Active learning for computational chemogenomics

Future Medicinal Chemistry

Volumn 9, Issue 4, 2017, Pages 381-402

  Reker, Daniel ^a,b   Schneider, Petra ^a,c   Schneider, Gisbert ^a   Brown, J B ^d  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c InSilicom GmbH   (Switzerland)

^d KYOTO UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

Author keywords

chemogenomics; computational chemistry and modeling; virtual screening

Indexed keywords

G PROTEIN COUPLED RECEPTOR; PROSTAGLANDIN D2; LIGAND; PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY; BIOLOGY; CHEMOGENOMICS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER PREDICTION; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; EVOLUTION; FINGER DERMATOGLYPHICS; GENOMICS; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LEARNING; MACHINE LEARNING; MACROMOLECULE; NONHUMAN; ORGANIZATION; PERFORMANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; PROTEIN INTERACTION; RESEARCH; STRUCTURE ACTIVITY RELATION; VALIDATION PROCESS; BINDING SITE; CHEMICAL DATABASE; CHEMICAL MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; METABOLISM; PROCEDURES;

BINDING SITES; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DATABASES, CHEMICAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; GENOMICS; LIGANDS; MACHINE LEARNING; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PROTEINS;

EID: 85015260173     PISSN: 17568919     EISSN: 17568927     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4155/fmc-2016-0197     Document Type: Article

References (100)

