4.5 Review

Use of machine learning approaches for novel drug discovery

期刊

EXPERT OPINION ON DRUG DISCOVERY
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 225-239

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1517/17460441.2016.1146250

关键词

LBDD; Drug Design; Machine Learning; SBDD

资金

  1. FAPESP (The Sao Paulo Research Foundation)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The use of computational tools in the early stages of drug development has increased in recent decades. Machine learning (ML) approaches have been of special interest, since they can be applied in several steps of the drug discovery methodology, such as prediction of target structure, prediction of biological activity of new ligands through model construction, discovery or optimization of hits, and construction of models that predict the pharmacokinetic and toxicological (ADMET) profile of compounds. Areas covered: This article presents an overview on some applications of ML techniques in drug design. These techniques can be employed in ligand-based drug design (LBDD) and structure-based drug design (SBDD) studies, such as similarity searches, construction of classification and/or prediction models of biological activity, prediction of secondary structures and binding sites docking and virtual screening. Expert opinion: Successful cases have been reported in the literature, demonstrating the efficiency of ML techniques combined with traditional approaches to study medicinal chemistry problems. Some ML techniques used in drug design are: support vector machine, random forest, decision trees and artificial neural networks. Currently, an important application of ML techniques is related to the calculation of scoring functions used in docking and virtual screening assays from a consensus, combining traditional and ML techniques in order to improve the prediction of binding sites and docking solutions.

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

4.5
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