Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics

Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science

Volumn 4, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 468-481

  Mitchell B O , John ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECISION TREES; LEARNING ALGORITHMS; NEURAL NETWORKS;

BAYES CLASSIFIER; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMOINFORMATICS; K-NEAREST NEIGHBORS; MACHINE LEARNING METHODS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS; RANDOM FORESTS; TECHNICAL LITERATURE;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84904993806     PISSN: 17590876     EISSN: 17590884     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/wcms.1183     Document Type: Review

References (111)

1. Hammett LP. Reaction rates and indicator acidities. Chem Rev 1935, 16:67-79.
2. Hansch C, Fujita T. p-σ-π Analysis. A method for the correlation of biological activity and chemical structure. J Am Chem Soc 1964, 86:1616-1626.
3. Borman S. New QSAR techniques eyed for environmental assessments. Chem Eng News 1990, 19:20-23.
4. Kowalski BR. Pattern recognition in chemical research. In: Klopfenstein CE, Wilkins CL, eds. Computers in Chemical and Biochemical Research, vol. 2. Academic Press: New York; 1974, 1-76.
5. Lusci A, Pollastri G, Baldi P. Deep architectures and deep learning in chemoinformatics: the prediction of aqueous solubility for drug-like molecules. J Chem Inf Model 2013, 53:1563-1575.
6. Leach AR, Gillet VJ. An Introduction to Chemoinformatics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2007.
7. Gasteiger J, Rudolph C, Sadowski J. Automatic generation of 3D-atomic coordinates for organic molecules. Tetrahedron Comput Methodol 1990, 3:537-547.
8. Sadowski J, Gasteiger J, Klebe G. Comparison of automatic three-dimensional model builders using 639 X-ray structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 1994, 34:1000-1008.
9. Sheridan RP, Kearsley SK. Why do we need so many chemical similarity search methods? Drug Discov Today 2002, 7:903-911.
10. Venkatraman V, Perez-Nueno VI, Mavridis L, Ritchie DW. Comprehensive comparison of ligand-based virtual screening tools against the DUD data set reveals limitations of current 3D methods. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:2079-2093.
11. Smialowski P, Frishman D, Kramer S. Pitfalls of supervised feature selection. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:440-443.
12. Zheng W, Tropsha A. Novel variable selection quantitative structure-property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle. J Chem Inf Model 2000, 40:185-194.
13. O'Boyle NM, Palmer DS, Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO. Simultaneous feature selection and parameter optimisation using an artificial ant colony: case study of melting point prediction. Chem Cent J 2008, 2:21.
14. Ringner M. What is principal component analysis? Nat Biotech 2008, 26:303-304.
15. Maggiora GM. On outliers and activity cliffs-why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1535.
16. Ran Y, Yalkowsky SH. Prediction of drug solubility by the general solubility equation (GSE). J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2001, 41:354-357.
17. Palmer DS, Llinas A, Morao I, Day GM, Goodman JM, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Predicting intrinsic aqueous solubility by a thermodynamic cycle. Mol Pharm 2008, 5:266-279.
18. Hewitt M, Cronin MTD, Enoch SJ, Madden JC, Roberts DW, Dearden JC. In silico prediction of aqueous solubility: the solubility challenge. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2572-2587.
19. Charlton MH, Docherty R, Hutchings MG. Quantitative structure-sublimation enthalpy relationship studied by neural networks, theoretical crystal packing calculations and nonlinear regression analysis. J Chem Soc Perkin Trans 1995, 2:2023-2030.
20. Ouvrard C, Mitchell JBO. Can we predict lattice energy from molecular structure? Acta Cryst B 2003, 59:676-685.
21. Salahinejad M, Le TC, Winkler DA. Capturing the crystal: prediction of enthalpy of sublimation, crystal lattice energy, and melting points of organic compounds. J Chem Inf Model 2013, 53:223-229.
