Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28787438›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

Computational-experimental approach to drug-target interaction mapping: A case study on kinase inhibitors.

Anna Cichonska, Balaguru Ravikumar, Elina Parri, Sanna Timonen, Tapio Pahikkala, Antti Airola, Krister Wennerberg, Juho Rousu, Tero Aittokallio

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Proteome-wide prediction of interactions between structured domains and peptide motifs reveals functionally coherent subnetworks.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Docking-Informed Machine Learning for Kinome-wide Affinity Prediction.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Anna CichonskaHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1072-8858
Balaguru RavikumarInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Elina ParriInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Sanna TimonenInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Tapio PahikkalaDepartment of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4183-2455
Antti AirolaDepartment of Information Technology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Krister WennerbergInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Juho RousuHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0705-4314
Tero AittokallioInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland FIMM, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0886-9769

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to relatively high costs and labor required for experimental profiling of the full target space of chemical compounds, various machine learning models have been proposed as cost-effective means to advance this process in terms of predicting the most potent compound-target interactions for subsequent verification. However, most of the model predictions lack direct experimental validation in the laboratory, making their practical benefits for drug discovery or repurposing applications largely unknown. Here, we therefore introduce and carefully test a systematic computational-experimental framework for the prediction and pre-clinical verification of drug-target interactions using a well-established kernel-based regression algorithm as the prediction model. To evaluate its performance, we first predicted unmeasured binding affinities in a large-scale kinase inhibitor profiling study, and then experimentally tested 100 compound-kinase pairs. The relatively high correlation of 0.77 (p < 0.0001) between the predicted and measured bioactivities supports the potential of the model for filling the experimental gaps in existing compound-target interaction maps. Further, we subjected the model to a more challenging task of predicting target interactions for such a new candidate drug compound that lacks prior binding profile information. As a specific case study, we used tivozanib, an investigational VEGF receptor inhibitor with currently unknown off-target profile. Among 7 kinases with high predicted affinity, we experimentally validated 4 new off-targets of tivozanib, namely the Src-family kinases FRK and FYN A, the non-receptor tyrosine kinase ABL1, and the serine/threonine kinase SLK. Our sub-sequent experimental validation protocol effectively avoids any possible information leakage between the training and validation data, and therefore enables rigorous model validation for practical applications. These results demonstrate that the kernel-based modeling approach offers practical benefits for probing novel insights into the mode of action of investigational compounds, and for the identification of new target selectivities for drug repurposing applications.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalProtein Kinase InhibitorsAlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatabases, FactualDrug DiscoveryHumansProtein BindingReproducibility of ResultsProtein Kinase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID28787438
PMCPMC5560747

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.