Identification of structural features in chemicals associated with cancer drug response: A systematic data-driven analysis

Bioinformatics

Volumn 30, Issue 17, 2014, Pages

  Khan, Suleiman A ^a   Virtanen, Seppo ^a   Kallioniemi, Olli P ^b   Wennerberg, Krister ^b   Poso, Antti ^b,c   Kaski, Samuel ^a,b  

^a AALTO UNIVERSITY   (Finland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

BAYES THEOREM; CHEMISTRY; DRUG EFFECTS; GENE EXPRESSION; GENETICS; HUMAN; METABOLISM; NEOPLASM; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; TUMOR CELL LINE;

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENTS; BAYES THEOREM; CELL LINE, TUMOR; GENE EXPRESSION; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS; STRUCTURE-ACTIVITY RELATIONSHIP;

EID: 84907019526     PISSN: 13674803     EISSN: 14602059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu456     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (35)

1. Atias, N. and Sharan, R. (2011) An algorithmic framework for predicting side-effects of drugs. J. Comput. Biol., 18, 207-218.
2. Babcock, J.J. et al. (2013) Integrated analysis of drug-induced gene expression profiles predicts novel hERG inhibitors. PLoS One, 8, e69513.
3. Cheng, T. et al. (2010) Investigating the correlations among the chemical structures, bioactivity profiles and molecular targets of small molecules. Bioinformatics, 26, 2881-2888.
4. Colsky, J. et al. (1955) Response of patients with leukemia to 8-Azaguanine. Blood, 10, 482-492.
5. Cramer, R.D. et al. (1988) Comparative molecular field analysis (CoMFA), effect of shape on binding of steroids to carrier proteins. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 110, 18.
6. Degtyarenko, K. et al. (2008) ChEBI: a database and ontology for Chemical Entities of Biological Interest. Nucleic Acids Res., 36, 344-350.
7. Duran, A. et al. (2008) Development and validation of AMANDA, a new algorithm for selecting highly relevant regions in molecular interaction fields. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 48, 1813-1823.
8. Fionda, C. et al. (2007) Inhibition of trail gene expression by cyclopentenonic prostaglandin 15-deoxy-delta12, 14-prostaglandin J2 in T lymphocytes. Mol. Pharmacol., 72, 1246-1257.
9. Glen, R.C. et al. (2006) Circular fingerprints: flexible molecular descriptors with applications from physical chemistry to ADME. IDrugs, 9, 199-204.
10. Gottlieb, A. et al. (2011) PREDICT: a method for inferring novel drug indications with application to personalized medicine. Mol. Syst. Biol., 7, 496.
11. Hartwell, K.A. et al. (2013) Niche-based screening identifies small-molecule inhibitors of leukemia stem cells. Nat. Chem. Biol., 9, 840-848.
12. Hegde, S. et al. (2011) "12-prostaglandin J3, an omega-3 fatty acid-derived metabolite, selectively ablates leukemia stem cells in mice. Blood, 118, 6909-6919.
13. Hotelling, H. (1936) Relations between two sets of variants. Biometrika, 28, 321-327.
14. Iorio, F. et al. (2010) Discovery of drug mode of action and drug repositioning from transcriptional responses. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 107, 14621-14626.
15. Irizarry, R.A. et al. (2003) Summaries of Affymetrix GeneChip probe level data. Nucleic Acids Res., 31, 4.
16. Iskar, M. et al. (2010) Drug-induced regulation of target expression. PLoS Comput. Biol., 6, 9.
17. Iskar, M. et al. (2012) Drug discovery in the age of systems biology: the rise of computational approaches for data integration. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol., 23, 609-616.
18. Keiser, M.J. et al. (2009) Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature, 462, 175-191.
19. Khan, S.A. et al. (2012) Comprehensive data-driven analysis of the impact of chemoinformatic structure on the genome-wide biological response profiles of cancer cells to 1159 drugs. BMC Bioinformatics, 13, 112.
20. Klabunde, T. and Evers, A. (2005) GPCR antitarget modeling: pharmacophore models for biogenic amine binding GPCRs to avoid GPCR-mediated side effects. ChemBioChem, 6, 876-889.
21. Klami, A. et al. (2013) Bayesian canonical correlation analysis. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 14, 965-1003.
22. Laenen, G. et al. (2013) Finding the targets of a drug by integration of gene expression data with a protein interaction network. Mol. Biosyst., 9, 1676-1685.
23. Lamb, J. et al. (2006) The Connectivity Map: using gene-expression signatures to connect small molecules, genes, and disease. Science, 313, 1929-1935.
24. Low, Y. et al. (2011) Predicting drug-induced hepatotoxicity using QSAR and toxicogenomics approaches. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 24, 1251-1262.
25. Menden, M.P. et al. (2013) Machine learning prediction of cancer cell sensitivity to drugs based on genomic and chemical properties. PLoS One, 8, e61318.
26. Neal, R.M. (1995) Bayesian learning for neural networks. PhD Thesis, University of Toronto, Canada.
27. Rogers, D. and Hahn, M. (2010) Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 50, 742-754.
28. Russom, C.L. et al. (2013) Predicting modes of toxic action from chemical structure. Environ. Toxicol. Chem., 32, 1441-1442.
29. Schneider, G. (2010) Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., 9, 273-276.
30. Virtanen, S. et al. (2012) Bayesian group factor analysis. In Proceedings of AISTATS. J. Mach. Learn. Res. W&CP, 22, 1269-1277.
31. Wen, D.Y. et al. (2013) A computational bioinformatics analysis of gene expression identifies candidate agent for prostate cancer. Andrologia, 46, 625-632.
32. Xie, L. et al. (2012) Novel computational approaches to polypharmacology as a means to define responses to individual drugs. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol., 52, 361-379.
33. Yera, E.R. et al. (2011) Chemical structural novelty: on-targets and off-targets. J. Med. Chem., 54, 6771-6785.
34. Yip, K.W. et al. (2006) Potential use of alexidine dihydrochloride as an apoptosispromoting anticancer agent. Mol. Cancer Ther., 5, 2234-2240.
35. Zimmer, M. et al. (2010) The Connectivity Map links iron regulatory protein-1-mediated inhibition of hypoxia-inducible factor-2a translation to the antiinflammatory 15-deoxy-delta12, 14-prostaglandin J2. Cancer Res., 70, 3071-3079