2017
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005678
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

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, … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
91
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
1
91
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Recently, many advanced deep learning (DL) algorithms have been proposed for compound-target interaction prediction, [22][23][24] but our results did not find DL outperforming other learning approaches. The Spearman correlation sub-challenge topperformer (Q.E.D) actually used the same modelling approach as the baseline model, 12 yet showing markedly better performance (Fig. 3F), indicating that careful feature selection, method implementation, or other domain knowledge, could result in marked performance improvement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, many advanced deep learning (DL) algorithms have been proposed for compound-target interaction prediction, [22][23][24] but our results did not find DL outperforming other learning approaches. The Spearman correlation sub-challenge topperformer (Q.E.D) actually used the same modelling approach as the baseline model, 12 yet showing markedly better performance (Fig. 3F), indicating that careful feature selection, method implementation, or other domain knowledge, could result in marked performance improvement.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Alternatively, the similarity could be built from other sources rather than the affinity in training data. For example, in kernel based approaches, as in [5,4], kernels for drugs and targets are built from their molecular descriptors, input into a regularized least squares regression model (RLS) to predict the binding affinity. Given the problem is to predict the affinity for n drugs and m targets, there would be n*m combinations of them and the kernel would be in the size of (n * m) 2 .…”
Section: Kernel Based (Kronrls)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Given the problem is to predict the affinity for n drugs and m targets, there would be n*m combinations of them and the kernel would be in the size of (n * m) 2 . To speed up model training, Cichonska et al [5,4] (KronRLS) suggest to use KronRLS (Kronecker regularized least-squares). In KronRLS, a pairwise kernel K is computed as the Kronecker product of compound kernel of size n*n and protein kernel of size m*m.…”
Section: Kernel Based (Kronrls)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, we attempted to study drug treatment patterns through drug-target modules in a multi-layer network. Genes in drug-target modules are highly expressed in disease-associated tissues [20][21][22], which allows drug targets to be treated by specific small molecular compounds [23][24][25][26]. Each disease corresponds to a tissue-specific protein-protein interaction (TSPPI) network [27].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%