How to Achieve Better Results Using PASS-Based Virtual Screening: Case Study for Kinase Inhibitors
Open accessAbstract
Discovery of new pharmaceutical substances is currently boosted by the possibility of utilization of the Synthetically Accessible Virtual Inventory (SAVI) library, which includes about 283 million molecules, each annotated with a proposed synthetic one-step route from commercially available starting materials. The SAVI database is well-suited for ligand-based methods of virtual screening to select molecules for experimental testing. In this study, we compare the performance of three approaches for the analysis of structure-activity relationships that differ in their criteria for selecting of "active" and "inactive" compounds included in the training sets. PASS (Prediction of Activity Spectra for Substances), which is based on a modified Naïve Bayes algorithm, was applied since it had been shown to be robust and to provide good predictions of many biological activities based on just the structural formula of a compound even if the information in the training set is incomplete. We used different subsets of kinase inhibitors for this case study because many data are currently available on this important class of drug-like molecules. Based on the subsets of kinase inhibitors extracted from the ChEMBL 20 database we performed the PASS training, and then applied the model to ChEMBL 23 compounds not yet present in ChEMBL 20 to identify novel kinase inhibitors. As one may expect, the best prediction accuracy was obtained if only the experimentally confirmed active and inactive compounds for distinct kinases in the training procedure were used. However, for some kinases, reasonable results were obtained even if we used merged training sets, in which we designated as inactives the compounds not tested against the particular kinase. Thus, depending on the availability of data for a particular biological activity, one may choose the first or the second approach for creating ligand-based computational tools to achieve the best possible results in virtual screening.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
PASS predicts several thousand biological activities based on analysis of SAR in a training set of over one million biologically active compounds.
“The current version of PASS predicts several thousand biological activities based on the analysis of structure-activity relationships in the training set of over one million biologically active compounds.108”
From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [108]
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 81 · Cited by 40
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Filimonov D. A. Poroikov V. V. Karaicheva E. I. Kazaryan R. K. Boudunova A. P. Mikhailovskiy E. M. (1995). Computer-aided prediction of biological activity spectra of chemical substances on the basis of their structural formulae: computerized system PASS. Exp. Clin Pharmacol. 58, 56– 62. 7773095
- Murray D. Wigglesworth M. (2017). HTS methods: assay design and optimisation, in High Throughput Screen. Methods, eds Bittker J. A. Ross N. T. (Cambridge: The Royal Society of Chemistry), 1– 15.
- Rish I. (2001). An empirical study of the naive Bayes classifier, in IJCAI 2001 Workshop on Empirical Methods in Artificial Intelligence (Seattle, WA), 41– 46.
- Rosenberg C. Hebert M. Schneiderman H. (2007). Semi-supervised self-training of object detection models, in 7th IEEE Workshop on Applications of Computer Vision/IEEE Workshop on Motion and Video Computing Vision, WACV 2005 (Breckenridge, CO), 29– 36.
- Authors
- Pogodin, P. V., Lagunin, A. A., Rudik, A. V., Filimonov, D. A., Druzhilovskiy, D. S., Nicklaus, M. C., & Poroikov, V. V.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Biomedical Chemistry (RU)
- Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (RU)
- Corresponding author
- Poroikov, Vladimir V.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Frontiers in Chemistry
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2018-04-26
- Volume
- 6
- Pages
- 133-133
- ISSN
- 2296-2646 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5935003
- OpenAlex
- W2800402488
- Cited by
- 40
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 2.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Frontiers in Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Russian Foundation for Basic Research (17-54-30015-NIH_a)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Synthesis and Characterization of Heterocyclic Compounds
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Keywords
- PASS, virtual screening, kinase inhibitors, structure-activity relationship, ligand-based drug discovery, naive Bayes, training data selection, ChEMBL, activity prediction
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