Integration of the Butina algorithm and ensemble learning strategies for the advancement of a pharmacophore ligand-based model: an in silico investigation of apelin agonists

3D pharmacophore models describe the ligand's chemical interactions in their bioactive conformation. They offer a simple but sophisticated approach to decipher the chemically encoded ligand information, making them a valuable tool in drug design. Our research summarized the key studies for appl...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Frontiers in chemistry 2024, Vol.12, p.1382319-1382319
Hauptverfasser: Tran, Xuan-Truc Dinh, Phan, Tieu-Long, To, Van-Thinh, Tran, Ngoc-Vi Nguyen, Nguyen, Nhu-Ngoc Song, Nguyen, Dong-Nghi Hoang, Tran, Ngoc-Tam Nguyen, Truong, Tuyen Ngoc
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:3D pharmacophore models describe the ligand's chemical interactions in their bioactive conformation. They offer a simple but sophisticated approach to decipher the chemically encoded ligand information, making them a valuable tool in drug design. Our research summarized the key studies for applying 3D pharmacophore models in virtual screening for 6,944 compounds of APJ receptor agonists. Recent advances in clustering algorithms and ensemble methods have enabled classical pharmacophore modeling to evolve into more flexible and knowledge-driven techniques. Butina clustering categorizes molecules based on their structural similarity (indicated by the Tanimoto coefficient) to create a structurally diverse training dataset. The learning method combines various individual pharmacophore models into a set of pharmacophore models for pharmacophore space optimization in virtual screening. This approach was evaluated on Apelin datasets and afforded good screening performance, as proven by Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC score of 0.994 ± 0.007), enrichment factor of (EF1% of 50.07 ± 0.211), Güner-Henry score of 0.956 ± 0.015, and F-measure of 0.911 ± 0.031. Although one of the high-scoring models achieved statistically superior results in each dataset (AUC of 0.82; an EF1% of 19.466; GH of 0.131 and F1-score of 0.071), the ensemble learning method including voting and stacking method balanced the shortcomings of each model and passed with close performance measures.
ISSN:2296-2646
2296-2646
DOI:10.3389/fchem.2024.1382319