Literature DB >> 17238255

Measuring CAMD technique performance. 2. How "druglike" are drugs? Implications of Random test set selection exemplified using druglikeness classification models.

Andrew C Good1, Mark A Hermsmeier.   

Abstract

Research into the advancement of computer-aided molecular design (CAMD) has a tendency to focus on the discipline of algorithm development. Such efforts are often wrought to the detriment of the data set selection and analysis used in said algorithm validation. Here we highlight the potential problems this can cause in the context of druglikeness classification. More rigorous efforts are applied to the selection of decoy (nondruglike) molecules from the ACD. Comparisons are made between model performance using the standard technique of random test set creation with test sets derived from explicit ontological separation by drug class. The dangers of viewing druglike space as sufficiently coherent to permit simple classification are highlighted. In addition the issues inherent in applying unfiltered data and random test set selection to (Q)SAR models utilizing large and supposedly heterogeneous databases are discussed.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17238255     DOI: 10.1021/ci6003493

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Chem Inf Model        ISSN: 1549-9596            Impact factor:   4.956


  4 in total

1.  An integrated drug-likeness study for bicyclic privileged structures: from physicochemical properties to in vitro ADME properties.

Authors:  Chunyan Han; Jinlan Zhang; Mingyue Zheng; Yao Xiao; Yan Li; Gang Liu
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 2.943

2.  A constructive approach for discovering new drug leads: Using a kernel methodology for the inverse-QSAR problem.

Authors:  William Wl Wong; Forbes J Burkowski
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2009-04-28       Impact factor: 5.514

Review 3.  How Open Data Shapes In Silico Transporter Modeling.

Authors:  Floriane Montanari; Barbara Zdrazil
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2017-03-07       Impact factor: 4.411

4.  Quantifying biogenic bias in screening libraries.

Authors:  Jérôme Hert; John J Irwin; Christian Laggner; Michael J Keiser; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  Nat Chem Biol       Date:  2009-05-31       Impact factor: 15.040

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.