Comparison of chemical similarity measures using different numbers of query structures

Journal of Information Science

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 7-14

  Arif, Shereena M ^a   Holliday, John D ^b   Willett, Peter ^b  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

chemoinformatics; sample size; similarity searching; test collection; virtual screening

Indexed keywords

CHEMOINFORMATICS; SAMPLE SIZES; SIMILARITY SEARCHING; TEST COLLECTION; VIRTUAL SCREENING;

QUERY LANGUAGES;

QUERY PROCESSING;

EID: 84873121740     PISSN: 01655515     EISSN: 17416485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0165551512470042     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cleverdon CW. The Cranfield tests on index language devices. Aslib Proceedings. 1967 ; 19 (6). 173-94
2. Voorhees EM, Harman DK TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ; 2005 :
3. ImageCLEF - experimental evaluation of visual information retrieval. Müller H Clough P Deselaers T Caputo B, ed. Heidelberg: Springer ; 2010 :
4. Sanderson M. Test collection based evaluation of information retrieval systems. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval. 2010 ; 4: 247-375
5. Chemoinformatics: A textbook. Gasteiger J Engel T, ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH ; 2003 :
6. Willett P. From chemical documentation to chemoinformatics: fifty years of chemical information science. Journal of Information Science. 2008 ; 34: 477-499
7. Willett P. Similarity methods in chemoinformatics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2009 ; 43: 3-71
8. Virtual screening in drug discovery. Alvarez J Shoichet B, ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press ; 2005 :
9. Geppert H, Vogt M, Bajorath J. Current trends in ligand-based virtual screening: molecular representations, data mining methods, new application areas, and performance evaluation. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2010 ; 50: 205-16
10. Rippenhausen P, Nisius B, Peltason L, Bajorath J. Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 2010 ; 53: 8461-8467
11. Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Bajorath J. State-of-the-art in ligand-based virtual screening. Drug Discovery Today. 2011 ; 16: 372-376
12. WillettP. Textual and chemical information retrieval: Different applications but similar algorithms. Information Research2000; 5(2), http://InformationR.net/ir/5-2/infres52.html
13. Willett P The Janus faced scholar - A Festschrift in honour of Peter Ingwersen. Larsen B Schneider JW Åström F Schlemmer B, ed. Copenhagen: Royal School of Library and Information Science ; 2010: 107-115.
14. Bender A, Jenkins JL, Scheiber J, Sukuru SCK, Glick M, Davies JW. How similar are similarity searching methods? A principal components analysis of molecular descriptor space. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2009 ; 49: 108-119
15. Duan J, Dixon SL, Lowrie JF, Sherman W. Analysis and comparison of 2D fingerprints: Insights into database screening performance using eight fingerprint methods. Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling. 2010 ; 29: 157-170
16. Sastry M, Lowrie JF, Dixon SL, Sherman W. Large-scale systematic analysis of 2D fingerprint methods and parameters to improve virtual screening enrichments. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2010 ; 50: 771-748
17. Sparck Jones K, Bates RG Report on a design study for the 'ideal' information retrieval test collection. Cambridge: Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge ; 1977 :
18. Robertson SE. On sample sizes for non-matched-pair IR experiments. Information Processing and Management. 1990 ; 26 (6). 739-753
19. Voorhees EM. On test collections for adaptive information retrieval. Information Processing and Management. 2008 ; 44: 1879-1885
20. Hert J, Willett P, Wilton DJ, Acklin P, Azzaoui K, Jacoby E, et al. Comparison of fingerprint-based methods for virtual screening using multiple bioactive reference structures. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences. 2004 ; 44: 1177-1185
21. Gardiner EJ, Gillet VJ, Haranczyk M, Hert J, Holliday JD, Malim N, et al. Turbo similarity searching: Effect of fingerprint and dataset on virtual-screening performance. Statistical Analysis and Data Mining. 2009 ; 2: 103-114
22. Siegel S, Castellan NJ Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences. 2 nd edn.New York: McGraw-Hill, 1988. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 1988 :
23. Yilmaz E, Aslam JA, Robertson SE Proceedings of the 31st annual ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval, 2008. New York: ACM ; 2008: 587-594.
24. Carterette B Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. NewYork: ACM ; 2009: 436-443.
25. Truchon J-F, Bayly CI. Evaluating virtual screening methods: good and bad metrics for the 'early recognition' problem. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2007 ; 47: 488-508 (Pubitemid 46615951)
26. McGaughey GB, Sheridan RP, Bayly CI, Culberson JC, Kreatsoulas C, Lindsley S, et al. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2007 ; 47: 1504-1519 (Pubitemid 47210053)
27. Rohrer SG, Baumann K. Maximum Unbiased Validation (MUV) data sets for virtual screening based on PubChem bioactivity data. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2009 ; 49: 169-184
28. Heikamp K, Bajorath J. Large-scale similarity search profiling of ChEMBL compound data sets. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. 2011 ; 51: 1831-1839