22. Connors BW, Long MA. Electrical synapses in the mammalian brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 2004, 27:393-418.
23. Li H, Ung C, Yap C, Xue Y, Li Z, Chen Y. Prediction of estrogen receptor agonists and characterization of associated molecular descriptors by statistical learning methods. J Mol Graph Model 2006, 25:313-323.
24. So SS, Karplus M. Three-dimensional quantitative structure-activity relationships from molecular similarity matrices and genetic neural networks. 1. Method and validations. J Med Chem 1997, 40:4347-4359.
25. Briem H, Günther J. Classifying "kinase inhibitor-likeness" by using machine-learning methods. ChemBioChem Eur J Chem Biol 2005, 6:558-566.
26. Thai KMM, Ecker GF. Classification models for hERG inhibitors by counter-propagation neural networks. Chem Biol Drug Des 2008, 72:279-289.
27. Basak SC, Grunwald GD, Gute BD, Balasubramanian K, Opitz D. Use of statistical and neural net approaches in predicting toxicity of chemicals. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2000, 40:885-890.
28. Yap CW, Li ZR, Chen YZ. Quantitative structure-pharmacokinetic relationships for drug clearance by using statistical learning methods. J Mol Graph Model 2006, 24:383-395.
29. Harding AP, Wedge DC, Popelier PLA. pKa Prediction from quantum chemical topology descriptors. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1914-1924.
30. Bhat AU, Merchant SS, Bhagwat SS. Prediction of melting points of organic compounds using extreme learning machines. Ind Eng Chem Res 2008, 47:920-925.
31. Godavarthy SS, Robinson RL, Gasem KAM. An improved structure-property model for predicting melting-point temperatures. Ind Eng Chem Res 2006, 45:5117-5126.
32. Erić S, Kalinić M, Popović A, Zloh M, Kuzmanovski I. Prediction of aqueous solubility of drug-like molecules using a novel algorithm for automatic adjustment of relative importance of descriptors implemented in counter-propagation artificial neural networks. Int J Pharm 2012, 437:232-241.
33. Louis B, Agrawal VK, Khadikar PV. Prediction of intrinsic solubility of generic drugs using MLR, ANN and SVM analyses. Eur J Med Chem 2010, 45:4018-4025.
34. Hinton GE, Srivastava N, Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Salakhutdinov RR. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. 2012. Available at: http://arxiv.org/abs/1207.0580.
35. Surowiecki J. The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations. New York: Doubleday; 2004.
36. Galton F. Vox populi. Nature 1907, 75:450-451.
37. Charifson PS, Corkery JJ, Murcko MA, Walters WP. Consensus scoring: a method for obtaining improved hit rates from docking databases of three-dimensional structures into proteins. J Med Chem 1999, 42:5100-5109.
38. Breiman L. Random Forests. Mach Learn 2001, 45:5-32.
39. Svetnik V, Liaw A, Tong C, Culberson JC, Sheridan RP, Feuston BP. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2003, 43:1947-1958.
40. Raileanu LE, Stoffel K. Theoretical comparison between the Gini Index and Information Gain criteria. Ann Math Artif Intell 2004, 41:77-93.
41. Cannon EO, Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO. A novel hybrid ultrafast shape descriptor method for use in virtual screening. Chem Cent J 2008, 2:3.
42. Cannon EO, Bender A, Palmer DS, Mitchell JBO. Chemoinformatics-based classification of prohibited substances employed for doping in sport. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2369-2380.
43. Kuz'min VE, Polishchuk PG, Artemenko AG, Andronati SA. Interpretation of QSAR models based on random forest methods. Mol Inf 2011, 30:593-603.
44. Bruce CL, Melville JL, Pickett SD, Hirst JD. Contemporary QSAR classifiers compared. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:219-227.
45. Fukunishi H, Teramoto R, Shimada J. Hidden active information in a random compound library: extraction using a pseudo-structure-activity relationship model. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:575-582.
