2016
DOI: 10.1186/s12859-016-0977-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comparative study of SMILES-based compound similarity functions for drug-target interaction prediction

Abstract: BackgroundMolecular structures can be represented as strings of special characters using SMILES. Since each molecule is represented as a string, the similarity between compounds can be computed using SMILES-based string similarity functions. Most previous studies on drug-target interaction prediction use 2D-based compound similarity kernels such as SIMCOMP. To the best of our knowledge, using SMILES-based similarity functions, which are computationally more efficient than the 2D-based kernels, has not been inv… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
89
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 125 publications
(99 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
0
89
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As the field of drug discovery expands with the discovery of new drugs, repurposing of existing drugs and identification of novel interacting partners for approved drugs is also gaining interest ( Oprea and Mestres, 2012 ). Until recently, DTI prediction was approached as a binary classification problem ( Bleakley and Yamanishi, 2009 ; Cao et al ., 2014 , 2012 ; Cobanoglu et al ., 2013 ; Gönen, 2012 ; Öztürk et al ., 2016 ; Yamanishi et al ., 2008 ; van Laarhoven et al ., 2011 ), neglecting an important piece of information about protein–ligand interactions, namely the binding affinity values. Binding affinity provides information on the strength of the interaction between a drug–target (DT) pair and it is usually expressed in measures such as dissociation constant (K d ), inhibition constant (K i ) or the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As the field of drug discovery expands with the discovery of new drugs, repurposing of existing drugs and identification of novel interacting partners for approved drugs is also gaining interest ( Oprea and Mestres, 2012 ). Until recently, DTI prediction was approached as a binary classification problem ( Bleakley and Yamanishi, 2009 ; Cao et al ., 2014 , 2012 ; Cobanoglu et al ., 2013 ; Gönen, 2012 ; Öztürk et al ., 2016 ; Yamanishi et al ., 2008 ; van Laarhoven et al ., 2011 ), neglecting an important piece of information about protein–ligand interactions, namely the binding affinity values. Binding affinity provides information on the strength of the interaction between a drug–target (DT) pair and it is usually expressed in measures such as dissociation constant (K d ), inhibition constant (K i ) or the half maximal inhibitory concentration (IC 50 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The values of the elements in the association hypergraph are the similarity measurements between the corresponding elements. For similarity among the vertices, we used a compound (metabolites) similarity score for which numerous metrics are available 40 , 41 . Specifically, we selected the similarity score calculated by ChemMine tools, which have an R interface to recognize the CID number of the compounds 42 .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Protein sequences are usually stored in the form of letters, in which the number of letters is 20, representing 20 amino acids. In order to facilitate the processing of www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ machine learning algorithm, we use Position-Specific Scoring Matrix (PSSM) to transform it into a numerical matrix 33,34 . The advantage of this strategy is that it can extract the biological evolutionary information carried in the protein sequence, which is conducive to deep mining.…”
Section: Drug Molecular Characterization Studies Show That Molecularmentioning
confidence: 99%