The importance of the regression model in the structure-based prediction of protein-ligand binding

Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)

Volumn 8623, Issue , 2015, Pages 219-230

  Li, Hongjian ^a   Leung, Kwong Sak ^a   Wong, Man Hon ^a   Ballester, Pedro J ^b,c,d  

^a CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^d AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

Author keywords

Chemical informatics; Molecular docking; Random forest; Scoring functions; Structural bioinformatics

Indexed keywords

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; BINDING ENERGY; BINS; BIOINFORMATICS; COMPUTATION THEORY; DECISION TREES; LIGANDS; PROTEINS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS;

CHEMICAL INFORMATICS; MOLECULAR DOCKING; RANDOM FORESTS; SCORING FUNCTIONS; STRUCTURAL BIOINFORMATICS;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 84949978511     PISSN: 03029743     EISSN: 16113349     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-24462-4_19     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (14)

1. Ballester, P.J., et al.: Does a More Precise Chemical Description of Protein-Ligand Complexes Lead to More Accurate Prediction of Binding Affinity? J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54(3), 944–955 (2014)
2. Ballester, P.J., et al.: Hierarchical virtual screening for the discovery of new molecular scaffolds in antibacterial hit identification. J. R. Soc. Interface. 9(77), 3196–3207 (2012)
3. Ballester, P.J.: Machine learning scoring functions based on random forest and support vector regression. In: Shibuya, T., Kashima, H., Sese, J., Ahmad, S. (eds.) PRIB 2012. LNCS, vol. 7632, pp. 14–25. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)
4. Ballester, P.J., Mitchell, J.B.O.: A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics 26(9), 1169–1175 (2010)
5. Ballester, P.J., Mitchell, J.B.O.: Comments on “leave-cluster-out cross-validation is appropriate for scoring functions derived from diverse protein data sets”: significance for the validation of scoring functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(8), 1739–1741 (2011)
6. Breiman, L., et al.: Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman and Hall/CRC (1984)
7. Breiman, L.: Random Forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001)
8. Cheng, T., et al.: Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions on a Diverse Test Set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49(4), 1079–1093 (2009)
9. Li, H., et al.: istar: A Web Platform for Large-Scale Protein-Ligand Docking. PLoS One 9(1), e85678 (2014)
10. Li, H., et al.: iview: an interactive WebGL visualizer for protein-ligand complex. BMC Bioinformatics 15(1), 56 (2014)
11. Morris, G.M., et al.: AutoDock4 and AutoDockTools4: Automated docking with selective receptor flexibility. J. Comput. Chem. 30(16), 2785–2791 (2009)
12. Morris, G.M., et al.: Automated docking using a Lamarckian genetic algorithm and an empirical binding free energy function. J. Comput. Chem. 19(14), 1639–1662 (1998)
13. Trott, O., Olson, A.J.: AutoDock Vina: Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J. Comput. Chem. 31(2), 455–461 (2010)
14. Wang, J.-C., Lin, J.-H.: Scoring functions for prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Curr. Pharm. Des. 19(12), 2174–2182 (2013)