skip to main content
10.1145/3011077.3011117acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessoictConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Significant path selection improves the prediction of novel drug-target interactions

Published:08 December 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Identifying the interactions between drugs and targets is a crucial step in the process of discovering new drugs. There has been a number of computational methods proposed for the problem. Among them, machine learning-based methods usually utilizes the similarity between drugs and between targets to build kernel matrices, which are used to predict novel drug-target interactions with classification models. While network-based methods usually formulate the prediction as a ranking problem where candidate targets are according to a drug of interest and/or its known targets. A common disadvantage of the network-based methods is that they mainly look for novel targets which are close to known targets in the network. In this study, we proposed a method, namely SigTarget, to overcome this limitation. More specifically, SigTarget ranks candidate targets based on a probability with which they connect to known targets by choosing significant links between known and candidate targets. This method was adapted from an algorithm calculating relative importance between nodes in a network. Simulation results show that SigTarget was better than some existing methods such as TBSI, DBSI and RWR for a set of drugs collected from KEGG database. In addition, we showed the ability of SigTarget in predicting novel drug targets by showing that highly ranked candidate targets obtained from SigTarget are also verified in another drug database, DrugBank.

References

  1. D. J. Ward, O. I. Martino, S. Simpson, and A. J. Stevens, Decline in new drug launches: myth or reality? Retrospective observational study using 30 years of data from the UK, BMJ Open, vol. 3, no. 2, January 1, 2013, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. Sertkaya, H.-H. Wong, A. Jessup, and T. Beleche, Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States, Clinical Trials, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 117--126, April 1, 2016, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. M. Hay, D. W. Thomas, J. L. Craighead, C. Economides, and J. Rosenthal, Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs, Nat Biotech, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 40--51, 01//print, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. D.-H. Le, and L. Le, Systems Pharmacology: A Unified Framework for Prediction of Drug-Target Interactions, Current pharmaceutical design, vol. 22, no. 23, pp. 3569--3575, 2016, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Y. Yamanishi, M. Araki, A. Gutteridge, W. Honda, and M. Kanehisa, Prediction of drug-target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces, Bioinformatics, vol. 24, no. 13, pp. i232--i240, July 1, 2008, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J.-L. Faulon, M. Misra, S. Martin, K. Sale, and R. Sapra, Genome scale enzyme-metabolite and drug-target interaction predictions using the signature molecular descriptor, Bioinformatics, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 225--233, January 15, 2008, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. L. Jacob, and J.-P. Vert, Protein-ligand interaction prediction: an improved chemogenomics approach, Bioinformatics, vol. 24, no. 19, pp. 2149--2156, October 1, 2008, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. H. Yabuuchi, S. Niijima, H. Takematsu, T. Ida, T. Hirokawa, T. Hara, T. Ogawa, Y. Minowa, G. Tsujimoto, and Y. Okuno, Analysis of multiple compound-protein interactions reveals novel bioactive molecules, Molecular Systems Biology, vol. 7, no. 1, 2011-01-01 00:00:00, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. Campillos, M. Kuhn, A.-C. Gavin, L. J. Jensen, and P. Bork, Drug Target Identification Using Side-Effect Similarity, Science, vol. 321, no. 5886, pp. 263--266, July 11, 2008, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Y. Yamanishi, M. Kotera, M. Kanehisa, and S. Goto, Drug-target interaction prediction from chemical, genomic and pharmacological data in an integrated framework, Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 12, pp. i246--i254, June 15, 2010, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Z. Mousavian, and A. Masoudi-Nejad, Drug-target interaction prediction via chemogenomic space: learning-based methods, Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism & Toxicology, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1273--1287, 2014/09/01, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. H. Ding, I. Takigawa, H. Mamitsuka, and S. Zhu, Similarity-based machine learning methods for predicting drug-target interactions: a brief review, Briefings in Bioinformatics, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 734--747, September 1, 2014, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. X. Chen, C. C. Yan, X. Zhang, X. Zhang, F. Dai, J. Yin, and Y. Zhang, Drug-target interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models, Briefings in Bioinformatics, August 17, 2015, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. D.-H. Le, and Y.-K. Kwon, GPEC: A Cytoscape plug-in for random walk-based gene prioritization and biomedical evidence collection, Computational Biology and Chemistry, vol. 37, no. 0, pp. 17--23, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D.-H. Le, and Y.-K. Kwon, Neighbor-favoring weight reinforcement to improve random walk-based disease gene prioritization, Computational Biology and Chemistry, vol. 44, no. 0, pp. 1--8, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. D.-H. Le, A novel method for identifying disease associated protein complexes based on functional similarity protein complex networks, Algorithms for Molecular Biology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 14, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. D.-H. Le, Network-based ranking methods for prediction of novel disease associated microRNAs, Computational Biology and Chemistry, vol. 58, pp. 139--148, 10//, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. F. Cheng, C. Liu, J. Jiang, W. Lu, W. Li, G. Liu, W. Zhou, J. Huang, and Y. Tang, Prediction of Drug-Target Interactions and Drug Repositioning via Network-Based Inference, PLoS Comput Biol, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. e1002503, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. H. Wang, C. K. Chang, H.-I. Yang, and Y. Chen, Estimating the Relative Importance of Nodes in Social Networks, Journal of Information Processing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 414--422, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. M. Kanehisa, S. Goto, M. Furumichi, M. Tanabe, and M. Hirakawa, KEGG for representation and analysis of molecular networks involving diseases and drugs, Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 38, no. suppl 1, pp. D355--D360, January 1, 2010, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. D. S. Wishart, C. Knox, A. C. Guo, D. Cheng, S. Shrivastava, D. Tzur, B. Gautam, and M. Hassanali, DrugBank: a knowledgebase for drugs, drug actions and drug targets, Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 36, no. suppl 1, pp. D901--D906, January 1, 2008, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. M. Hattori, N. Tanaka, M. Kanehisa, and S. Goto, SIMCOMP/SUBCOMP: chemical structure search servers for network analyses, Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 38, no. suppl 2, pp. W652--W656, July 1, 2010, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. T. S. Keshava Prasad, R. Goel, K. Kandasamy, S. Keerthikumar, S. Kumar, S. Mathivanan, D. Telikicherla, R. Raju, B. Shafreen, and A. Venugopal, Human protein reference database-2009 update, Nucleic Acids Res, vol. 37, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. G. D. Bader, D. Betel, and C. W. V. Hogue, BIND: the Biomolecular Interaction Network Database, Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 248--250, January 1, 2003, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. B.-J. Breitkreutz, C. Stark, T. Reguly, L. Boucher, A. Breitkreutz, M. Livstone, R. Oughtred, D. H. Lackner, J. Bahler, V. Wood, K. Dolinski, and M. Tyers, The BioGRID Interaction Database: 2008 update, Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 36, no. suppl_1, pp. D637--640, January 11, 2008, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Significant path selection improves the prediction of novel drug-target interactions

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        SoICT '16: Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Information and Communication Technology
        December 2016
        442 pages
        ISBN:9781450348157
        DOI:10.1145/3011077

        Copyright © 2016 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 8 December 2016

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        SoICT '16 Paper Acceptance Rate58of132submissions,44%Overall Acceptance Rate147of318submissions,46%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader