Literature DB >> 21793563

How do 2D fingerprints detect structurally diverse active compounds? Revealing compound subset-specific fingerprint features through systematic selection.

Kathrin Heikamp1, Jürgen Bajorath.   

Abstract

In independent studies it has previously been demonstrated that two-dimensional (2D) fingerprints have scaffold hopping ability in virtual screening, although these descriptors primarily emphasize structural and/or topological resemblance of reference and database compounds. However, the mechanism by which such fingerprints enrich structurally diverse molecules in database selection sets is currently little understood. In order to address this question, similarity search calculations on 120 compound activity classes of varying structural diversity were carried out using atom environment fingerprints. Two feature selection methods, Kullback-Leibler divergence and gain ratio analysis, were applied to systematically reduce these fingerprints and generate alternative versions for searching. Gain ratio is a feature selection method from information theory that has thus far not been considered in fingerprint analysis. However, it is shown here to be an effective fingerprint feature selection approach. Following comparative feature selection and similarity searching, the compound recall characteristics of original and reduced fingerprint versions were analyzed in detail. Small sets of fingerprint features were found to distinguish subsets of active compounds from other database molecules. The compound recall of fingerprint similarity searching often resulted from a cumulative detection of distinct compound subsets by different fingerprint features, which provided a rationale for the scaffold hopping potential of these 2D fingerprints.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21793563     DOI: 10.1021/ci200275m

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


  6 in total

1.  Introducing the 'active search' method for iterative virtual screening.

Authors:  Roman Garnett; Thomas Gärtner; Martin Vogt; Jürgen Bajorath
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2015-02-01       Impact factor: 3.686

2.  Influence of feature rankers in the construction of molecular activity prediction models.

Authors:  Gonzalo Cerruela-García; José Pérez-Parra Toledano; Aída de Haro-García; Nicolás García-Pedrajas
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2019-12-31       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Using molecular features of xenobiotics to predict hepatic gene expression response.

Authors:  Guy Haskin Fernald; Russ B Altman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2013-10-02       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Graph-Based Feature Selection Approach for Molecular Activity Prediction.

Authors:  Gonzalo Cerruela-García; José Manuel Cuevas-Muñoz; Nicolás García-Pedrajas
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2022-03-22       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  Target enhanced 2D similarity search by using explicit biological activity annotations and profiles.

Authors:  Xiang Yu; Lewis Y Geer; Lianyi Han; Stephen H Bryant
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 5.514

6.  How Sure Can We Be about ML Methods-Based Evaluation of Compound Activity: Incorporation of Information about Prediction Uncertainty Using Deep Learning Techniques.

Authors:  Igor Sieradzki; Damian Leśniak; Sabina Podlewska
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-03-23       Impact factor: 4.411

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.