4.7 Article

Virtual Screening of Abl Inhibitors from Large Compound Libraries by Support Vector Machines

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 2101-2110

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ci900135u

关键词

-

资金

  1. Singapore Academic Research Fund [R-148-000-083-112]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30772651]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology
  4. 863 High-Tech Program [2006AA020400]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abl promotes cancers by regulating cell morphogenesis, motility, growth, and survival. Successes of several marketed and clinical trial Abl inhibitors against leukemia and other cancers and appearances of reduced efficacies and drug resistances have led to significant interest in and efforts for developing new Abl inhibitors. In silico methods of pharmacophore, fragment, and molecular docking have been used in some of these efforts. It is desirable to explore other in silico methods capable of searching large compound libraries at high yields and reduced false-hit rates. We evaluated support vector machines (SVM) as a virtual screening tool for searching Abl inhibitors from large compound libraries. SVM trained and tested by 708 inhibitors and 65 494 putative noninhibitors correctly identified 84.4 to 92.3% inhibitors and 99.96 to 99.99% noninhibitors in 5-fold cross validation studies. SVM trained by 708 pre-2008 inhibitors and 65 494 putative noninhibitors Correctly identified 50.5% of the 91 inhibitors reported since 2008 and predicted as inhibitors 29 072 (0.21%) of 13.56M PubChem, 659 (0.39%) of 168K MDDR, and 330 (5.0%) of 6 638 MDDR compounds similar to the known inhibitors. SVM showed comparable yields and substantially reduced false-hit rates against two similarity based and another machine learning VS methods based on the same training and testing data sets and molecular descriptors. These suggest that SVM is capable of searching Abl inhibitors from large compound libraries at low false-hit rates.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据