46. McCarren P, Springer C, Whitehead L. An investigation into pharmaceutically relevant mutagenicity data and the influence on Ames predictive potential. J. Cheminformatics 2011, 3:51.
47. Lowe R, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Predicting phospholipidosis using machine learning. Mol Pharm 2010, 7:1708-1718.
48. Marchese Robinson RL, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Development and comparison of hERG Blocker classifiers: assessment on different datasets yields markedly different results. Mol Inf 2011, 30:443-458.
49. Li S, Fedorowicz A, Singh H, Soderholm SC. Application of the random forest method in studies of local lymph node assay based skin sensitization data. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 45:952-964.
50. Johnston A, Johnston BF, Kennedy AR, Florence AJ. Targeted crystallisation of novel carbamazepine solvates based on a retrospective random forest classification. CrystEngComm 2008, 10:23-25.
51. Palmer DS, O'Boyle NM, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Random forest models to predict aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:150-158.
52. Hughes LD, Palmer DS, Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO. Why are some properties more difficult to predict than others? A study of QSPR models of solubility, melting point, and log P. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:220-232.
53. Ballester PJ, Mitchell JBO. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics 2010, 26:1169-1175.
54. Springer C, Adalsteinsson H, Young MM, Kegelmeyer PW, Roe DC. PostDOCK: a structural, empirical approach to scoring protein ligand complexes. J Med Chem 2005, 48:6821-6831.
55. Sato T, Honma T, Yokoyama S. Combining machine learning and pharmacophore-based interaction fingerprint for in silico screening. J Chem Inf Model 2010, 50:170-185.
56. RF: a random forest-based scoring function for improved affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model 2013, 53:1923-1933.
57. Noble WS. What is a support vector machine? Nat Biotech 2006, 24:1565-1567.
58. Joachims T, Finley T, Yu CN. Cutting-plane training of structural SVMs. Mach Learn 2009, 77:27-59.
59. Hsu CW, Lin CJ. A comparison of methods for multiclass support vector machines. IEEE Trans Neural Netw 2002, 13:415-425.
60. Napolitano F, Zhao Y, Moreira V, Tagliaferri R, Kere J, D'Amato M, Greco D. Drug repositioning: a machine-learning approach through data integration. J Cheminf 2013, 5:30.
61. Kinnings SL, Liu N, Tonge PJ, Jackson RM, Xie L, Bourne PE. A machine learning-based method to improve docking scoring functions and its application to drug repurposing. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:408-419.
62. Dong N, Lu WC, Chen NY, Zhu YC, Chen KX. Using support vector classification for SAR of fentanyl derivatives. Acta Pharmacol Sin 2005, 26:107-112.
63. Li Q, Jørgensen FS, Oprea T, Brunak S, Taboureau O. hERG classification model based on a combination of support vector machine method and GRIND descriptors. Mol Pharm 2008, 5:117-127.
64. Doddareddy MR, Klaasse EC, Shagufta, IJzerman AP, Bender A. Prospective validation of a comprehensive in silico hERG model and its applications to commercial compound and drug databases. ChemMedChem 2010, 5:716-729.
65. Liao Q, Yao J, Yuan S. Prediction of mutagenic toxicity by combination of recursive partitioning and support vector machines. Mol Divers 2007, 11:59-72.
66. von Korff M, Sander T. Toxicity-indicating structural patterns. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:536-544.
67. Sun H, Shahane S, Xia M, Austin CP, Huang R. Structure based model for the prediction of phospholipidosis induction potential of small molecules. J Chem Inf Model 2012, 52:1798-1805.
68. Cao DS, Xu QS, Liang YZ, Chen X, Li HD. Prediction of aqueous solubility of druglike organic compounds using partial least squares, back-propagation network and support vector machine. J Chemometrics 2010, 24:584-595.
