| Literature DB >> 20052387 |
Burcu Yilmaz1, Mehmet Göktürk.
Abstract
DeEntities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 20052387 PMCID: PMC2801005 DOI: 10.1155/2009/502527
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Autom Methods Manag Chem ISSN: 1463-9246
Figure 1Data flow diagram.
Figure 2Transformation of data to 2D space.
Figure 3Resulting 2D image after processing an ETMC matrix.
Figure 4The activity map of 10 active molecules.
Figure 5Unfiltered active molecules plotted on atom-bond-atom coordinate system.
Figure 6Activity and inactivity clusters extracted from filtered data.
Figure 9Active fragments.
Complexity of each step in the proposed approach (n = number of molecules, and m = maximum number of atoms in a molecule).
| Activity map creation | |
| Filtering | |
| Clustering | |
| Fragment extraction | |
| Overall | |
Figure 7Activity map.
Figure 8Inactivity map.
Processing time for each step in the case study (in seconds).
| Activity map creation | 2.045 |
| Filtering | 0.513 |
| Clustering | 19.876 |
| Fragment extraction | 0.728 |
| Total | 23.162 |
Performance of the proposed approach, SUBDUE and FSG with respect to recall and precision metrics.
| Proposed approach | SUBDUE | FSG | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Recall | 0.95 | 0.80 | 0.40 |
| Precision | 0.97 | 0.75 | 0.67 |
Experimental results for the synthetic datasets (P refers to precision and R refers to recall).
| Dataset number | Number of active molecules | Number of inactive molecules | Probability of noise [0-1] | Proposed method | gSpan | Gaston | MoFa | FFSM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | R | P | R | P | R | P | R | P | R | ||||
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 0.25 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.33 | 1 | 0.28 | 1 | 0.21 | 1 | 0.19 |
| 3 | 10 | 10 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.11 | 1 | 0.08 | 1 | 0.06 |
| 4 | 10 | 10 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.91 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | 50 | 50 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 6 | 50 | 50 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.94 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 7 | 100 | 100 | 0.0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 8 | 100 | 100 | 1.0 | 1 | 0.95 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.05 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Performance of the classification methods on the antituberculosis dataset.
| Unfiltered data | Filtered data | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active molecules | Inactive molecules | Active molecules | Inactive molecules | |
| Classifiers | Success (%) | Success (%) | Success (%) | Success (%) |
| LDA | 0 | 100 | 92 | 95 |
| 1-NN | 100 | 100 | 100 | 95 |
| SVM | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| DT | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Average processing time | 39 min. and 19 sec. | 14 min. and 29 sec. | ||