Cargando…

Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets

BACKGROUND: While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current work a total of 13 amino acid descriptor sets have been benchmarked with respect to their ability of esta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Westen, Gerard JP, Swier, Remco F, Cortes-Ciriano, Isidro, Wegner, Jörg K, Overington, John P, IJzerman, Adriaan P, van Vlijmen, Herman WT, Bender, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24059743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-42
_version_ 1782315293009248256
author van Westen, Gerard JP
Swier, Remco F
Cortes-Ciriano, Isidro
Wegner, Jörg K
Overington, John P
IJzerman, Adriaan P
van Vlijmen, Herman WT
Bender, Andreas
author_facet van Westen, Gerard JP
Swier, Remco F
Cortes-Ciriano, Isidro
Wegner, Jörg K
Overington, John P
IJzerman, Adriaan P
van Vlijmen, Herman WT
Bender, Andreas
author_sort van Westen, Gerard JP
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current work a total of 13 amino acid descriptor sets have been benchmarked with respect to their ability of establishing bioactivity models. The descriptor sets included in the study are Z-scales (3 variants), VHSE, T-scales, ST-scales, MS-WHIM, FASGAI, BLOSUM, a novel protein descriptor set (termed ProtFP (4 variants)), and in addition we created and benchmarked three pairs of descriptor combinations. Prediction performance was evaluated in seven structure-activity benchmarks which comprise Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) dipeptidic inhibitor data, and three proteochemometric data sets, namely (1) GPCR ligands modeled against a GPCR panel, (2) enzyme inhibitors (NNRTIs) with associated bioactivities against a set of HIV enzyme mutants, and (3) enzyme inhibitors (PIs) with associated bioactivities on a large set of HIV enzyme mutants. RESULTS: The amino acid descriptor sets compared here show similar performance (<0.1 log units RMSE difference and <0.1 difference in MCC), while errors for individual proteins were in some cases found to be larger than those resulting from descriptor set differences ( > 0.3 log units RMSE difference and >0.7 difference in MCC). Combining different descriptor sets generally leads to better modeling performance than utilizing individual sets. The best performers were Z-scales (3) combined with ProtFP (Feature), or Z-Scales (3) combined with an average Z-Scale value for each target, while ProtFP (PCA8), ST-Scales, and ProtFP (Feature) rank last. CONCLUSIONS: While amino acid descriptor sets capture different aspects of amino acids their ability to be used for bioactivity modeling is still – on average – surprisingly similar. Still, combining sets describing complementary information consistently leads to small but consistent improvement in modeling performance (average MCC 0.01 better, average RMSE 0.01 log units lower). Finally, performance differences exist between the targets compared thereby underlining that choosing an appropriate descriptor set is of fundamental for bioactivity modeling, both from the ligand- as well as the protein side.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4015169
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40151692014-05-10 Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets van Westen, Gerard JP Swier, Remco F Cortes-Ciriano, Isidro Wegner, Jörg K Overington, John P IJzerman, Adriaan P van Vlijmen, Herman WT Bender, Andreas J Cheminform Research Article BACKGROUND: While a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current work a total of 13 amino acid descriptor sets have been benchmarked with respect to their ability of establishing bioactivity models. The descriptor sets included in the study are Z-scales (3 variants), VHSE, T-scales, ST-scales, MS-WHIM, FASGAI, BLOSUM, a novel protein descriptor set (termed ProtFP (4 variants)), and in addition we created and benchmarked three pairs of descriptor combinations. Prediction performance was evaluated in seven structure-activity benchmarks which comprise Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) dipeptidic inhibitor data, and three proteochemometric data sets, namely (1) GPCR ligands modeled against a GPCR panel, (2) enzyme inhibitors (NNRTIs) with associated bioactivities against a set of HIV enzyme mutants, and (3) enzyme inhibitors (PIs) with associated bioactivities on a large set of HIV enzyme mutants. RESULTS: The amino acid descriptor sets compared here show similar performance (<0.1 log units RMSE difference and <0.1 difference in MCC), while errors for individual proteins were in some cases found to be larger than those resulting from descriptor set differences ( > 0.3 log units RMSE difference and >0.7 difference in MCC). Combining different descriptor sets generally leads to better modeling performance than utilizing individual sets. The best performers were Z-scales (3) combined with ProtFP (Feature), or Z-Scales (3) combined with an average Z-Scale value for each target, while ProtFP (PCA8), ST-Scales, and ProtFP (Feature) rank last. CONCLUSIONS: While amino acid descriptor sets capture different aspects of amino acids their ability to be used for bioactivity modeling is still – on average – surprisingly similar. Still, combining sets describing complementary information consistently leads to small but consistent improvement in modeling performance (average MCC 0.01 better, average RMSE 0.01 log units lower). Finally, performance differences exist between the targets compared thereby underlining that choosing an appropriate descriptor set is of fundamental for bioactivity modeling, both from the ligand- as well as the protein side. BioMed Central 2013-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4015169/ /pubmed/24059743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-42 Text en Copyright © 2013 van Westen et al.; licensee Chemistry Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
van Westen, Gerard JP
Swier, Remco F
Cortes-Ciriano, Isidro
Wegner, Jörg K
Overington, John P
IJzerman, Adriaan P
van Vlijmen, Herman WT
Bender, Andreas
Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
title Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
title_full Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
title_fullStr Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
title_full_unstemmed Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
title_short Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
title_sort benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015169/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24059743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1758-2946-5-42
work_keys_str_mv AT vanwestengerardjp benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT swierremcof benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT cortescirianoisidro benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT wegnerjorgk benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT overingtonjohnp benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT ijzermanadriaanp benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT vanvlijmenhermanwt benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets
AT benderandreas benchmarkingofproteindescriptorsetsinproteochemometricmodelingpart2modelingperformanceof13aminoaciddescriptorsets