4.6 Article

Probabilistic Approach for Virtual Screening Based on Multiple Pharmacophores

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules25020385

关键词

pharmacophores; machine learning; virtual screening; ligand-based virtual screening

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic [INTER-ACTION LTARF18013, MSMT-5727/2018-2]
  2. Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation [14.587.21.0049, RFMEFI58718X0049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pharmacophore modeling is usually considered as a special type of virtual screening without probabilistic nature. Correspondence of at least one conformation of a molecule to pharmacophore is considered as evidence of its bioactivity. We show that pharmacophores can be treated as one-class machine learning models, and the probability the reflecting model's confidence can be assigned to a pharmacophore on the basis of their precision of active compounds identification on a calibration set. Two schemes (Max and Mean) of probability calculation for consensus prediction based on individual pharmacophore models were proposed. Both approaches to some extent correspond to commonly used consensus approaches like the common hit approach or the one based on a logical OR operation uniting hit lists of individual models. Unlike some known approaches, the proposed ones can rank compounds retrieved by multiple models. These approaches were benchmarked on multiple ChEMBL datasets used for ligand-based pharmacophore modeling and externally validated on corresponding DUD-E datasets. The influence of complexity of pharmacophores and their performance on a calibration set on results of virtual screening was analyzed. It was shown that Max and Mean approaches have superior early enrichment to the commonly used approaches. Thus, a well-performing, easy-to-implement, and probabilistic alternative to existing approaches for pharmacophore-based virtual screening was proposed.

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

4.6
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