Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of structure fingerprint and molecular interaction field based methods in explaining biological similarity of small molecules in cell-based screens

  • Published:
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this work, we calculated the pair wise chemical similarity for a subset of small molecules screened against the NCI60 cancer cell line panel. Four different compound similarity calculation methods were used: Brutus, GRIND, Daylight and UNITY. The chemical similarity scores of each method were related to the biological similarity data set. The same was done also for combinations of methods. In the end, we had an estimate of biological similarity for a given chemical similarity score or combinations thereof. The data from above was used to identify chemical similarity ranges where combining two or more methods (data fusion) led to synergy. The results were also applied in ligand-based virtual screening using the DUD data set. In respect to their ability to enrich biologically similar compound pairs, the ranking of the four methods in descending performance is UNITY, Daylight, Brutus and GRIND. Combining methods resulted always in positive synergy within a restricted range of chemical similarity scores. We observed no negative synergy. We also noted that combining three or four methods had only limited added advantage compared to combining just two. In the virtual screening, using the estimated biological similarity for ranking compounds produced more consistent results than using the methods in isolation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Martin YC, Kofron JL, Traphagen LM (2002) J Med Chem 45:4350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Willett P (2006) Drug Discov Today 11:1046

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Goodford PJ (1985) J Med Chem 28:849

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Pastor M, Cruciani G, McLay I et al (2000) J Med Chem 43:3233

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Tervo AJ, Ronkko T, Nyronen TH et al (2005) J Med Chem 48:4076

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ronkko T, Tervo AJ, Parkkinen J et al (2006) J Comput Aided Mol Des 20:227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Willett P (2006) QSAR Comb Sci 25:1143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Muchmore SW, Debe DA, Metz JT et al (2008) J Chem Inf Model 48:941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wallqvist A, Huang R, Thanki N et al (2006) J Chem Inf Model 46:430

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang H, Klinginsmith J, Dong X et al (2007) J Chem Inf Model 47:2063

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Covell DG, Wallqvist A, Huang R et al (2005) Proteins 59:403

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rabow AA, Shoemaker RH, Sausville EA et al (2002) J Med Chem 45:818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Wallqvist A, Huang R, Covell DG (2007) J Chem Inf Model 47:1414

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Huang N, Shoichet BK, Irwin JJ (2006) J Med Chem 49:6789

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Benedetti P, Mannhold R, Cruciani G et al (2002) J Med Chem 45:1577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Cianchetta G, Singleton RW, Zhang M et al (2005) J Med Chem 48:2927

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Cratteri P, Romanelli MN, Cruciani G et al (2004) J Comput Aided Mol Des 18:361

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Gasteiger JR, Sadowski CJ (1990) Tetrahedron Comp Method 3:537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fontaine F, Pastor M, Sanz F (2004) J Med Chem 47:2805

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Whittle M, Gillet VJ, Willett P et al (2006) J Chem Inf Model 46:2206

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Truchon JF, Bayly CI (2007) J Chem Inf Model 47:488

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Brown N, Jacoby E (2006) Mini Rev Med Chem 6:1217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Marie Curie Canceromics (MEXT-CT-2003-2728) grant from the EU, Cancer Organizations of Finland, Sigrid Juselius Foundation, and Academy of Finland (Centre of Excellence funding no. 213502). We also wish to thank Finnish IT Center for Science (CSC) for the computation resources used in this work. Anders Wallqvist is credited for sending the Daylight Tanimoto similarities and the biological similarities of the molecule pairs.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pekka Tiikkainen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tiikkainen, P., Poso, A. & Kallioniemi, O. Comparison of structure fingerprint and molecular interaction field based methods in explaining biological similarity of small molecules in cell-based screens. J Comput Aided Mol Des 23, 227–239 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-008-9253-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-008-9253-0

Keywords

Navigation