Bioactive molecule prediction using extreme gradient boosting

Molecules

Volumn 21, Issue 8, 2016, Pages

  Mustapha, Ismail Babajide ^a   Saeed, Faisal ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

Biological data; Drug discovery; Prediction of biological activity; Virtual screening

Indexed keywords

EID: 84980378875     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14203049     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/molecules21080983     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Johnson, M.A.; Maggiora, G.M. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1990.
2. Wassermann, A.M.; Geppert, H.; Bajorath, J. Searching for target-selective compounds using different combinations of multiclass support vector machine ranking methods, kernel functions, and fingerprint descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 2009, 49, 582-592.
3. Yang, Z.R. Biological applications of support vector machines. Brief. Bioinform. 2004, 5, 328-338.
4. Deconinck, E.; Zhang, M.H.; Coomans, D.; Vander Heyden, Y. Classification tree models for the prediction of blood-brain barrier passage of drugs. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 2006, 46, 1410-1419.
5. Svetnik, V.; Liaw, A.; Tong, C.; Culberson, J.C.; Sheridan, R.P.; Feuston, B.P. Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1947-1958.
6. Kauffman, G.W.; Jurs, P.C. QSAR and k-nearest neighbor classification analysis of selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors using topologically-based numerical descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1553-1560.
7. Koutsoukas, A.; Lowe, R.; KalantarMotamedi, Y.; Mussa, H.Y.; Klaffke, W.; Mitchell, J.B.; Glen, R.C.; Bender, A. In silico target predictions: Defining a benchmarking data set and comparison of performance of the multiclass naïve bayes and parzen-rosenblatt window. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 2013, 53, 1957-1966.
8. Krenker, A.; Kos, A.; Bešter, J. Introduction to the Artificial Neural Networks; INTECH Open Access Publisher: Rijeka, Croatia, 2011.
9. Lavecchia, A. Machine-learning approaches in drug discovery: Methods and applications. Drug Discov. Today 2015, 20, 318-331.
10. Wolpert, D.H. The supervised learning no-free-lunch theorems. In Soft Computing and Industry; Springer: London, UK, 2002; pp. 25-42.
11. Friedman, J.H. Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine. Ann. Stat. 2001, 29, 1189-1232.
12. Adam-Bourdarios, C.; Cowan, G.; Germain-Renaud, C.; Guyon, I.; Kégl, B.; Rousseau, D. The Higgs Machine Learning Challenge. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2015.
13. Phoboo, A.E. Machine Learning wins the Higgs Challenge. CERN Bull. 2014. Available online: http://cds.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2014/49/News%20Articles/1972036 (accessed on 24 April 2016).
14. Harper, G.; Bradshaw, J.; Gittins, J.C.; Green, D.V.; Leach, A.R. Prediction of biological activity for high-throughput screening using binary kernel discrimination. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2001, 41, 1295-1300.
15. Chen, T.; Guestrin, C. Xgboost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. arXiv:1603.02754 2016.
16. Chang, C.-C.; Lin, C.-J. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. 2011, 2, 27.
17. John, G.H.; Langley, P. Estimating Continuous Distributions in Bayesian Classifiers. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, Montreal, QC, Canada, 18-20 August 1995.
18. Bugmann, G. Normalized Gaussian radial basis function networks. Neurocomputing 1998, 20, 97-110.
19. Sutherland, J.J.; O'Brien, L.A.; Weaver, D.F. Spline-Fitting with a Genetic Algorithm: A Method for Developing Classification StructuréActivity Relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003, 43, 1906-1915.
20. Helma, C.; Cramer, T.; Kramer, S.; de Raedt, L. Data Mining and Machine Learning Techniques for the Identification of Mutagenicity Inducing Substructures and Structure Activity Relationships of Noncongeneric Compounds. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2004, 44, 1402-1411.
21. Huang, N.; Shoichet, B.K.; Irwin, J.J. Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J. Med. Chem. 2006, 49, 6789-6801.
22. Al-Dabbagh, M.M.; Salim, N.; Himmat, M.; Ahmed, A.; Saeed, F. A Quantum-Based Similarity Method in Virtual Screening. Molecules 2015, 20, 18107-18127.
23. Cross, S.; Baroni, M.; Carosati, E.; Benedetti, P.; Clementi, S. FLAP: GRID molecular interaction fields in virtual screening. Validation using the DUD data set. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 2010, 50, 1442-1450.
24. BIOVIA. MDDR. Retrieved 15-07, 2015. Available online: http://accelrys.com/products/databases/ bioactivity/mddr.html (accessed on 15 July 2015).
25. Abdo, A.; Saeed, F.; Hamza, H.; Ahmed, A.; Salim, N. Ligand expansion in ligand-based virtual screening using relevance feedback. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Design 2012, 26, 279-287.
26. Abdo, A.; Leclère, V.; Jacques, P.; Salim, N.; Pupin, M. Prediction of New Bioactive Molecules using a Bayesian Belief Network. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2014, 54, 30-36.
27. Hert, J.; Willett, P.; Wilton, D.J.; Acklin, P.; Azzaoui, K.; Jacoby, E.; Schuffenhauer, A. New methods for ligand-based virtual screening: Use of data fusion and machine learning to enhance the effectiveness of similarity searching. J. Chem. Inf. Mod. 2006, 46, 462-470.
28. The R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013.