ArticleJournal of computer-aided molecular design2014
Computational chemogenomics: is it more than inductive transfer?
Article in Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- QSAR without borders.Chemical Society reviews · 2020Review
- Multi-task generative topographic mapping in virtual screening.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2019Article
- 3D-e-Chem: Structural Cheminformatics Workflows for Computer-Aided Drug Discovery.ChemMedChem · 2018Article
- Assessment of tautomer distribution using the condensed reaction graph approach.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2018Article
- Transfer and Multi-task Learning in QSAR Modeling: Advances and Challenges.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Review
- Improved large-scale prediction of growth inhibition patterns using the NCI60 cancer cell line panel.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2016Article
- Mappability of drug-like space: towards a polypharmacologically competent map of drug-relevant compounds.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2015Article
- Proteochemometric modelling coupled to in silico target prediction: an integrated approach for the simultaneous prediction of polypharmacology and binding affinity/potency of small molecules.Journal of cheminformatics · 2015Article
- Prediction of the potency of mammalian cyclooxygenase inhibitors with ensemble proteochemometric modeling.Journal of cheminformatics · 2015Article
- Proteochemometric modeling in a Bayesian framework.Journal of cheminformatics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
High-throughput assays challenge us to extract knowledge from multi-ligand, multi-target activity data. In QSAR, weights are statically fitted to each ligand descriptor with respect to a single endpoint or target. However, computational chemogenomics (CG) has demonstrated benefits of learning from entire grids of data at once, rather than building target-specific QSARs. A possible reason for this is the emergence of inductive knowledge transfer (IT) between targets, providing statistical robustness to the model, with no assumption about the structure of the targets. Relevant protein descriptors in CG should allow one to learn how to dynamically adjust ligand attribute weights with respect to protein structure. Hence, models built through explicit learning (EL) by including protein information, while benefitting from IT enhancement, should provide additional predictive capability, notably for protein deorphanization. This interplay between IT and EL in CG modeling is not sufficiently studied. While IT is likely to occur irrespective of the injected target information, it is not clear whether and when boosting due to EL may occur. EL is only possible if protein description is appropriate to the target set under investigation. The key issue here is the search for evidence of genuine EL exceeding expectations based on pure IT. We explore the problem in the context of Support Vector Regression, using more than 9,400 pKi values of 31 GPCRs, where compound-protein interactions are represented by the concatenation of vectorial descriptions of compounds and proteins. This provides a unified framework to generate both IT-enhanced and potentially EL-enabled models, where the difference is toggled by supplied protein information. For EL-enabled models, protein information includes genuine protein descriptors such as typical sequence-based terms, but also the experimentally determined affinity cross-correlation fingerprints. These latter benchmark the expected behavior of a quasi-ideal descriptor capturing the actual functional protein-protein relatedness, and therefore thought to be the most likely to enable EL. EL- and IT-based methods were benchmarked alongside classical QSAR, with respect to cross-validation and deorphanization challenges. A rational method for projecting benchmarked methodologies into a strategy space is given, in the aims that the projection will provide directions for the types of molecule designs possible using a given methodology. While EL-enabled strategies outperform classical QSARs and favorably compare to similar published results, they are, in all respects evaluated herein, not strongly distinguished from IT-enhanced models. Moreover, EL-enabled strategies failed to prove superior in deorphanization challenges. Therefore, this paper raises caution that, contrary to common belief and intuitive expectation, the benefits of chemogenomics models over classical QSAR are quite possibly due less to the injection of protein-related information, and rather impacted more by the effect of inductive transfer, due to simultaneous learning from all of the modeled endpoints. These results show that the field of protein descriptor research needs further improvements to truly realize the expected benefit of EL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24771144What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.