies will be in certification, validation and continued cross-linking of ontological definitions through collaboration.
44. Stevens R, Goble CA, Bechhofer S: Ontology-based knowledge representation for bioinformatics. Briefings Bioinform (2000) 1(4):398-414. • Describes ontologies in bioinformatics.
45. Good BM, Wilkinson MD: The life sciences semantic web is full of creeps! Briefings Bioinform (2006) 7(3):275-286. • Focuses on the feature creep of online biological repositories and their future in the semantic web.
46. Zimmermann M, Fluck J, Thi LT, Kolárik C, Kumpf K, Hofmann M: Information extraction in the life sciences: Perspectives for medicinal chemistry, pharmacology and toxicology. Curr Top Med Chem (2005) 5(8):785-796. • Focuses on the future of cheminformatics in medicinal chemistry, including structure-activity relationships, semantic linking of biological activity with chemical structure and multimodal information extraction.
47. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA et al: Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet (2000) 25(1):25-29.
48. Karp PD: An ontology for biological function based on molecular interactions. Bioinformatics (2000) 16(3):269-285.
49. Schuffenhauer A, Zimmermann J, Stoop R, van der Vyver JJ, Lecchini S, Jacoby E: An ontology for pharmaceutical ligands and its application for in silico screening and library design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(4):947-955.
50. Schuffenhauer A, Jacoby E: Annotating and mining the ligandtarget chemogenomics knowledge space. Drug Disc Today (2004) 2(5):190-200.
51. Bonchev D, Buck GA: From molecular to biological structure and back. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(3):909-917. •• Provides an excellent survey of graph theoretical methods in biology and cheminformatics, with a comparative analysis of the topological structures of molecular graphs and biological networks.
52. Jenssen T-K, Laegreid A, Komorowski J, Hovig E: A literature network of human genes for high-throughput analysis of gene expression. Nat Genet (2001) 28(1):21-28. • Seminal article that introduced PubGene, a crosslinked database that used text mining to link gene and protein names to help visualize and thus elucidate connections between genes and proteins, and the underlying meaning of such relationships.
53. The Gene Ontology: Gene Ontology Consortium (2007). www.geneontology.org
54. PubMed: National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD, USA (2007). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed
55. Quackenbush J: Extracting biology from high-dimensional biological data. J Exp Biol (2007) 210(Pt 9):1507-1517. • Describes the incorporation of heterogenous biological information to constrain model topologies, bringing the idea of predictive biology closer.
56. Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC, Cheng D, Shrivastava S, Tzur D, Gautam B, Hassanali M: DrugBank: A knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets. Nucleic Acids Res (2008) 36(Database issue):D901-D906.
57. Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man, OMIM™. McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD and National Center for Biotechnology Information, Bethesda, MD, USA (2008). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/omim
58. Sathyapriya R, Brinda KV, Vishveshwara S: Correlation of side-chain hubs with the functional residues in DNA-binding protein structures. J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(1):123-129.
59. Kim PM, Lu LJ, Xia Y, Gerstein MB: Relating three-dimensional structures to protein networks provides evolutionary insights. Science (2006) 314(5807):1938-1941. • Provides an analysis of hubs in protein-interaction networks, demonstrating the small-world property exhibited by these networks. Multi-interface hubs were shown to evolve more slowly and hypothesized to be more highly integrated into cellular networks than single-interface hubs.
60. Sprinzak E, Altuvia Y, Margalit H: Characterization and prediction of protein-protein interactions within and between complexes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (2006) 103(40):14718-14723. • Describes the analysis of protein interactions in yeast by measuring the sequence, genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic attributes of each interacting pair, and the derivation of a predicted algorithm for identifying intra-complex interactions from other binary interactions.
61. Randić M: The connectivity index 25 years after. J Mol Graph Model (2001) 20(1):19-35.
62. Randić M: Wiener-Hosoya index: A novel graph theoretical molecular descriptor. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2004) 44(2):373-377.
63. Ke R, Sakiyama N, Sawada R, Sonoyama M, Mitaku S: Human genome encodes many proteins with charge periodicity of 28 residues. Jap J App Phys (2007) 46(9A):6083-6086.
64. Doytchinova IA, Walshe V, Borrow P, Flower DR: Towards the chemometric dissection of peptide-HLA-A*0201 binding affinity: Comparison of local and global QSAR models. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2005) 19(3):203-212.
65. Bergeron C, Hepburn T, Sundling M, Sukumar N, Katt WP, Bennett KP, Breneman C: Prediction of peptide bonding affinity: Kernel methods for nonlinear modeling. Protein Peptide Lett (2008): in press.
66. Paolini GV, Shapland RH, van Hoorn WP, Mason JS, Hopkins AL: Global mapping of pharmacological space. Nat Biotechnol (2006) 24(7):805-815. • Describes database integration that provides a glimpse of where the future of readily available public sector technologies may lie. The relationships between molecular properties and target class, industrial trends and attrition, and degrees of druggability are monitored.