69. Nigsch F, Bender A, van Buuren B, Tissen J, Nigsch E, Mitchell JBO. Melting point prediction employing k-nearest neighbor algorithms and genetic parameter optimization. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2412-2422.
70. De Ferrari L, Aitken S, van Hemert J, Goryanin I. EnzML: multi-label prediction of enzyme classes using InterPro signatures. BMC Bioinf 2012, 13:61.
71. Itskowitz P, Tropsha A. k nearest neighbors QSAR modeling as a variational problem: theory and applications. J Chem Inf Model 2005, 45:777-785.
72. Honório KM, da Silva AB. A study on the influence of molecular properties in the psychoactivity of cannabinoid compounds. J Mol Model 2005, 11:200-209.
73. Ajmani S, Jadhav K, Kulkarni SA. Three-dimensional QSAR using the k-nearest neighbor method and its interpretation. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:24-31.
74. Basak SC, Grunwald GD. Predicting mutagenicity of chemicals using topological and quantum chemical parameters: a similarity based study. Chemosphere 1995, 31:2529-2546.
75. Neumann D, Kohlbacher O, Merkwirth C, Lengauer T. A fully computational model for predicting percutaneous drug absorption. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:424-429.
76. Kovatcheva A, Golbraikh A, Oloff S, Xiao YD, Zheng W, Wolschann P, Buchbauer G, Tropsha A. Combinatorial QSAR of ambergris fragrance compounds. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004, 44:582-595.
77. Zakarya D, Chastrette M, Tollabi M, Fkih-Tetouani S. Structure-camphor odour relationships using the generation and selection of pertinent descriptors approach. Chemometrics Intell Lab Syst 1999, 48:35-46.
78. Gute BD, Basak SC, Mills D, Hawkins DM. Tailored similarity spaces for the prediction of physicochemical properties. Internet Electr J Mol Des 2002, 1:374-387.
79. Kuhne R, Ebert RU, Schuurmann G. Model selection based on structural similarity-method description and application to water solubility prediction. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:636-641.
80. Ajmani S, Rogers SC, Barley MH, Livingstone DJ. Application of QSPR to mixtures. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2043-2055.
81. Cramer RD, Redl G, Berkhoff CE. Substructural analysis. A novel approach to the problem of drug design. J Med Chem 1974, 17:533-535.
82. Lowe R, Mussa HY, Nigsch F, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Predicting the mechanism of phospholipidosis. J Cheminformatics 2012, 4:2.
83. Koutsoukas A, Lowe R, KalantarMotamedi Y, Mussa HY, Klaffke W, Mitchell JBO, Glen R, Bender A. In silico target predictions: defining a benchmarking dataset and comparison of performance of the multiclass Naïve Bayes and Parzen-Rosenblatt Window. J Chem Inf Model 2013, 53:1957-1966.
84. Cannon EO, Amini A, Bender A, Sternberg MJE, Muggleton SH, Glen RC, Mitchell JBO. Support vector inductive logic programming outperforms the naive Bayes classifier and inductive logic programming for the classification of bioactive chemical compounds. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007, 21:269-280.
85. Nigsch F, Bender A, Jenkins JL, Mitchell JBO. Ligand-target prediction using Winnow and naive Bayesian algorithms and the implications of overall performance statistics. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:2313-2325.
86. Frank E, Trigg L, Holmes G, Witten IH. Technical note: naive Bayes for regression. Mach Learn 2000, 41:5-25.
87. Korb O. Efficient ant colony optimization algorithms for structure- and ligand-based drug design. Chem Cent J 2009, 3:O10.
88. Lowe R, Mussa HY, Mitchell JBO, Glen RC. Classifying molecules using a sparse probabilistic kernel binary classifier. J Chem Inf Model 2011, 51:1539-1544.
89. Mavridis L, Mitchell JBO. Predicting the protein targets for athletic performance-enhancing substances. J Cheminformatics 2013, 5:31.
