Literature DB >> 19799417

Critical comparison of virtual screening methods against the MUV data set.

Pekka Tiikkainen1, Patrick Markt, Gerhard Wolber, Johannes Kirchmair, Simona Distinto, Antti Poso, Olli Kallioniemi.   

Abstract

In the current work, we measure the performance of seven ligand-based virtual screening tools--five similarity search methods and two pharmacophore elucidators--against the MUV data set. For the similarity search tools, single active molecules as well as active compound sets clustered in terms of their chemical diversity were used as templates. Their score was calculated against all inactive and active compounds in their target class. Subsequently, the scores were used to calculate different performance metrics including enrichment factors and AUC values. We also studied the effect of data fusion on the results. To measure the performance of the pharmacophore tools, a set of active molecules was picked either random- or chemical diversity-based from each target class to build a pharmacophore model which was then used to screen the remaining compounds in the set. Our results indicate that template sets selected by their chemical diversity are the best choice for similarity search tools, whereas the optimal training sets for pharmacophore elucidators are based on random selection underscoring that pharmacophore modeling cannot be easily automated. We also suggest a number of improvements for future benchmark sets and discuss activity cliffs as a potential problem in ligand-based virtual screening.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19799417     DOI: 10.1021/ci900249b

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


  11 in total

1.  Protein-Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks.

Authors:  Matthew Ragoza; Joshua Hochuli; Elisa Idrobo; Jocelyn Sunseri; David Ryan Koes
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 4.956

2.  Fragment oriented molecular shapes.

Authors:  Ethan Hain; Carlos J Camacho; David Ryan Koes
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2016-04-02       Impact factor: 2.518

3.  Benchmarking methods and data sets for ligand enrichment assessment in virtual screening.

Authors:  Jie Xia; Ermias Lemma Tilahun; Terry-Elinor Reid; Liangren Zhang; Xiang Simon Wang
Journal:  Methods       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.608

4.  Predicting Accurate Lead Structures for Screening Molecular Libraries: A Quantum Crystallographic Approach.

Authors:  Suman Kumar Mandal; Parthapratim Munshi
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2021-04-29       Impact factor: 4.411

Review 5.  Fusing similarity rankings in ligand-based virtual screening.

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

6.  Comparing structural fingerprints using a literature-based similarity benchmark.

Authors:  Noel M O'Boyle; Roger A Sayle
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 5.514

7.  Comparative analysis of chemical similarity methods for modular natural products with a hypothetical structure enumeration algorithm.

Authors:  Michael A Skinnider; Chris A Dejong; Brian C Franczak; Paul D McNicholas; Nathan A Magarvey
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 5.514

8.  Prediction of Compound Profiling Matrices Using Machine Learning.

Authors:  Raquel Rodríguez-Pérez; Tomoyuki Miyao; Swarit Jasial; Martin Vogt; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  ACS Omega       Date:  2018-04-30

9.  Open-source platform to benchmark fingerprints for ligand-based virtual screening.

Authors:  Sereina Riniker; Gregory A Landrum
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 5.514

Review 10.  Decoys Selection in Benchmarking Datasets: Overview and Perspectives.

Authors:  Manon Réau; Florent Langenfeld; Jean-François Zagury; Nathalie Lagarde; Matthieu Montes
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-01-24       Impact factor: 5.810

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.