1. Hopkins AL. Network pharmacology. Nat. Biotechnol. 25(10), 1110-1111 (2007).
2. Stahl M, Guba W, Kansy M. Integrating molecular design resources within modern drug discovery research: the Roche experience. Drug Discov. Today. 11(7-8), 326-333 (2006).
3. Schneider P, Schneider G. De novo design at the edge of chaos. J. Med. Chem. 59(9), 4077-4086 (2016).
4. Brown JB, Okuno Y. Systems biology and systems chemistry: new directions for drug discovery. Chem. Biol. 19(1), 23-28 (2012).
5. Lee AY, St Onge RP, Proctor MJ et al. Mapping the cellular response to small molecules using chemogenomic fitness signatures. Science 344(6180), 208-211 (2014).
6. Lavecchia A, Cerchia C. In silico methods to address polypharmacology: current status, applications and future perspectives. Drug Discov. Today 21(2), 288-298 (2016).
7. Koutsoukas A, Simms B, Kirchmair J et al. From in silico target prediction to multi-target drug design: current databases, methods and applications. J. Proteomics. 74(12), 2554-2574 (2011).
8. Jacoby E. Computational chemogenomics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 1(1), 57-67 (2011).
9. Lyne PD. Structure-based virtual screening: an overview. Drug Discov. Today 7(20), 1047-1055 (2002).
10. Berger SI, Iyengar R. Network analyses in systems pharmacology. Bioinformatics 25(19), 2466-2472 (2009).
11. Geppert H, Vogt M, Bajorath J. Current trends in ligandbased virtual screening: molecular representations, data mining methods, new application areas, and performance evaluation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(2), 205-216 (2010).
12. Achenbach J, Tiikkainen P, Franke L, Proschak E. Computational tools for polypharmacology and repurposing. Future Med. Chem. 3(8), 961-968 (2011).
13. Ekins S, Mestres J, Testa B. In silico pharmacology for drug discovery: methods for virtual ligand screening and profiling. Br. J. Pharmacol. 152(1), 9-20 (2007).
14. Vidal D, Garcia-Serna R, Mestres J. Ligand-based approaches to in silico pharmacology. In: Chemoinformatics and Computational Chemical Biology. Bajorath J (Ed.). Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, 489-502 (2011).
15. Brown JB, Urata T, Tamura T, Ara MA, Kawabata T, Akutsu T. Compound analysis via graph kernels incorporating chirality. J. Bioinform. Comput. Biol. 8(Suppl. 01), 63-81 (2010).
16. Ripphausen P, Nisius B, Peltason L, Bajorath J. Quo vadis, virtual screening? A comprehensive survey of prospective applications. J. Med. Chem. 53(24), 8461-8467 (2010).
17. Tan L, Geppert H, Sisay MT, Gütschow M, Bajorath J. Integrating structure-and ligand-based virtual screening: comparison of individual, parallel, and fused molecular docking and similarity search calculations on multiple targets. Chem Med Chem 3(10), 1566-1571 (2008).
18. Sams-Dodd F. Target-based drug discovery: is something wrong? Drug Discov. Today 10(2), 139-147 (2005).
19. Krüger DM, Evers A. Comparison of structure-and ligand-based virtual screening protocols considering hit list complementarity and enrichment factors. Chem Med Chem 5(1), 148-158 (2010).
20. Wilson GL, Lill Ma. Integrating structure-based and ligandbased approaches for computational drug design. Future Med. Chem. 3(6), 735-750 (2011).
21. Reker D, Rodrigues T, Schneider P, Schneider G. Identifying the macromolecular targets of de novo-designed chemical entities through self-organizing map consensus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111(11), 4067-4072 (2014).
22. Bajorath J. A perspective on computational chemogenomics. Mol. Inform. 32(11-12), 1025-1028 (2013).
23. van Westen GJP, Wegner JK, Ijzerman AP, van Vlijmen HWT, Bender A. Proteochemometric modeling as a tool to design selective compounds and for extrapolating to novel targets. Med Chem Comm 2(1), 16-30 (2011).
24. Bleicher KH. Chemogenomics: bridging a drug discovery gap. Curr. Med. Chem. 9(23), 2077-2084 (2002).
25. Caron PR, Mullican MD, Mashal RD, Wilson KP, Su MS, Murcko MA. Chemogenomic approaches to drug discovery. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 5(4), 464-470 (2001).
26. Drwal MN, Griffith R. Combination of ligand-and structure-based methods in virtual screening. Drug Discov. Today Technol. 10(3), e395-e401 (2013).
27. Tanrikulu Y, Krüger B, Proschak E. The holistic integration of virtual screening in drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today 18(7), 358-364 (2013).
28. Givehchi A, Schneider G. Multi-space classification for predicting GPCR-ligands. Mol. Divers. 9(4), 371-383 (2005).
29. Koch CP, Perna AM, Weissmüller S et al. Exhaustive proteome mining for functional MHC-I ligands. ACS Chem. Biol. 8(9), 1876-1881 (2013).
30. Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ. Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat. Biotech. 22(10), 1253-1259 (2004).
31. Nobeli I, Favia AD, Thornton JM. Protein promiscuity and its implications for biotechnology. Nat. Biotechnol. 27(2), 157-167 (2009).
32. Maggiora GM, Johnson MA. Concepts and Applications of Molecular Similarity. Wiley, NJ, USA (1990).
33. Brown JB, Niijima S, Okuno Y. Compound-protein interaction prediction within chemogenomics: theoretical concepts, practical usage, and future directions. Mol. Inform. 32(11-12), 906-921 (2013).
34. Brown JB, Okuno Y, Marcou G, Varnek A, Horvath D. Computational chemogenomics: is it more than inductive transfer? J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 28(6), 597-618 (2014).
35. Lapinsh M, Prusis P, Lundstedt T, Wikberg JES. Proteochemometrics modeling of the interaction of amine G-protein coupled receptors with a diverse set of ligands. Mol. Pharmacol. 61(6), 1465-1475 (2002).
