4.6 Article

Predicting drug-target interaction using positive-unlabeled learning

期刊

NEUROCOMPUTING
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 50-57

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.03.080

关键词

Drug-target interaction; Sequence similarity; Structure similarity; Random walk; Positive-unlabeled learning

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61232001, 61428209, 61420106009]
  2. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University [NCET-12-0547]
  3. Direct For Computer & Info Scie & Enginr
  4. Division of Computing and Communication Foundations [1066471] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Identifying interactions between drug compounds and target proteins is an important process in drug discovery. It is time-consuming and expensive to determine interactions between drug compounds and target proteins with experimental methods. The computational methods provide an effective strategy to address this issue. The difficulties of drug-target interaction identification include the lack of known drug-target association and no experimentally verified negative samples. In this work, we present a method, called PUDT, to predict drug-target interactions. Instead of treating unknown interactions as negative samples, we set it as unlabeled samples. We use three strategies (Random walk with restarts, KNN and heat kernel diffusion) to part unlabeled samples into two groups: reliable negative samples (RN) and likely negative samples (LN) based on target similarity information. Then, majority voting method is used to aggregate these strategies to decide the final label of unlabeled samples. Finally, weighted support vector machine is employed to build a classifier. Four datasets (enzyme, ion channel, GPCR and nuclear receptor) are used to evaluate the performance of our method. The results demonstrate that the performance of our method is comparable or better than recent state-of-the-art approaches. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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