Integrative and personalized QSAR analysis in cancer by kernelized Bayesian matrix factorization

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Volumn 54, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 2347-2359

  Ammad Ud Din, Muhammad ^a   Georgii, Elisabeth ^a   Gönen, Mehmet ^a   Laitinen, Tuomo ^b   Kallioniemi, Olli ^c   Wennerberg, Krister ^c   Poso, Antti ^b,d   Kaski, Samuel ^a,c  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOACTIVITY; CELL CULTURE; CELLS; COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY; DISEASES; FACTORIZATION; FORECASTING; STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES;

BAYESIAN MATRIX FACTORIZATIONS; CANCER CELL LINES; DRUG SENSITIVITY; HUMAN CANCER CELLS; PREDICTIVE PERFORMANCE; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIPS; RESPONSE PREDICTION; TARGET INFORMATION;

MATRIX ALGEBRA;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PHARMACOLOGICAL BIOMARKER; TUMOR PROTEIN;

ANTAGONISTS AND INHIBITORS; BAYES THEOREM; CHEMISTRY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION; GENETICS; HUMAN; METABOLISM; MOLECULAR LIBRARY; PHARMACOLOGY; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TUMOR CELL LINE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; BIOMARKERS, PHARMACOLOGICAL; CELL LINE, TUMOR; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; GENE EXPRESSION REGULATION, NEOPLASTIC; HUMANS; NEOPLASM PROTEINS; QUANTITATIVE STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP; SMALL MOLECULE LIBRARIES;

