Target fishing for chemical compounds using target-ligand activity data and ranking based methods

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2009, Pages 2190-2201

  Wale, Nikil ^a,b   Karypis, George ^a  

^a University of Minnesota   (United States)

^b PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL ENGINEERING; CHEMISTRY;

ACTIVE AREA; COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUE; DRUG DISCOVERY; EVALUATION CRITERIA; PERCEPTRON ALGORITHMS;

FISHERIES;

LIGAND;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYES THEOREM; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ANIMALS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BAYES THEOREM; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LIGANDS; MODELS, THEORETICAL;

EID: 70350512851     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci9000376     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Eglen, R. M.; Schneider, G.; Bohm, H. J. High Throughput Screening and Virtual Screening: Entry Points to Drug Discovery. In Virtual Screening for Bioactive Molecules; Bohm, H. J., Schneider, G., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000; Vol.10, pp 1-14.
2. (2) Terstappen, G. C.; Schiopen, C.; Raggiaschi, R.; Gaviraghi, G. Target deconvolution strategies in drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Drug Discovery 2007, 6, 891-903. (Pubitemid 350042397)
3. (3) Sams-Dodd, F. Target-based drug discovery: is something wrong. Drue Discovery Today 2005, 10, 139-147. (Pubitemid 40247812)
4. Jenkins, J. L.; Bender, A.; Davies, J. W. In silico target fishing: Predicting biological targets from chemical structure. Drug Discovery Today: Technol, 2006, 3, 413-421.
5. Azzaoui, K.; Hamon, J.; Faller, B.; Whitebread, S.; Jacoby, E.; Bender, A.; Jenkins, J. L; Urban, L. Modeling promiscuity based on in vitro safety pharmacology profiling data. ChemMedChem 2007, 2, 874-880.
6. (6) Chen, Y. Z.; Ung, C. Y. Prediction of potential toxicity and side effect protein targets of a small molecule by a ligand-protein inverse docking approach. J.Mol. Graphics Modell. 2001, 20, 199-218. (Pubitemid 33149732)
7. (7) Eggert, U. S.; Mitchison, T. J. Small molecule screening by imaging. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2006, 10, 232-237. (Pubitemid 43815784)
8. Hart, C. P. Finding the target after screening the phenotype. Drug Discovery Today 2005, 10, 513-519.
9. Vapnik, V. Support Vector Methods for Estimating Indicator Function. In Statistical learning theory; John Wiley: New York, U.S.A. 1998.
10. Crammer, K.; Singer, Y. A new family of online algorithms for category ranking. J. Machine Learning Res. 2003, 3, 1025-1058.
11. (11) Chen, Y. Z.; Zhi, D. G. Ligand-protein inverse docking and its potential use in the computer search of protein targets of a small molecule. Pjpteins 2001, 43, 217-226. (Pubitemid 32242515)
12. Nettles, J. H.; Jenkins, J. L.; Bender, A.; Deng, Z.; Davies, J. W.; Glide, M.. Bridging chemical and biological space: "target fishing" using 2d and 3d molecular descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6802-6810.
13. Nidhi; Glick, M.; Davies, J. W.; Jenkins, J. L. Prediction of biological targets for compounds using multiple-category bayesian models trained on chemogenomics databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model 2006, 46, L .11241133.
14. Niwa, T. Prediction of biological targets using probabilistic neural networks and atom-type descriptors. J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 2645-2650.
15. Kawai, K.; Fujishima, S.; Takahashi, Y. Predictive activity profiling of drugs by topological-fragment-spectra-based support vector machines, J. chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1152-1160.
