4.7 Review

Similarity-based machine learning methods for predicting drug-target interactions: a brief review

期刊

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 734-747

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbt056

关键词

drug discovery; drug-target interaction prediction; machine learning; drug similarity; target similarity

资金

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61170097]
  2. Scientific Research Starting Foundation for Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, Ministry of Education, China
  3. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) Invitation Fellowship
  4. KAKENHI from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [23710233, 24300054]
  5. China Scholarship Council
  6. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [23710233] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Computationally predicting drug-target interactions is useful to select possible drug (or target) candidates for further biochemical verification. We focus on machine learning-based approaches, particularly similarity-based methods that use drug and target similarities, which show relationships among drugs and those among targets, respectively. These two similarities represent two emerging concepts, the chemical space and the genomic space. Typically, the methods combine these two types of similarities to generate models for predicting new drug-target interactions. This process is also closely related to a lot of work in pharmacogenomics or chemical biology that attempt to understand the relationships between the chemical and genomic spaces. This background makes the similarity-based approaches attractive and promising. This article reviews the similarity-based machine learning methods for predicting drug-target interactions, which are state-of-the-art and have aroused great interest in bioinformatics. We describe each of these methods briefly, and empirically compare these methods under a uniform experimental setting to explore their advantages and limitations.

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