Quantum probability ranking principle for ligand-based virtual screening

Chemical libraries contain thousands of compounds that need screening, which increases the need for computational methods that can rank or prioritize compounds. The tools of virtual screening are widely exploited to enhance the cost effectiveness of lead drug discovery programs by ranking chemical compounds databases in decreasing probability of biological activity based upon probability ranking principle (PRP). In this paper, we developed a novel ranking approach for molecular compounds inspired by quantum mechanics, called quantum probability ranking principle (QPRP). The QPRP ranking criteria would make an attempt to draw an analogy between the physical experiment and molecular structure ranking process for 2D fingerprints in ligand based virtual screening (LBVS). The development of QPRP criteria in LBVS has employed the concepts of quantum at three different levels, firstly at representation level, this model makes an effort to develop a new framework of molecular representation by connecting the molecular compounds with mathematical quantum space. Secondly, estimate the similarity between chemical libraries and references based on quantum-based similarity searching method. Finally, rank the molecules using QPRP approach. Simulated virtual screening experiments with MDL drug data report (MDDR) data sets showed that QPRP outperformed the classical ranking principle (PRP) for molecular chemical compounds.

[1]  S. Robertson.  The probability ranking principle in IR , 1997 .

[2]  Paolo Massimo Buscema,et al.  Similarity Coefficients for Binary Chemoinformatics Data: Overview and Extended Comparison Using Simulated and Real Data Sets , 2012, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[3]  Massimo Melucci.  Can Information Retrieval Systems Be Improved Using Quantum Probability? , 2011, ICTIR.

[4]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Ligand-Based Virtual Screening Using Bayesian Networks , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[5]  Károly Héberger,et al.  Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations? , 2015, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[6]  A. N. Kolmogorov,et al.  Foundations of the theory of probability , 1960 .

[7]  C. Shekhar.  In silico pharmacology: computer-aided methods could transform drug development. , 2008, Chemistry & biology.

[8]  Peter Willett.  Textual and chemical information processing: different domains but similar algorithms , 2000, Inf. Res..

[9]  Bo Wang,et al.  Support Vector Regression Scoring of Receptor-Ligand Complexes for Rank-Ordering and Virtual Screening of Chemical Libraries , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[10]  Antonio Lavecchia,et al.  Machine-learning approaches in drug discovery: methods and applications. , 2015, Drug discovery today.

[11]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Ligand expansion in ligand-based virtual screening using relevance feedback , 2012, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design.

[12]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  Quantum Mechanics and Information Retrieval , 2011, Advanced Topics in Information Retrieval.

[13]  Kimito Funatsu,et al.  Non-linear modeling and chemical interpretation with aid of support vector machine and regression. , 2010, Current computer-aided drug design.

[14]  Mohammed Mumtaz Al-Dabbagh,et al.  A Quantum-Based Similarity Method in Virtual Screening , 2015, Molecules.

[15]  Thorsten Meinl,et al.  Get your chemistry right with KNIME , 2013, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[16]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Combining multiple clusterings of chemical structures using cluster-based similarity partitioning algorithm , 2014, Int. J. Comput. Biol. Drug Des..

[17]  Mohammed Mumtaz Al-Dabbagh,et al.  Adapting Document Similarity Measures for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2016, Molecules.

[18]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  The geometry of information retrieval , 2004 .

[19]  S. Siegel,et al.  Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 2022, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[20]  David J. Wild,et al.  Grand challenges for cheminformatics , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[21]  W. L. Jorgensen.  The Many Roles of Computation in Drug Discovery , 2004, Science.

[22]  Peter Willett,et al.  Combination of Similarity Rankings Using Data Fusion , 2013, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[23]  Yicong Zhou,et al.  Extreme learning machine for ranking: Generalization analysis and applications , 2014, Neural Networks.

[24]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  The Quantum Probability Ranking Principle for Information Retrieval , 2009, ICTIR.

[25]  Peter Willett,et al.  Measuring the degree of similarity between objects in text retrieval systems , 1993 .

[26]  Massimo Melucci,et al.  Introduction to Information Retrieval and Quantum Mechanics , 2015, The Information Retrieval Series.

[27]  R. Laflamme,et al.  Ruling Out Multi-Order Interference in Quantum Mechanics , 2010, Science.

[28]  Zhiyong Lu,et al.  The CHEMDNER corpus of chemicals and drugs and its annotation principles , 2015, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[29]  Prasenjit Mukherjee,et al.  An overview of molecular fingerprint similarity search in virtual screening , 2016, Expert opinion on drug discovery.

[30]  Jürgen Bajorath,et al.  Chemoinformatics : concepts, methods, and tools for drug discovery , 2004 .

[31]  M. H. Basri,et al.  Inventory Management of Medical Consumables in Public Hospital: a case study , 2013 .

[32]  Peter Willett,et al.  Evaluation of a Bayesian inference network for ligand-based virtual screening , 2009, J. Cheminformatics.

[33]  Jerome R. Busemeyer,et al.  Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , 2012 .

[34]  P. Dirac.  Principles of Quantum Mechanics , 1982 .

[35]  Guido Zuccon,et al.  Using the Quantum Probability Ranking Principle to Rank Interdependent Documents , 2010, ECIR.

[36]  Luoqing Li,et al.  Learning performance of coefficient-based regularized ranking , 2014, Neurocomputing.

[37]  C. J. van Rijsbergen,et al.  Estimating interference in the QPRP for subtopic retrieval , 2010, SIGIR '10.

[38]  Shivani Agarwal,et al.  Ranking Chemical Structures for Drug Discovery: A New Machine Learning Approach , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[39]  Naomie Salim,et al.  Condorcet and borda count fusion method for ligand-based virtual screening , 2014, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[40]  Dharmaranjan Sriram,et al.  Enhanced ranking of PknB Inhibitors using data fusion methods , 2013, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[41]  Klaus-Robert Müller,et al.  StructRank: A New Approach for Ligand-Based Virtual Screening , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[42]  Anne Mai Wassermann,et al.  Searching for Target-Selective Compounds Using Different Combinations of Multiclass Support Vector Machine Ranking Methods, Kernel Functions, and Fingerprint Descriptors , 2009, J. Chem. Inf. Model..