90. Mikut R, Hilpert K. Interpretable features for the activity prediction of short antimicrobial peptides using fuzzy logic. Int J Pept Res Ther 2009, 15:129-137.
91. Strömbergsson H, Prusis P, Midelfart H, Lapinsh M, Wikberg JE, Komorowski J. Rough set-based proteochemometrics modeling of G-protein-coupled receptor-ligand interactions. Proteins 2006, 63:24-34.
92. Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO. How to winnow actives from inactives: introducing molecular orthogonal sparse bigrams (MOSBs) and multiclass Winnow. J Chem Inf Model 2008, 48:306-318.
93. Nigsch F, Mitchell JBO. Toxicological relationships between proteins obtained from protein target predictions of large toxicity databases. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2008, 231:225-234.
94. Dubus E, Ijjaali I, Petitet F, Michel A. In silico classification of hERG channel blockers: a knowledge-based strategy. ChemMedChem 2006, 1:622-630.
95. Asikainen A, Kolehmainen M, Ruuskanen J, Tuppurainen K. Structure-based classification of active and inactive estrogenic compounds by decision tree, LVQ and kNN methods. Chemosphere 2006, 62:658-673.
96. Karakoc E, Sahinalp SC, Cherkasov A. Comparative QSAR- and fragments distribution analysis of drugs, druglikes, metabolic substances, and antimicrobial compounds. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:2167-2182.
97. Beltran N, Duartemermoud M, Bustos M, Salah S, Loyola E, Penaneira A, Jalocha J. Feature extraction and classification of Chilean wines. J Food Eng 2006, 75:1-10.
98. Oloff S, Muegge I. kScore: a novel machine learning approach that is not dependent on the data structure of the training set. J Comput Aided Mol Des 2007, 21:87-95.
99. Tropsha A, Gramatica P, Gombar VK. The importance of being earnest: validation is the absolute essential for successful application and interpretation of QSPR models. QSAR Comb Sci 2003, 2:69-77.
100. Varnek A, Baskin I. Machine learning methods for property prediction in chemoinformatics: quo vadis? J Chem Inf Model 2012, 52:1413-1437.
101. Xu QS, Liang YZ, Du YP. Monte Carlo cross-validation for selecting a model and estimating the prediction error in multivariate calibration. J Chemometrics 2004, 18:112-120.
102. Rücker C, G R, Meringer M. y-Randomization and its variants in QSPR/QSAR. J Chem Inf Model 2007, 47:2345-2357.
103. Sokolova M, Lapalme G. A systematic analysis of performance measures for classification tasks. Inf Process Manage 2009, 45:427-437.
104. Baldi P, Brunak S, Chauvin Y, Andersen CAF, Nielsen H. Assessing the accuracy of prediction algorithms for classification: an overview. Bioinformatics 2000, 16:412-424.
105. Plewczynski D, Spieser SAH, Koch U. Assessing different classification methods for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 2006, 46:1098-1106.
106. 2 parameter for QSAR validation. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1669-1678.
107. Hopfinger AJ, Esposito EX, Llinàs A, Glen RC, Goodman JM. Findings of the challenge to predict aqueous solubility. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:1-5.
108. Ploemen JPHTM, Kelder J, Hafmans T, van de Sandt H, van Burgsteden JA, Saleminki PJ, van Esch E. Use of physicochemical calculation of pKa and CLogP to predict phospholipidosis-inducing potential: a case study with structurally related piperazines. Exp Toxicol Pathol 2004, 55:347-355.
109. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2006. ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
110. Carlsson L, Helgee EA, Boyer S. Interpretation of nonlinear QSAR models applied to Ames mutagenicity data. J Chem Inf Model 2009, 49:2551-2558.
111. Chen H, Carlsson L, Eriksson M, Varkonyi P, Norinder U, Nilsson I. Beyond the scope of Free-Wilson analysis: building interpretable QSAR models with machine learning algorithms. J Chem Inf Model 2013, 53:1324-1336.