A Comprehensive Comparison of Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Tools Against the DUD Dataset Reveals Limitations of Current 3D Methods

In recent years, many virtual screening (VS) tools have been developed that employ different molecular representations and have different speed and accuracy characteristics. In this paper, we compare ten popular ligand-based VS tools using the publicly available Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD) dataset comprising over 100,000 compounds distributed across 40 protein targets. The DUD was developed initially to evaluate docking algorithms, but our results from an operational correlation analysis show that it is also well suited for comparing ligand-based VS tools. Although it is conventional wisdom that 3D molecular shape is an important determinant of biological activity, our results based on permutational significance tests of several commonly used VS metrics show that the 2D fingerprint-based methods generally give better VS performance than the 3D shape-based approaches for surprisingly many of the DUD targets. In order to help understand this finding, we have analysed the nature of the scoring functions used and the composition of the DUD dataset itself. We propose that in order to To whom correspondence should be addresse

GESSE: Predicting Drug Side Effects from Drug–Target Relationships: GESSE: Predicting Drug Side Effects from Drug–Target Relationships

International audienc

Using Consensus-Shape Clustering To Identify Promiscuous Ligands and Protein Targets and To Choose the Right Query for Shape-Based Virtual Screening

International audienceLigand-based shape matching approaches have become established as important and popular virtual screening (VS) techniques. However, despite their relative success, many authors have discussed how best to choose the initial query compounds and which of their conformations should be used. Furthermore, it is increasingly the case that pharmaceutical companies have multiple ligands for a given target and these may bind in different ways to the same pocket. Conversely, a given ligand can sometimes bind to multiple targets, and this is clearly of great importance when considering drug side-effects. We recently introduced the notion of spherical harmonic-based "consensus shapes" to help deal with these questions. Here, we apply a consensus shape clustering approach to the 40 protein-ligand targets in the DUD data set using PARASURF/PARAFIT. Results from clustering show that in some cases the ligands for a given target are split into two subgroups which could suggest they bind to different subsites of the same target. In other cases, our clustering approach sometimes groups together ligands from different targets, and this suggests that those ligands could bind to the same targets. Hence spherical harmonic-based clustering can rapidly give cross-docking information while avoiding the expense of performing all-against-all docking calculations. We also report on the effect of the query conformation on the performance of shape-based screening of the DUD data set and the potential gain in screening performance by using consensus shapes calculated in different ways. We provide details of our analysis of shape-based screening using both PARASURF/PARAFIT and ROCS, and we compare the results obtained with shape-based and conventional docking approaches using MSSH/SHEF and GOLD. The utility of each type of query is analyzed using commonly reported statistics such as enrichment factors (EF) and receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) plots as well as other early performance metrics

Computational proteomics pitfalls and challenges: HavanaBioinfo 2012 Workshop report

The workshop "Bioinformatics for Biotechnology Applications (HavanaBioinfo 2012)", held December 8-11, 2012 in Havana, aimed at exploring new bioinformatics tools and approaches for large-scale proteomics, genomics and chemoinformatics. Major conclusions of the workshop include the following: (i) development of new applications and bioinformatics tools for proteomic repository analysis is crucial; current proteomic repositories contain enough data (spectra/identifications) that can be used to increase the annotations in protein databases and to generate new tools for protein identification; (ii) spectral libraries, de novo sequencing and database search tools should be combined to increase the number of protein identifications; (iii) protein probabilities and FDR are not yet sufficiently mature; (iv) computational proteomics software needs to become more intuitive; and at the same time appropriate education and training should be provided to help in the efficient exchange of knowledge between mass spectrometrists and experimental biologists and bioinformaticians in order to increase their bioinforrnatics background, especially statistics knowledge. (c) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved