Enhancing the rate of scaffold discovery with diversity-oriented prioritization

Bioinformatics

Volumn 27, Issue 16, 2011, Pages 2271-2278

  Swamidass, S Joshua ^a,b   Calhoun, Bradley T ^a   Bittker, Joshua A ^b   Bodycombe, Nicole E ^b   Clemons, Paul A ^b  

^a WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b BROAD INSTITUTE OF MIT AND HARVARD   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; HIGH THROUGHPUT SCREENING; VALIDATION STUDY;

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; HIGH-THROUGHPUT SCREENING ASSAYS;

EID: 79961199012     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr369     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Baldi, P. and Brunak, S. (2001) Bioinformatics: The Machine Learning Approach. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
2. Bemis, G.W. and Murcko, M.A. (1996) The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem., 39, 2887-2893.
3. Benz, R. et al. (2008) Discovery of power-laws in chemical space. J. Chem. Iinform. Model., 48, 1138.
4. Butina, D. (1999) Unsupervised data base clustering based on daylight's fingerprint and Tanimoto similarity: a fast and automated way to cluster small and large data sets. J. Chem. Inform. Comput. Sci., 39, 747-750.
5. Clark, A. and Labute, P. (2008) Detection and assignment of common scaffolds in project databases of lead molecules. J. Med. Chem., 52, 469-483.
6. Clark, R. and Webster-Clark, D. (2008) Managing bias in ROC curves. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 22, 141-146.
7. Downs, G. et al. (1994) Similarity searching and clustering of chemical-structure databases using molecular property data. J. Chem. Inform. Comput. Sci., 34, 1094-1102.
8. Dreiseitl, S. and Ohno-Machado, L. (2002) Logistic regression and artificial neural network classification models: a methodology review. J. Biomed. Inform., 35, 352-359.
9. Eastwood, B. et al. (2006) The minimum significant ratio: a statistical parameter to characterize the reproducibility of potency estimates from concentrationresponse assays and estimation by replicate-experiment studies. J. Biomol. Screen., 11, 253.
10. Glick, M. et al. (2004) Enrichment of extremely noisy high-throughput screening data using a naive Bayes classifier. J. Biomol. Screen., 9, 32.
11. Glick, M. et al. (2006) Enrichment of high-throughput screening data with increasing levels of noise using support vector machines, recursive partitioning, and Laplacianmodified naive Bayesian classifiers. J. Chem. Inform. Model., 46, 193-200.
12. Good, A. and Oprea, T. (2008) Optimization of CAMD techniques 3. Virtual screening enrichment studies: a help or hindrance in tool selection? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 22, 169-178.
13. Inglese, J. et al. (2006) Quantitative high-throughput screening: a titration-based approach that efficiently identifies biological activities in large chemical libraries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 103, 11473.
14. Karnachi, P. and Brown, F. (2004) Practical approaches to efficient screening: information-rich screening protocol. J. Biomol. Screen., 9, 678.
15. Lajiness, M. et al. (2004) Assessment of the consistency of medicinal chemists in reviewing sets of compounds. J. Med. Chem., 47, 4891-4896.
16. Levy, H. and Markowitz, H. (1979) Approximating expected utility by a function of mean and variance. Am. Econ. Rev., 69, 308-317.
17. Makarenkov, V. et al. (2007) An efficient method for the detection and elimination of systematic error in high-throughput screening. Bioinformatics, 23, 1648.
18. Nicholls, A. (2008) What do we know and when do we know it? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 22, 239-255.
19. Posner, B.A. et al. (2009) Enhanced HTS hit selection via a local hit rate analysis. J. Chem. Inform. Model., 49, 2202-2210.
20. Rocke, D. (2004) Design and analysis of experiments with high throughput biological assay data. Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biol., 15, 703-713.
21. Schoemaker, P. (1982) The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J. Econ. Lit., pp. 529-563.
22. Schuffenhauer, A. et al. (2007) The scaffold tree-visualization of the scaffold universe by hierarchical scaffold classification. J. Chem. Inform. Model., 47, 47-58.
23. Seiler, K. et al. (2008). ChemBank: a small-molecule screening and cheminformatics resource database. Nucleic Acids Res., 36, D351.
24. Shemetulskis, N. et al. (1995) Enhancing the diversity of a corporate database using chemical database clustering and analysis. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 9, 407-416.
25. Storey, J. et al. (2007) The optimal discovery procedure for large-scale significance testing, with applications to comparative microarray experiments. Biostatistics, 8, 414.
26. Swamidass, S.J. et al. (2010) An economic framework to prioritize confirmatory tests after a high-throughput screen. J. Biomol. Screen., 15, 680-686.
27. Varin, T. et al. (2010) Compound set enrichment: a novel approach to analysis of primary HTS data. J. Chem. Inform. Model., 50, 277-279.
28. Willett, P. (2006) Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints. Drug Discov. Today, 11, 1046-1053.
29. Yan, S. et al. (2005) Novel statistical approach for primary high-throughput screening hit selection. J. Chem. Inform. Model., 45, 1784-1790.
30. Zhang, J.H. et al. (2005) Probing the primary screening efficiency by multiple replicate testing: a quantitative analysis of hit confirmation and false screening results of a biochemical assay. J. Biomol. Screen., 10, 695-704.