EID: 84906539673     PISSN: 15499596     EISSN: 1549960X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ci500152b     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Garnett, M. J.; Edelman, E. J.; Heidorn, S. J.; Greenman, C. D.; Dastur, A.; Lau, K. W.; Greninger, P.; Thompson, I. R.; Luo, X.; Soares, J. Systematic identification of genomic markers of drug sensitivity in cancer cells Nature 2012, 483, 570-575
2. Heiser, L. M.; Sadanandam, A.; Kuo, W.-L.; Benz, S. C.; Goldstein, T. C.; Sam, Ng.; Gibb, W. J.; Wang, N. J.; Ziyad, S.; Tong, F. Subtype and pathway specific responses to anticancer compounds in breast cancer Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2012, 109, 2724-2729
3. Barretina, J.; Caponigro, G.; Stransky, N.; Venkatesan, K.; Margolin, A. A.; Kim, S.; Wilson, C. J.; Lehar, J.; Kryukov, G. V.; Sonkin, D. The Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia enables predictive modelling of anticancer drug sensitivity Nature 2012, 483, 603-607
4. Menden, M. P.; Iorio, F.; Garnett, M.; McDermott, U.; Benes, C.; Ballester, P. J.; Saez-Rodriguez, J. Machine learning prediction of cancer cell sensitivity to drugs based on genomic and chemical properties PLoS One 2013, 8, e61318
5. Costello, J. C.; Heiser, L. M.; Georgii, E.; Gönen, M.; Menden, M. P.; Wang, N. J.; Bansal, M.; Ammad-ud-din, M.; Hintsanen, P.; Khan, S. A.; Mpindi, J.-P.; Kallioniemi, O.; NCI Dream Community; Honkela, A.; Aittokallio, T.; Wennerberg, K.; Collins, J. J.; Gallahan, D.; Singer, D.; Saez-Rodriguez, J.; Kaski, S.; Gray, J. W.; Stolovitzky, G. A community effort to assess and improve drug sensitivity prediction algorithms Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 10.1038/nbt.2877
6. Perkins, R.; Fang, H.; Tong, W.; Welsh, W. J. Quantitative structure-activity relationship methods: Perspectives on drug discovery and toxicology Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 1666-1679
7. Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer, 2012. http://www.cancerrxgene.org/ (accessed July 1, 2012).
8. Myint, K. Z.; Xie, X.-Q. Recent advances in fragment-based QSAR and multi-dimensional QSAR methods Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 3846-3866
9. Shao, C.-Y.; Chen, S.-Z.; Su, B.-H.; Tseng, Y. J.; Esposito, E. X.; Hopfinger, A. J. Dependence of QSAR models on the selection of trial descriptor sets: A demonstration using nanotoxicity endpoints of decorated nanotubes J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2013, 53, 142-158
10. Papa, E.; Villa, F.; Gramatica, P. Statistically validated QSARs, based on theoretical descriptors, for modeling aquatic toxicity of organic chemicals in Pimephales promelas (Fathead Minnow) J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2005, 45, 1256-1266
11. Kraker, J. J.; Hawkins, D. M.; Basak, S. C.; Natarajan, R.; Mills, D. Quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling of juvenile hormone activity: Comparison of validation procedures Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2007, 87, 33-42
12. Luilo, G. B.; Cabaniss, S. E. Quantitative structure-property relationship for predicting chlorine demand by organic molecules Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 2503-2508
13. Matysiak, J. QSAR of antiproliferative activity of N-substituted 2-amino-5-(2,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-1,3,4-thiadiazoles in various human cancer cells QSAR Comb. Sci. 2008, 27, 607-617
14. Rogers, D.; Hopfinger, A. J. Application of genetic function approximation to quantitative structure-activity relationships and quantitative structure-property relationships J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1994, 34, 854-866
15. Zheng, W.; Tropsha, A. Novel variable selection quantitative structure-property relationship approach based on the k-nearest-neighbor principle J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2000, 40, 185-194
16. Kompany-Zareh, M.; Omidikia, N. Jackknife-based selection of Gram Schmidt orthogonalized descriptors in QSAR J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2010, 50, 2055-2066
17. Cramer, R. D.; Patterson, D. E.; Bunce, J. D. Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1988, 110, 5959-5967
18. Hasegawa, K.; Funatsu, K. Evolution of PLS for Modeling SAR and omics Data Mol. Inf. 2012, 31, 766-775
19. Musumarra, G.; Condorelli, D. F.; Costa, A. S.; Fichera, M. A multivariate insight into the in-vitro antitumour screen database of the National Cancer Institute: Classification of compounds, similarities among cell lines and the influence of molecular targets J. Comput.-Aided Mol. Des. 2001, 15, 219-234
20. Yamanishi, Y.; Pauwels, E.; Kotera, M. Drug side-effect prediction based on the integration of chemical and biological spaces J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2012, 52, 3284-3292
21. Liu, P.; Long, W. Current mathematical methods used in QSAR/QSPR studies Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 1978-1998
22. Sutherland, J. J.; O'Brien, L. A.; Weaver, D. F. A comparison of methods for modeling quantitative structure-activity relationships J. Med. Chem. 2004, 47, 5541-5554
23. 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
24. Mullen, L. M.; Duchowicz, P. R.; Castro, E. A. QSAR treatment on a new class of triphenylmethyl-containing compounds as potent anticancer agents Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2011, 107, 269-275
25. Lee, A. C.; Shedden, K.; Rosania, G. R.; Crippen, G. M. Data mining the NCI60 to predict generalized cytotoxicity J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1379-1388
26. Gao, J.; Che, D.; Zheng, V.; Zhu, R.; Liu, Q. Integrated QSAR study for inhibitors of hedgehog signal pathway against multiple cell lines: A collaborative filtering method BMC Bioinf. 2012, 13, 186
27. Gönen, M. Predicting drug-target interactions from chemical and genomic kernels using Bayesian matrix factorization Bioinformatics 2012, 28, 2304-2310
28. Gönen, M.; Khan, S.; Kaski, S. Kernelized Bayesian Matrix Factorization. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), Atlanta, GA, U.S.A., June 16-20, 2013, pp 864-872.
29. Schölkopf, B.; Smola, A. J. Learning with Kernels: Support Vector Machines, Regularization, Optimization, and Beyond; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2002; Chapter 15, pp 457-468.
30. Beal, M. J. Variational Algorithms for Approximate Bayesian Inference. Ph.D. Thesis, Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit, University College, London, 2003.
31. Bolton, E. E.; Wang, Y.; Thiessen, P. A.; Bryant, S. H. PubChem: Integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities Annu. Rep. Comput. Chem. 2008, 4, 217-241
32. Yap, C. W. PaDEL-descriptor: An open source software to calculate molecular descriptors and fingerprints J. Comput. Chem. 2011, 32, 1466-1474
33. National University of Singapore, PaDEL-descriptor: An Open Source Software to Calculate Molecular Descriptors and Fingerprints, 2011. http://padel.nus.edu.sg/software/padeldescriptor/ (accessed January 15, 2013).
34. Cruciani, G.; Crivori, P.; Carrupt, P.-A.; Testa, B. Molecular fields in quantitative structure-permeation relationships: The VolSurf approach J. Mol. Struct. 2000, 503, 17-30
35. Pastor, M.; Cruciani, G.; McLay, I.; Pickett, S.; Clementi, S. GRid-INdependent descriptors (GRIND): A novel class of alignment-independent three-dimensional molecular descriptors J. Med. Chem. 2000, 43, 3233-3243
36. Duran, A.; Martinez, G. C.; Pastor, M. Development and validation of AMANDA, a new algorithm for selecting highly relevant regions in molecular interaction fields J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2008, 48, 1813-1823
37. Durán, A.; Zamora, I.; Pastor, M. Suitability of GRIND-based principal properties for the description of molecular similarity and ligand-based virtual screening J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009, 49, 2129-2138
38. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute (NCI), (1971. http://www.cancer.gov/ (accessed May 10, 2013).
39. Hatzivassiliou, G. RAF inhibitors prime wild-type RAF to activate the MAPK pathway and enhance growth Nature 2010) 464, 431-435