Literature DB >> 25527073

A comparative study of family-specific protein-ligand complex affinity prediction based on random forest approach.

Yu Wang1, Yanzhi Guo, Qifan Kuang, Xuemei Pu, Yue Ji, Zhihang Zhang, Menglong Li.   

Abstract

The assessment of binding affinity between ligands and the target proteins plays an essential role in drug discovery and design process. As an alternative to widely used scoring approaches, machine learning methods have also been proposed for fast prediction of the binding affinity with promising results, but most of them were developed as all-purpose models despite of the specific functions of different protein families, since proteins from different function families always have different structures and physicochemical features. In this study, we proposed a random forest method to predict the protein-ligand binding affinity based on a comprehensive feature set covering protein sequence, binding pocket, ligand structure and intermolecular interaction. Feature processing and compression was respectively implemented for different protein family datasets, which indicates that different features contribute to different models, so individual representation for each protein family is necessary. Three family-specific models were constructed for three important protein target families of HIV-1 protease, trypsin and carbonic anhydrase respectively. As a comparison, two generic models including diverse protein families were also built. The evaluation results show that models on family-specific datasets have the superior performance to those on the generic datasets and the Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients (R p and Rs) on the test sets are 0.740, 0.874, 0.735 and 0.697, 0.853, 0.723 for HIV-1 protease, trypsin and carbonic anhydrase respectively. Comparisons with the other methods further demonstrate that individual representation and model construction for each protein family is a more reasonable way in predicting the affinity of one particular protein family.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25527073     DOI: 10.1007/s10822-014-9827-y

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


  38 in total

1.  Knowledge-based scoring functions in drug design. 1. Developing a target-specific method for kinase-ligand interactions.

Authors:  Mengzhu Xue; Mingyue Zheng; Bing Xiong; Yanlian Li; Hualiang Jiang; Jingkang Shen
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2010-08-23       Impact factor: 4.956

2.  Hierarchical PLS modeling for predicting the binding of a comprehensive set of structurally diverse protein-ligand complexes.

Authors:  Anton Lindström; Fredrik Pettersson; Fredrik Almqvist; Anders Berglund; Jan Kihlberg; Anna Linusson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 3.  Docking and scoring--theoretically easy, practically impossible?

Authors:  B Coupez; R A Lewis
Journal:  Curr Med Chem       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set.

Authors:  Tiejun Cheng; Xun Li; Yan Li; Zhihai Liu; Renxiao Wang
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.956

5.  Application of random forest approach to QSAR prediction of aquatic toxicity.

Authors:  Pavel G Polishchuk; Eugene N Muratov; Anatoly G Artemenko; Oleg G Kolumbin; Nail N Muratov; Victor E Kuz'min
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2009-11       Impact factor: 4.956

6.  Species-specific identification of human adenoviruses by a multiplex PCR assay.

Authors:  W Xu; M C McDonough; D D Erdman
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.948

7.  CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: combined evaluation across all submitted scoring functions.

Authors:  Richard D Smith; James B Dunbar; Peter Man-Un Ung; Emilio X Esposito; Chao-Yie Yang; Shaomeng Wang; Heather A Carlson
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2011-08-29       Impact factor: 4.956

8.  PROFEAT: a web server for computing structural and physicochemical features of proteins and peptides from amino acid sequence.

Authors:  Z R Li; H H Lin; L Y Han; L Jiang; X Chen; Y Z Chen
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2006-07-01       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 9.  Biomolecular NMR: a chaperone to drug discovery.

Authors:  Marco Betz; Krishna Saxena; Harald Schwalbe
Journal:  Curr Opin Chem Biol       Date:  2006-05-05       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Does a more precise chemical description of protein-ligand complexes lead to more accurate prediction of binding affinity?

Authors:  Pedro J Ballester; Adrian Schreyer; Tom L Blundell
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 4.956

View more
  12 in total

1.  Characterizing Protein-Ligand Binding Using Atomistic Simulation and Machine Learning: Application to Drug Resistance in HIV-1 Protease.

Authors:  Troy W Whitfield; Debra A Ragland; Konstantin B Zeldovich; Celia A Schiffer
Journal:  J Chem Theory Comput       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 6.006

2.  Individually double minimum-distance definition of protein-RNA binding residues and application to structure-based prediction.

Authors:  Wen Hu; Liu Qin; Menglong Li; Xuemei Pu; Yanzhi Guo
Journal:  J Comput Aided Mol Des       Date:  2018-11-26       Impact factor: 3.686

3.  Target-Specific Prediction of Ligand Affinity with Structure-Based Interaction Fingerprints.

Authors:  Florian Leidner; Nese Kurt Yilmaz; Celia A Schiffer
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Recent trends in artificial intelligence-driven identification and development of anti-neurodegenerative therapeutic agents.

Authors:  Kushagra Kashyap; Mohammad Imran Siddiqi
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2021-07-19       Impact factor: 3.364

5.  Recognition of activities of daily living in healthy subjects using two ad-hoc classifiers.

Authors:  Prabitha Urwyler; Luca Rampa; Reto Stucki; Marcel Büchler; René Müri; Urs P Mosimann; Tobias Nef
Journal:  Biomed Eng Online       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 2.819

Review 6.  Empirical Scoring Functions for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Applications, Critical Aspects, and Challenges.

Authors:  Isabella A Guedes; Felipe S S Pereira; Laurent E Dardenne
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 5.810

7.  Implicit-descriptor ligand-based virtual screening by means of collaborative filtering.

Authors:  Raghuram Srinivas; Pavel V Klimovich; Eric C Larson
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 5.514

Review 8.  Machine-learning scoring functions to improve structure-based binding affinity prediction and virtual screening.

Authors:  Qurrat Ul Ain; Antoniya Aleksandrova; Florian D Roessler; Pedro J Ballester
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Mol Sci       Date:  2015-08-28

Review 9.  Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design.

Authors:  Pedro H M Torres; Ana C R Sodero; Paula Jofily; Floriano P Silva-Jr
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2019-09-15       Impact factor: 5.923

Review 10.  A Review on Applications of Computational Methods in Drug Screening and Design.

Authors:  Xiaoqian Lin; Xiu Li; Xubo Lin
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 4.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.