16. RCSB Protein Data Bank, http://www.pdb.org/ (accessed January 28, 2008).
17. Hansch, C.; Fujitai, T.; Maolney, P. P.; Muir, R. M. Correlation of biological activity of phenoxyacetic acids with hammett substituent constants and partition coefficients. Nature 1962, 194, 178-180.
18. Bravi, G.; Gancia, E.; Green, D.; Hann, V. S.; Mike M. Modelling structure-activity relationship. In Virtual Screening for Bioactive Molecules; Bohm, H. J., Schneider, G., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000; Vol.10, pp 81-113.
19. Godbole, S.; Sarawagi, S. Discriminative methods for multi-labeled classification. PAKDD, Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Asia Conference in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sydney, May 2004, pp 22-30.
20. (20) Ie, E.; Weston, J.; Noble, W. S.; Leslie, C. Multi-class protein fold recognition using adaptive codes. ICML, Proceedings of the 22st Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, Bonn, Germany, August 2005, pp 329-336. (Pubitemid 43183350)
21. Barnard, J. M.; Downs, G. M.; Willett, P. Descriptor-Based Similarity Measures for Screening Chemical Databases. In Virtual Screening for Bioactive Molecules: Bohm, H. J., Schneider, G., Eds.; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany, 2000; Vol 10, pp 59-79.
22. Piatt, J. C. Fast training of Support Vector Machines Using Sequential Minimal Optimization. In Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning; Scholkopf, B., Burges, C., Smola, A., Eds.; MIT-Press: Boston, U.S.A., 1998; pp 185-208.
23. (23) Jones, D. T. Protein secondary structure prediction based on positionspecific scoring matricies. J. Mol. Biol. 1999, 292, 195-202. (Pubitemid 29435759)
24. Karypis, G. Yasspp: Better kernels and coding schemes lead to improvements in svm-based secondary structure prediction. Proteins: Struct., Funct. Bioinf. 2006, 64, 575-586.
25. Lanckriet, G. R. G.; Cristianini, N.; Bartlett, P.; Ghaoui, L. E.; Jordan, M. I. Learning the kernel matrix with, semi-definite programming. ICML, Proceedings of the 19th. Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia, July 2002, pp 323-330.
26. Basilico, J.; Hofmann, T. Unifying collaborative and content-based filtering. ICML, Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, Banff, Alberta, Canada, July 2004, pp 9-17.
27. Rosenblatt, F. The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychol. Rev. 1958, 65, 386407.
28. (28) Rangwala, H.; Karypis, G. Building muiticlass classifiers for remote homology detection and fold recognition. BMC Bioinf. 2006, 7, 455471. (Pubitemid 44734061)
29. The PubChem. Project, http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (accessed November 15, 2007).
30. Daylight Toolkit, version 4.73; Daylight Chemical Information System: Aliso Viejo, CA, 2007.
31. Liu, T.; Lin, Y.; Wen, X.; Jorrisen, R.; Gilson, M. K. Bindingdb: a webaccessible database of experimentally determined protein-ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res (Database Issue) 2007, 35, D198-201.
32. Wishart, D. S.; Knox, C.; Guo, A. C.; Shrivastava, S.; Hassanali, M.; Stothard, P.; Chang, Z.; Woolsey, J. DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. Nucleic Acids R&. 2006, 34, 668-672.
33. (33) Roth, B. L.; Kroeze, W. K.; Patel, S.; Lopez, E. The multiplicity of serotonin receptors: Uselessly diverse molecules or an embarrasment of riches. The Neuroscientist 2000, 6, 252-262. (Pubitemid 30619585)
34. BRITE Database, http://www.genome.jp/kegg/brite.html (accessed Aug 20, 2007).
35. Olah, M.; Mracec, M.; Ostopovici, L.; Rad, R.; Bora, A.; Hadaruga, N.; Olah, L; Banda, M..; Simon, Z.; Mracec, M..; Oprea, T. Wombat: World of molecular bioactivity. In Chemoinformatics in Drug Discovery; Oprea, T. L, Ed.; Wiley-VCH: New York, 2004; pp 223-239.
36. Integrated Scientific Information System, version 3.1; MDL Information Systems: San Ramon, CA, 2007.
37. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. Comparison of topological descriptors for similaritybased virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2004, 2, 3256-3266.
38. (38) Rogers, D.; Brown, R.; Hahn, M. Using extended-connectivity fingerprints with, laplacian-modified bayesian analysis in highthroughput screening. J.Biomol. Screen. 2005, 10, 682-686. (Pubitemid 41476802)
39. Wale, N.; Watson, I. A.; Karypis, G. Comparison of descriptor spaces for chemical compound retrieval and classification. J.Knowledge Inf. Syst. 2008, 14, 347-375.
40. Willett, P. Chemical similarity searching, J. chem. Inf. Comput. Sci 1998, 38, 983-996.
41. (41) Wale, N.; Watson, I. A.; Karypis, G. Indirect similarity based methods for effective scaffold-hopping in chemical compounds, J.Chem. Inf. Madel, 2008, 48, 730-741. (Pubitemid 351757740)
42. Pipeline Pilot, version 6.1; Accelrys Inc.: San. Diego, CA, 2008.
43. Whittle, M.; Gillet, V. J.; Willett, P. Enhancing the effectiveness of virtual screening by fusing nearest neighbor list: A comparison of similarity coefficients, J.Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1840-1848.
44. Saeh, J. C.; Lyne, P. D.; Takasaki, B. K.; Cosgrove, D. A. Lead Hopping Using SVM and 3D Pharmacophore Fingerprints, J. Chem. Inf Model. 2005, 45, 1122-1133.
45. Cluto: Clustering Toolkit, version 2.1.2. http://glaros.dtc.umn.edu/ gkhome/views/cluto (accessed April 25, 2009).
46. Hearst, M.; Pedersen, J. Reexamining the cluster hypothesis: Scatter/ gather on retrieval results. In ACM SIGIR; Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference, Zurich, June 1996, pp 76-84.
47. Baeza-Yates, R.; Ribeiro-Neto, B. Modeling. In Modern Information Retrieval, 1st ed.; Addison Wesley: New York, U.S.A., 1999.
48. Bland, J. M. Significance tests. In An introduction to medical statistics, 3rd ed.; Oxford University Press: New York, U.S.A., 2000.
49. Joachims, T. Making large-scale svm learning practical. In Advances in Kernel Methods: Support Vector Learning; Scholkopf, B., Burges, C., Smola, A., Eds.; MIT-Press: Boston, U.S.A., 1998; pp 169-184.
50. Glick, M.; Jenkins, J. L.; Nettles, J. H.; Hitchings, H.; Davies, J. W. Enrichment of High-Throughput Screening Data with Increasing Levels of Noise Using Support Vector Machines, Recursive Partitioning, and Laplacian-Modified Naive BAYESIAN Classifiers. J. Chem. Inf. Madel. 2006, 46, 193-200.
51. (51) Geppert, H.; Horvath, T.; Gartner, T.; Wrobel, S.; Bajorath, J. Supportvector-machine-based ranking significantly improves the effectiveness of similarity searching using 2D fingerprints and multiple reference compounds, Chem. Inf. Model, 2008, 48, 742-746. (Pubitemid 351757741)
52. Wassermann, A. M.; Geppert, H.; Bajorath, J. Searching for targetselective compounds using different combinations of multiclass support vector machine ranking methods, kernel functions, and fingerprint descriptors, J. Chem. Inf. Model, 2009, 49, 582-592.
53. Park, K.; Kim, D. Binding network similarity of ligand. Proteins 2008, 71, 960-971.
54. (54) Yamanishi, Y.; Araki, M.; Gutteridge, A.; Honda, W.; Kanehisa, M. Prediction of drug-target interaction networks from integration of chemical and genomics spaces. Bioinformatics 2008, 24, 232-240. (Pubitemid 351911678)
55. Tsochantaridis, L.; Hofmann, T.; Joachims, T.; Altun, Y. Support vector machine learning for interdependent and structured output spaces. ICML, Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on. Machine Learning, Banff, Alberta, Canada, July 2004, pp 9-17.