Literature DB >> 27856761

Predicting protein-ligand affinity with a random matrix framework.

Alpha A Lee1,2, Michael P Brenner3,2, Lucy J Colwell4.   

Abstract

Rapid determination of whether a candidate compound will bind to a particular target receptor remains a stumbling block in drug discovery. We use an approach inspired by random matrix theory to decompose the known ligand set of a target in terms of orthogonal "signals" of salient chemical features, and distinguish these from the much larger set of ligand chemical features that are not relevant for binding to that particular target receptor. After removing the noise caused by finite sampling, we show that the similarity of an unknown ligand to the remaining, cleaned chemical features is a robust predictor of ligand-target affinity, performing as well or better than any algorithm in the published literature. We interpret our algorithm as deriving a model for the binding energy between a target receptor and the set of known ligands, where the underlying binding energy model is related to the classic Ising model in statistical physics.

Keywords:  computational pharmacology; drug discovery; protein–ligand affinity; random matrix theory; statistical physics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27856761      PMCID: PMC5137738          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1611138113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  25 in total

1.  Investigating Pharmacological Similarity by Charting Chemical Space.

Authors:  Rosa Buonfiglio; Ola Engkvist; Péter Várkonyi; Astrid Henz; Elisabet Vikeved; Anders Backlund; Thierry Kogej
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 4.956

2.  Weak pairwise correlations imply strongly correlated network states in a neural population.

Authors:  Elad Schneidman; Michael J Berry; Ronen Segev; William Bialek
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-04-09       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Solubility challenge: can you predict solubilities of 32 molecules using a database of 100 reliable measurements?

Authors:  Antonio Llinàs; Robert C Glen; Jonathan M Goodman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2008-07-15       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Neuronal couplings between retinal ganglion cells inferred by efficient inverse statistical physics methods.

Authors:  Simona Cocco; Stanislas Leibler; Rémi Monasson
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2009-07-31       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  High-dimensional inference with the generalized Hopfield model: principal component analysis and corrections.

Authors:  S Cocco; R Monasson; V Sessak
Journal:  Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys       Date:  2011-05-20

6.  Similarity coefficients for binary chemoinformatics data: overview and extended comparison using simulated and real data sets.

Authors:  Roberto Todeschini; Viviana Consonni; Hua Xiang; John Holliday; Massimo Buscema; Peter Willett
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 4.956

7.  Similarity-based modeling in large-scale prediction of drug-drug interactions.

Authors:  Santiago Vilar; Eugenio Uriarte; Lourdes Santana; Tal Lorberbaum; George Hripcsak; Carol Friedman; Nicholas P Tatonetti
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 13.491

8.  An Aggregation Advisor for Ligand Discovery.

Authors:  John J Irwin; Da Duan; Hayarpi Torosyan; Allison K Doak; Kristin T Ziebart; Teague Sterling; Gurgen Tumanian; Brian K Shoichet
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 9.  Classification of scaffold-hopping approaches.

Authors:  Hongmao Sun; Gregory Tawa; Anders Wallqvist
Journal:  Drug Discov Today       Date:  2011-10-26       Impact factor: 7.851

Review 10.  Three-dimensional compound comparison methods and their application in drug discovery.

Authors:  Woong-Hee Shin; Xiaolei Zhu; Mark Gregory Bures; Daisuke Kihara
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2015-07-16       Impact factor: 4.411

View more
  7 in total

1.  Using attribution to decode binding mechanism in neural network models for chemistry.

Authors:  Kevin McCloskey; Ankur Taly; Federico Monti; Michael P Brenner; Lucy J Colwell
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-05-24       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Visualizing convolutional neural network protein-ligand scoring.

Authors:  Joshua Hochuli; Alec Helbling; Tamar Skaist; Matthew Ragoza; David Ryan Koes
Journal:  J Mol Graph Model       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 2.518

3.  AGL-Score: Algebraic Graph Learning Score for Protein-Ligand Binding Scoring, Ranking, Docking, and Screening.

Authors:  Duc Duy Nguyen; Guo-Wei Wei
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 4.956

4.  Machine learning unifies the modeling of materials and molecules.

Authors:  Albert P Bartók; Sandip De; Carl Poelking; Noam Bernstein; James R Kermode; Gábor Csányi; Michele Ceriotti
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2017-12-13       Impact factor: 14.136

5.  When two are better than one: Modeling the mechanisms of antibody mixtures.

Authors:  Tal Einav; Jesse D Bloom
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 4.779

6.  On identifying collective displacements in apo-proteins that reveal eventual binding pathways.

Authors:  Dheeraj Dube; Navjeet Ahalawat; Himanshu Khandelia; Jagannath Mondal; Surajit Sengupta
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2019-01-15       Impact factor: 4.475

7.  DeltaDelta neural networks for lead optimization of small molecule potency.

Authors:  José Jiménez-Luna; Laura Pérez-Benito; Gerard Martínez-Rosell; Simone Sciabola; Rubben Torella; Gary Tresadern; Gianni De Fabritiis
Journal:  Chem Sci       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 9.825

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.