36. Yabuuchi H, Niijima S, Takematsu H et al. Analysis of multiple compound-protein interactions reveals novel bioactive molecules. Mol. Syst. Biol. 7, 472 (2011).
37. van Westen GJP, Wegner JK, Geluykens P et al. Which compound to select in lead optimization? Prospectively validated proteochemometric models guide preclinical development. PLoS ONE 6(11), e27518 (2011).
38. Cortes-Ciriano I, Van Westen GJP, Lenselink EB, Murrell DS, Bender A, Malliavin T. Proteochemometric modeling in a Bayesian framework. J. Cheminform. 6, 35 (2014).
39. Bohacek RS, McMartin C, Guida WC. The art and practice of structure-based drug design: a molecular modeling perspective. Med. Res. Rev. 16(1), 3-50 (1996).
40. Cortes-Ciriano I, Murrell DS, Van Westen GJ, Bender A, Malliavin TE. Prediction of the potency of mammalian cyclooxygenase inhibitors with ensemble proteochemometric modeling. J. Cheminform. 7, 1 (2015).
41. Pérez-Sianes J, Pérez-Sánchez H, Díaz F. Virtual screening: a challenge for deep learning. In: 10th International Conference on Practical Applications of Computational Biology & Bioinformatics. Saberi Mohamad M, Rocha PM, Fdez-Riverola F, Domínguez Mayo JF, De Paz FJ (Eds). Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 13-22 (2016).
42. Gawehn E, Hiss JA, Schneider G. Deep learning in drug discovery. Mol. Inform. 35(1), 3-14 (2016).
43. Hakes L, Pinney JW, Robertson DL, Lovell SC. Protein-protein interaction networks and biology-what's the connection? Nat. Biotechnol. 26(1), 69-72 (2008).
44. Mestres J, Gregori-Puigjané E, Valverde S, Solé RV. Data completeness - the Achilles heel of drug-target networks. Nat. Biotechnol. 26(9), 983-984 (2008).
45. Reker D, Schneider G. Active-learning strategies in computer-assisted drug discovery. Drug Discov. Today. 20(4), 458-465 (2015).
46. Murphy RF. An active role for machine learning in drug development. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7(6), 327-330 (2011).
47. Besnard J, Ruda GF, Setola V et al. Automated design of ligands to polypharmacological profiles. Nature 492(7428), 215-20 (2012).
48. Desai B, Dixon K, Farrant E et al. Rapid discovery of a novel series of Abl kinase inhibitors by application of an integrated microfluidic synthesis and screening platform. J. Med. Chem. 56(7), 3033-3047 (2013).
49. Reker D, Schneider P, Schneider G. Multi-objective active machine learning rapidly improves structure-activity models and reveals new protein-protein interaction inhibitors. Chem. Sci. 7, 3919-3927 (2016).
50. Naik AW, Kangas JD, Langmead CJ, Murphy RF. Efficient modeling and active learning discovery of biological responses. PLoS ONE 8, e83996 (2013).
51. Naik AW, Kangas JD, Sullivan DP, Murphy RF. Active machine learning-driven experimentation to determine compound effects on protein patterns. Elife 5, e10047 (2016).
52. Ueno T, Rhone TD, Hou Z, Mizoguchi T, Tsuda K. COMBO: an efficient bayesian optimization library for materials science. Mater. Discov. 4, 18-21 (2016).
53. Wei K, Bilmes J, Edu RUW, Edu BUW. Submodularity in data subset selection and active learning. Proc. 32nd Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. 37, 1954-1963 (2015).
54. Alvarsson J, Lampa S, Schaal W et al. Large-scale ligandbased predictive modelling using support vector machines. J. Cheminformatics 2016. 8(1), 948-962 (2016).
55. Clark JH, Frederking R, Levin L. Toward active learning in data selection: automatic discovery of language features during elicitation. Presented at: Sixth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Marrakech, Morocco, 28-30 May 2008.
56. Lang T, Flachsenberg F, Von Luxburg U, Rarey M. Feasibility of active machine learning for multiclass compound classification. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56(1), 12-20 (2016).
57. Ahmadi M, Vogt M, Iyer P, Bajorath J, Fröhlich H. Predicting potent compounds via model-based global optimization. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53(3), 553-559 (2013).
58. Kangas JD, Naik AW, Murphy RF et al. Efficient discovery of responses of proteins to compounds using active learning. BMC Bioinformatics 15(1), 143 (2014).
59. Bento AP, Gaulton A, Hersey A et al. The ChEMBL bioactivity database: an update. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D1083-D1090 (2014).
60. Chan WKB, Zhang H, Yang J et al. GLASS: a comprehensive database for experimentally-validated GPCRligand associations. Bioinformatics 31, btv302 (2015).
61. UniProt Consortium. UniProt: a hub for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res. 43, D204-D212 (2015).
62. Heller SR, McNaught A, Pletnev I, Stein S, Tchekhovskoi D. InChI, the IUPAC international chemical identifier. J. Cheminform. 7, 23 (2015).
63. Rishton GM. Nonleadlikeness and leadlikeness in biochemical screening. Drug Discov. Today 8(2), 86-96 (2003).
64. Hann M, Hudson B, Lewell X, Lifely R, Miller L, Ramsden N. Strategic pooling of compounds for high-throughput screening. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 39(5), 897-902 (1999).
65. Schneider P, Rothlisberger M, Reker D, Schneider G. Spotting and designing promiscuous ligands for drug discovery. Chem. Commun. (Camb.) 52, 1135-1138 (2015).
66. Baell JB, Holloway GA. New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (PAINS) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays. J. Med. Chem. 53(7), 2719-2740 (2010).
67. Rogers D, Hahn M. Extended-connectivity fingerprints. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50(5), 742-754 (2010).
