Literature DB >> 28651433

Profile-QSAR 2.0: Kinase Virtual Screening Accuracy Comparable to Four-Concentration IC50s for Realistically Novel Compounds.

Eric J Martin1, Valery R Polyakov1, Li Tian1, Rolando C Perez1.   

Abstract

While conventional random forest regression (RFR) virtual screening models appear to have excellent accuracy on random held-out test sets, they prove lacking in actual practice. Analysis of 18 historical virtual screens showed that random test sets are far more similar to their training sets than are the compounds project teams actually order. A new, cluster-based "realistic" training/test set split, which mirrors the chemical novelty of real-life virtual screens, recapitulates the poor predictive power of RFR models in real projects. The original Profile-QSAR (pQSAR) method greatly broadened the domain of applicability over conventional models by using as independent variables a profile of activity predictions from all historical assays in a large protein family. However, the accuracy still fell short of experiment on realistic test sets. The improved "pQSAR 2.0" method replaces probabilities of activity from naïve Bayes categorical models at several thresholds with predicted IC50s from RFR models. Unexpectedly, the high accuracy also requires removing the RFR model for the actual assay of interest from the independent variable profile. With these improvements, pQSAR 2.0 activity predictions are now statistically comparable to medium-throughput four-concentration IC50 measurements even on the realistic test set. Beyond the yes/no activity predictions from a typical high-throughput screen (HTS) or conventional virtual screen, these semiquantitative IC50 predictions allow for predicted potency, ligand efficiency, lipophilic efficiency, and selectivity against antitargets, greatly facilitating hitlist triaging and enabling virtual screening panels such as toxicity panels and overall promiscuity predictions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28651433     DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00166

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


  8 in total

1.  Validation strategies for target prediction methods.

Authors:  Neann Mathai; Ya Chen; Johannes Kirchmair
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2020-05-21       Impact factor: 11.622

2.  Opportunities and challenges using artificial intelligence in ADME/Tox.

Authors:  Barun Bhhatarai; W Patrick Walters; Cornelis E C A Hop; Guido Lanza; Sean Ekins
Journal:  Nat Mater       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 43.841

Review 3.  Artificial intelligence and machine-learning approaches in structure and ligand-based discovery of drugs affecting central nervous system.

Authors:  Vertika Gautam; Anand Gaurav; Neeraj Masand; Vannajan Sanghiran Lee; Vaishali M Patil
Journal:  Mol Divers       Date:  2022-07-11       Impact factor: 3.364

4.  Analysis of the benefits of imputation models over traditional QSAR models for toxicity prediction.

Authors:  Moritz Walter; Luke N Allen; Antonio de la Vega de León; Samuel J Webb; Valerie J Gillet
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 8.489

5.  QSAR-derived affinity fingerprints (part 2): modeling performance for potency prediction.

Authors:  Isidro Cortés-Ciriano; Ctibor Škuta; Andreas Bender; Daniel Svozil
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2020-06-05       Impact factor: 5.514

6.  QSAR-derived affinity fingerprints (part 1): fingerprint construction and modeling performance for similarity searching, bioactivity classification and scaffold hopping.

Authors:  C Škuta; I Cortés-Ciriano; W Dehaen; P Kříž; G J P van Westen; I V Tetko; A Bender; D Svozil
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 5.514

7.  3D-e-Chem: Structural Cheminformatics Workflows for Computer-Aided Drug Discovery.

Authors:  Albert J Kooistra; Márton Vass; Ross McGuire; Rob Leurs; Iwan J P de Esch; Gert Vriend; Stefan Verhoeven; Chris de Graaf
Journal:  ChemMedChem       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.466

8.  Splitting chemical structure data sets for federated privacy-preserving machine learning.

Authors:  Jaak Simm; Lina Humbeck; Adam Zalewski; Noe Sturm; Wouter Heyndrickx; Yves Moreau; Bernd Beck; Ansgar Schuffenhauer
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 5.514

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.