FmcsR: Mismatch tolerant maximum common substructure searching in R

Bioinformatics

Volumn 29, Issue 21, 2013, Pages 2792-2794

  Wang, Yan ^a   Backman, Tyler W H ^a   Horan, Kevin ^a   Girke, Thomas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; BIOLOGY; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONFORMATION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; PROCEDURES; ARTICLE; METHODOLOGY;

ALGORITHMS; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DISCOVERY; MOLECULAR CONFORMATION; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84886072441     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt475     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Backman, T.W. et al. (2011) ChemMine tools: an online service for analyzing and clustering small molecules. Nucleic Acids Res., 39, 486-491.
2. Cao, Y. et al. (2008a) A maximum common substructure-based algorithm for searching and predicting drug-like compounds. Bioinformatics, 24, 366-374.
3. Cao, Y. et al. (2008b) ChemmineR: a compound mining framework for R. Bioinformatics, 24, 1733-1734.
4. Chen, X. and Reynolds, C.H. (2002) Performance of similarity measures in 2D fragment-based similarity searching: comparison of structural descriptors and similarity coefficients. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci., 42, 1407-1414. (Pubitemid 35468329)
5. Conte, D. et al. (2004) Thirty years of graph matching in pattern recognition. Int. J. Pattern Recognit. Artif. Intell., 18, 265-298.
6. Good, A.C. and Oprea, T.I. (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.
7. Hariharan, R. et al. (2011) MultiMCS: a fast algorithm for the maximum common substructure problem on multiple molecules. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 51, 788-806.
8. Hattori, M. et al. (2003) Heuristics for chemical compound matching. Genome Inform., 14, 144-153.
9. Huang, N. et al. (2006) Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem., 49, 6789-6801. (Pubitemid 44749746)
10. Jahn, A. et al. (2009) Optimal assignment methods for ligand-based virtual screening. J. Cheminform., 1, 14.
11. Liu, X. et al. (2011) SHAFTS: a hybrid approach for 3D molecular similarity calculation. 1. Method and assessment of virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model., 51, 2372-2385.
12. O'Boyle, N.M. et al. (2008) Pybel: a Python wrapper for the OpenBabel cheminformatics toolkit. Chem. Cent. J., 2, 5.
13. Rahman, S.A. et al. (2009) Small Molecule Subgraph Detector (SMSD) toolkitl. J. Cheminform., 1, 12.
14. Raymond, J.W. and Willett, P. (2002) Maximum common subgraph isomorphism algorithms for the matching of chemical structures. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des., 16, 521-533. (Pubitemid 36013605)
15. Wale, N. et al. (2010) Trends in chemical graph data mining. In: Aggarwal, C.C. and Wang, H. (eds) Managing and Mining Graph Data. Springer, New York, pp. 581-606.
16. Wang, X. et al. (2009) G-hash: towards fast kernel-based similarity search in large graph databases. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Extending Database Technology: Advances in Database Technology. ACM, Saint-Petersburg, Russia, pp. 472-480.