68. Symyx. MACCS Structural Keys. San Ramon, CA: MDL Information Systems Inc.; 2005.
69. Li Z-R, Lin HH, Han LY, Jiang L, Chen X, Chen YZ. PROFEAT: a web server for computing structural and physicochemical features of proteins and peptides from amino acid sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 34(Suppl. 2), W32-W37 (2006).
70. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5-32 (2001).
71. Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A et al. Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825-2830 (2011).
72. Matthews BW. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 405(2), 442-451 (1975).
73. Van Der Walt S, Colbert SC, Varoquaux G. The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation (2011). https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.1523
74. Jones E, Oliphant T, Peterson P et al. SciPy (2001). www.scipy.org/
75. Saigo H, Vert J-P, Ueda N, Akutsu T. Protein homology detection using string alignment kernels. Bioinformatics 20(11), 1682-1689 (2004).
76. Cock PJA, Antao T, Chang JT et al. BioPython: freely available Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics. Bioinformatics 25(11), 1422-1423 (2009).
77. Huerta-Cepas J, Dopazo J, Gabaldon T. ETE: a Python environment for tree exploration. BMC Bioinformatics 11(1), 24 (2010).
78. 2! A comparative study of regression metrics for predictivity assessment of QSAR models. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 56(10), 1905-1913 (2016).
79. Schneider G, Neidhart W, Giller T, Schmid G. "Scaffold-Hopping" by topological pharmacophore search: a contribution to virtual screening. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. Engl. 38(19), 2894-2896 (1999).
80. Brown JB, Niijima S, Shiraishi A, Nakatsui M, Okuno Y. Chemogenomic approach to comprehensive predictions of ligand-target interactions: a comparative study. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine Workshops. IEEE, PA, USA, 136-142 (2012).
81. Schneider G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9(4), 273-276 (2010).
82. Bajorath J. Integration of virtual and high-throughput screening. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1(11), 882-894 (2002).
83. Donmez P, Carbonell JG, Bennett PN. Dual strategy active learning. In: Machine Learning: ECML 2007. Springer, 116-127 (2007).
84. Bloodgood M, Vijay-Shanker K. A method for stopping active learning based on stabilizing predictions and the need for user-adjustable stopping. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2009). Association for Computational Linguistics, CO, USA, 39-47 (2009).
85. Szklarczyk D, Santos A, von Mering C, Jensen LJ, Bork P, Kuhn M. STITCH 5: augmenting protein-chemical interaction networks with tissue and affinity data. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, gkv1277 (2015).
86. Kim S, Thiessen PA, Bolton EE et al. PubChem substance and compound databases. Nucleic Acids Res. 44(D1), D1202-D1213 (2016).
87. Wang F, Liu D, Wang H et al. Computational screening for active compounds targeting protein sequences: methodology and experimental validation. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(11), 2821-2828 (2011).
88. Cheng F, Liu C, Jiang J et al. Prediction of drug-target interactions and drug repositioning via network-based inference. PLoS Comput. Biol. 8(5), ep-value2503 (2012).
89. Nicolotti O, Benfenati E, Carotti A et al. REACH and in silico methods: an attractive opportunity for medicinal chemists. Drug Discov. Today 19(11), 1757-1768 (2014).
90. Schneider G, Reker D, Chen T, Hauenstein K, Schneider P, Altmann K-H. Deorphaning the macromolecular targets of the natural anticancer compound doliculide. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. Engl. 55(40), 12408-12411 (2016).
91. Reker D, Perna AM, Rodrigues T et al. Revealing the macromolecular targets of complex natural products. Nat. Chem. 6(12), 1072-1078 (2014).
92. Wassermann AM, Dimova D, Bajorath J. Comprehensive analysis of single-and multi-target activity cliffs formed by currently available bioactive compounds. Chem. Biol. Drug Des. 78(2), 224-228 (2011).
93. Lounkine E, Kutchukian P, Petrone P, Davies JW, Glick M. Chemotography for multi-target SAR analysis in the context of biological pathways. Bioorganic Med. Chem. 20(18), 5416-5427 (2012).
94. Yao Z-J, Dong J, Che Y-J et al. TargetNet: a web service for predicting potential drug-target interaction profiling via multi-target SAR models. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 30(5), 413-424 (2016).
95. Keiser MJ, Setola V, Irwin JJ et al. Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs. Nature 462(7270), 175-181 (2009).
96. Lipinski C, Hopkins A. Navigating chemical space for biology and medicine. Nature 432(7019), 855-861 (2004).
97. Hopkins AL, Mason JS, Overington JP. Can we rationally design promiscuous drugs? Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 16(1), 127-136 (2006).
98. Schneider G, Reker D, Rodrigues T, Schneider P. Coping with polypharmacology by computational medicinal chemistry. Chim. Int. J. Chem. 68(9), 648-653 (2014).
99. Reutlinger M, Rodrigues T, Schneider P, Schneider G. Combining on-chip synthesis of a focused combinatorial library with computational target prediction reveals imidazopyridine GPCR ligands. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. Engl. 53(2), 582-585 (2014).
100. Rodrigues T, Schneider P, Schneider G. Accessing new chemical entities through microfluidic systems. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. Engl. 53(23), 5750-5758 (2014).