Literature DB >> 19050828

Comparison of structure fingerprint and molecular interaction field based methods in explaining biological similarity of small molecules in cell-based screens.

Pekka Tiikkainen1, Antti Poso, Olli Kallioniemi.   

Abstract

In this work, we calculated the pair wise chemical similarity for a subset of small molecules screened against the NCI60 cancer cell line panel. Four different compound similarity calculation methods were used: Brutus, GRIND, Daylight and UNITY. The chemical similarity scores of each method were related to the biological similarity data set. The same was done also for combinations of methods. In the end, we had an estimate of biological similarity for a given chemical similarity score or combinations thereof. The data from above was used to identify chemical similarity ranges where combining two or more methods (data fusion) led to synergy. The results were also applied in ligand-based virtual screening using the DUD data set. In respect to their ability to enrich biologically similar compound pairs, the ranking of the four methods in descending performance is UNITY, Daylight, Brutus and GRIND. Combining methods resulted always in positive synergy within a restricted range of chemical similarity scores. We observed no negative synergy. We also noted that combining three or four methods had only limited added advantage compared to combining just two. In the virtual screening, using the estimated biological similarity for ranking compounds produced more consistent results than using the methods in isolation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19050828     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-008-9253-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des        ISSN: 0920-654X            Impact factor:   3.686


  20 in total

1.  Do structurally similar molecules have similar biological activity?

Authors:  Yvonne C Martin; James L Kofron; Linda M Traphagen
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2002-09-12       Impact factor: 7.446

2.  Incorporating molecular shape into the alignment-free Grid-Independent Descriptors.

Authors:  Fabien Fontaine; Manuel Pastor; Ferran Sanz
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2004-05-20       Impact factor: 7.446

3.  GRIND-derived pharmacophore model for a series of alpha-tropanyl derivative ligands of the sigma-2 receptor.

Authors:  Paola Cratteri; M Novella Romanelli; Gabriele Cruciani; Claudia Bonaccini; Fabrizio Melani
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.686

4.  A pharmacophore hypothesis for P-glycoprotein substrate recognition using GRIND-based 3D-QSAR.

Authors:  Giovanni Cianchetta; Robert W Singleton; Meng Zhang; Marianne Wildgoose; Dennis Giesing; Arnaldo Fravolini; Gabriele Cruciani; Roy J Vaz
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2005-04-21       Impact factor: 7.446

5.  BRUTUS: optimization of a grid-based similarity function for rigid-body molecular superposition. II. Description and characterization.

Authors:  Toni Rönkkö; Anu J Tervo; Jussi Parkkinen; Antti Poso
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2006-07-20       Impact factor: 3.686

Review 6.  Similarity-based virtual screening using 2D fingerprints.

Authors:  Peter Willett
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2006-10-20       Impact factor: 7.851

7.  Analysis of data fusion methods in virtual screening: similarity and group fusion.

Authors:  Martin Whittle; Valerie J Gillet; Peter Willett; Jens Loesel
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2006 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  Evaluating chemical structure similarity as an indicator of cellular growth inhibition.

Authors:  Anders Wallqvist; Ruili Huang; Narmada Thanki; David G Covell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 4.956

9.  GBR compounds and mepyramines as cocaine abuse therapeutics: chemometric studies on selectivity using grid independent descriptors (GRIND).

Authors:  Paolo Benedetti; Raimund Mannhold; Gabriele Cruciani; Manuel Pastor
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 7.446

10.  Chemical data mining of the NCI human tumor cell line database.

Authors:  Huijun Wang; Jonathan Klinginsmith; Xiao Dong; Adam C Lee; Rajarshi Guha; Yuqing Wu; Gordon M Crippen; David J Wild
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2007-10-04       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  2 in total

1.  Systematic analysis of genotype-specific drug responses in cancer.

Authors:  Nayoung Kim; Ningning He; Changsik Kim; Fan Zhang; Yiling Lu; Qinghua Yu; Katherine Stemke-Hale; Joel Greshock; Richard Wooster; Sukjoon Yoon; Gordon B Mills
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 2.  Fusing similarity rankings in ligand-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Peter Willett
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2013-02-24       Impact factor: 7.271

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.