Cited by 103Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceCell Image Analysis Techniques

Badapple: promiscuity patterns from noisy evidence

Open access
Yang, Jeremy J., Ursu, Oleg, Lipinski, Christopher A., Sklar, Larry A., Oprea, Tudor I., Bologa, Cristian G.·2016·Journal of Cheminformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Bioassay data analysis continues to be an essential, routine, yet challenging task in modern drug discovery and chemical biology research. The challenge is to infer reliable knowledge from big and noisy data. Some aspects of this problem are general with solutions informed by existing and emerging data science best practices. Some aspects are domain specific, and rely on expertise in bioassay methodology and chemical biology. Testing compounds for biological activity requires complex and innovative methodology, producing results varying widely in accuracy, precision, and information content. Hit selection criteria involve optimizing such that the overall probability of success in a project is maximized, and resource-wasteful "false trails" are avoided. This "fail-early" approach is embraced both in pharmaceutical and academic drug discovery, since follow-up capacity is resource-limited. Thus, early identification of likely promiscuous compounds has practical value. RESULTS: Here we describe an algorithm for identifying likely promiscuous compounds via associated scaffolds which combines general and domain-specific features to assist and accelerate drug discovery informatics, called Badapple: bioassay-data associative promiscuity pattern learning engine. Results are described from an analysis using data from MLP assays via the BioAssay Research Database (BARD) http://bard.nih.gov. Specific examples are analyzed in the context of medicinal chemistry, to illustrate associations with mechanisms of promiscuity. Badapple has been developed at UNM, released and deployed for public use two ways: (1) BARD plugin, integrated into the public BARD REST API and BARD web client; and (2) public web app hosted at UNM. CONCLUSIONS: Badapple is a method for rapidly identifying likely promiscuous compounds via associated scaffolds. Badapple generates a score associated with a pragmatic, empirical definition of promiscuity, with the overall goal to identify "false trails" and streamline workflows. Unlike methods reliant on expert curation of chemical substructure patterns, Badapple is fully evidence-driven, automated, self-improving via integration of additional data, and focused on scaffolds. Badapple is robust with respect to noise and errors, and skeptical of scanty evidence.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13321-016-0137-3

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Including veterinary drugs in DrugCentral could inform promiscuity analyses such as BADAPPLE, a chemical pattern detection algorithm.

    “Including veterinary drugs in DrugCentral could inform promiscuity analyses such as BADAPPLE, a chemical pattern detection algorithm (46).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 35 · Cited by 103

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [23]PubChem Compound. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pccompound?term=pccompound_pcassay_probe[filter]. Accessed 17 Nov 2015

Authors
Yang, J. J., Ursu, O., Lipinski, C. A., Sklar, L. A., Oprea, T. I., & Bologa, C. G.
Affiliations
University of New Mexico (US)
Corresponding author
Bologa, Cristian G.
Venue
Journal of Cheminformatics
Published
2016-05-28
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
29-29
ISSN
1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2397609778
Cited by
103
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 3
FWCI
15.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cheminformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U54MH074425, U54MH084690)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R21GM095952)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA189205)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biophysics › Cell Image Analysis Techniques
Keywords
bioassay data, hit selection, machine learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review