67. Oloff S, Zhang S, Sukumar N, Breneman C, Tropsha A: Chemometric analysis of ligand receptor complementarity: Identifying Complementary Ligands Based on Receptor Information (CoLiBRI). J Chem Inf Model (2006) 46(2):844-851.
68. Rush TS III, Grant JA, Mosyak L, Nicholls A: A shape-based 3D scaffold-hopping method and its application to a bacterial protein-protein interaction. J Med Chem (2005) 48(5):1489-1495.
69. Nagarajan K, Zauhar R, Welsh WJ: Enrichment of ligands for the serotonin receptor using the shape signatures approach. J Chem Inf Model (2005) 45(1):49-57.
70. Zauhar R, Moyna G, Tian L, Li Z, Welsh WJ: Shape signatures: A new approach to computer-aided ligand- and receptor-based drug design. J Med Chem (2003) 46(26):5674-5690.
71. Breneman CM, Sundling CM, Sukumar N, Shen L, Katt WP, Embrechts MJ: New developments in PEST shape/property hybrid descriptors. J Comput Aided Mol Des (2003) 17(2-4):231-240.
72. Shentu Z, Al Hasan M, Bystroff C, Zaki MJ: Context shapes: Efficient complementary shape matching for protein-protein docking. Proteins (2008) 70(3):1056-1073. • Addresses the molecular surface encoding problem by introducing Boolean shape descriptors that are context shapes encoding the local shape for partial complementary shape matching. Hierarchical features make the method amenable for use in rapid docking and screening.
73. Lavine BK, Davidson CE, Breneman C, Katt W: Analysis of odor structure relationships using electronic Van der Waals surface property descriptors and genetic algorithms. In: Chemometrics and Chemoinformatics. Lavine BK (Ed), American Chemical Society, Washington, DC, USA (2005):127-143.
74. Mezei M: A novel fingerprint for the characterization of protein folds. Protein Eng (2003) 16(10):713-715.
75. Bulyk ML, Johnson PL, Church GM: Nucleotides of transcription factor binding sites exert interdependent effects on the binding affinities of transcription factors. Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(5):1255- 1261.
76. Benos PV, Bulyk ML, Stormo GD: Additivity in protein-DNA interactions: How good an approximation is it? Nucleic Acids Res (2002) 30(20):4442-4451.
77. Benos PV, Lapedes AS, Stormo GD: Probabilistic code for DNA recognition by proteins of the EGR family. J Mol Biol (2002) 323(4):701-727.
78. Mandel-Gutfreund Y, Margalit H: Quantitative parameters for amino acid-base interaction: Implications for prediction of protein-DNA binding sites. Nucleic Acids Res (1998) 26(10):2306-2312.
79. Zhou Q, Liu JS: Modeling within-motif dependence for transcription factor binding site predictions. Bioinformatics (2004) 20(6):909-916.
80. Kono H, Sarai A: Structure-based prediction of DNA target sites by regulatory proteins. Proteins (1999) 35(1):114-131.
81. Luscombe NM, Laskowski RA, Thornton JM: Amino acid-base interactions: A three-dimensional analysis of protein-DNA interactions at an atomic level. Nucleic Acids Res (2001) 29(13):2860-2874.
82. Suzuki M: A framework for the DNA-protein recognition code of the probe helix in transcription factors: The chemical and stereochemical rules. Structure (1994) 2(4):317-326.
83. Suzuki M, Yagi N: DNA recognition code of transcription factors in the helix-turn-helix, probe helix, hormone receptor and zinc finger families. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1994) 91(26):12357-12361.
84. Steffen NR, Murphy SD, Tolleri L, Hatfield GW, Lathrop RH: DNA sequence and structure: Direct and indirect recognition in protein-DNA binding. Bioinformatics (2002) 18(Suppl 1):S22-S30.
85. Mandel-Gutfreund Y, Schueler O, Margalit H: Comprehensive analysis of hydrogen bonds in regulatory protein DNA-complexes: In search of common principles. J Mol Biol (1995) 253(2):370-382.
86. Choo Y, Klug A: Selection of DNA binding sites for zinc fingers using rationally randomized DNA reveals coded interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA (1994) 91(23):11168-11172.
87. Lustig B, Jernigan RL: Consistencies of individual DNA base-amino acid interactions in structures and sequences. Nucleic Acids Res (1995) 23(22):4707-4711.
88. Morozov AV, Havranek JJ, Baker D, Siggia ED: Protein-DNA binding specificity predictions with structural models. Nucleic Acids Res (2005) 33(18):5781-5798. • Describes the modeling of the indirect readout of DNA sequences by bound proteins using a simple energy function.
89. Pabo C, Nekludova L: Geometric analysis and comparison of protein-DNA interfaces: Why is there no simple code for recognition? J Mol Biol (2000) 301(3):597-624.
90. Aida M: An ab initio molecular orbital study on the sequence-dependency of DNA conformation: An evaluation of intra- and inter-strand stacking interaction energy. J Theor Biol (1998) 130(3):327-335.
91. Pichierri F, Aida M, Gromiha MM, Sarai A: Free-energy maps of base-amino acid interactions for DNA-protein recognition. J Am Chem Soc (1999) 121(26):6152-6157.
92. Liu R, Blackwell TW, States DJ: Conformational model for binding site recognition by the E coli MetJ transcription factor. Bioinformatics (2001) 17(7):622-633.
93. Ashworth J, Havranek JJ, Duarte CM, Sussman D, Monnat RJ Jr, Stoddard BL, Baker D: Computational redesign of endonuclease DNA binding and cleavage specificity. Nature (2006) 441(7093):656-659. • Demonstrates the remarkable increase in activity of an enzyme and recognition site through computational redesign using a physically realistic atomic-level force field.
94. Sukumar N, Lawrence CE, Breneman CM, Bennett KP, Vitol I: Fuzzy bar code representations of DNA-protein interactions. Division of Computers in Chemistry, 226th American Chemical Society National Meeting, New York, NY, USA (2003):COMP 19.
95. Sukumar N, Lawrence CE, Breneman CM, Bennett KP, Vitol I: Dixel modeling of gene expression. Division of Chemical Information, 227th American Chemical Society National Meeting, Anaheim, CA, USA (2004):CINF 1.
96. Whitehead CE, Breneman CM, Sukumar N, Ryan MD: Transferable atom equivalent multi-centered multipole expansion method. J Comput Chem (2003) 24(4):512-529.
97. Song M, Breneman CM, Bi J, Sukumar N, Bennett KP, Cramer S, Tugcu N: Prediction of protein retention times in anion-exchange chromatography systems using support vector regression. J Chem Inf Comput Sci (2002) 42(6):1347-1357.
98. Sukumar N, Breneman CM: QTAIM in drug discovery and protein modeling. In: The Quantum Theory of Atoms in Molecules: From Solid State to DNA and Drug Design. Matta CF, Boyd RJ (Eds), Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co KGaA, Weinheim, Germany (2007):471-498.
99. Dixel: Sukumar N, Martin JG, Breneman CM, Rensselar Exploratory Center for Cheminformatics Research, Troy, NY, USA (2006). reccr. chem.rpi.edu/Software/Dixel/dixel-index.html
100. Barbano PE, Spivak M, Flajolet M, Nairn AC, Greengard P, Greengard L: A mathematical tool for exploring the dynamics of biological networks. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA (2007) 104(49):19169-19174. • Probes critical points of function in biological networks by using kinetic model parameters as input, and Laplacian eigenvalues for data reduction.
101. Jennings A, Tennant M: Selection of molecules based on shape and electrostatic similarity: Proof of concept of 'electroforms'. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(5):1829-1838.
102. Batista J, Bajorath J: Chemical database mining through entropy-based molecular similarity assessment of randomly generated structural fragment populations. J Chem Inf Model (2007) 47(1):59-68. • Describes a class-independent fragmentation scheme, based on the generation of random molecular fragment populations. This was devised and employed with an information entropy-based molecular similarity metric to search for and identify active molecules. Performance was comparable to similarity searching with 2D fingerprints and multiple active reference structures were reported.
103. Nikolova N, Jaworska J: Approaches to measure chemical similarity - A review. QSAR Comb Sci (2003) 22(9/10):1006-1026. • Provides an extensive review of molecular similarity measures in the context of QSAR.
104. Haber L, Maier A, Dourson M: Using best science in cancer risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess (2006) 12(1):1-8.
105. Haber LT, Maier A, Zhao Q, Dollarhide JS, Savage RE, Dourson ML: Applications of mechanistic data in risk assessment: The past, present, and future. Toxicol Sci (2001) 61(1):32-39.
106. Maier A, Schumann BL, Chang X, Talaska G, Puga A: Arsenic co-exposure potentiates benzo[a]pyrene genotoxicity. Mutat Res (2002) 517(1-2):101-111.
107. Roussel S, Bellon-Maurel V, Roger JM, Grenier P: Fusion of aroma, FT-IR and UV sensor data based on the Bayesian inference: Application to the discrimination of white grape varieties. Chemometr Intell Lab Syst (2003) 65(2):209-219.
108. Breneman CM, Sukumar N, Embrechts MJ, Bennett KP, Sundling CM, Krein M, Hepburn T: Realizing prospective QSAR through data fusion and modern descriptors. Division of Computers in Chemistry, 234th American Chemical Society National Meeting, Boston, MA, USA (2007):COMP 174.