A novel technique for similarity searching is introduced. Molecules are represented by atom environments, which are fed into an information-gain-based feature selection. A naïve Bayesian classifier is then employed for compound classification. The new method is tested by its ability to retrieve five sets of active molecules seeded in the MDL Drug Data Report (MDDR). In comparison experiments, the algorithm outperforms all current retrieval methods assessed here using two- and three-dimensional descriptors and offers insight into the significance of structural components for binding.

A molecular similarity searching technique based on atom environments, information-gain-based feature selection, and the naive Bayesian classifier has been applied to a series of diverse datasets and its performance compared to those of alternative searching methods. Atom environments are count vectors of heavy atoms present at a topological distance from each heavy atom of a molecular structure. In this application, using a recently published dataset of more than 100000 molecules from the MDL Drug Data Report database, the atom environment approach appears to outperform fusion of ranking scores as well as binary kernel discrimination, which are both used in combination with Unity fingerprints. Overall retrieval rates among the top 5% of the sorted library are nearly 10% better (more than 14% better in relative numbers) than those of the second best method, Unity fingerprints and binary kernel discrimination. In 10 out of 11 sets of active compounds the combination of atom environments and the naive Bayesian classifier appears to be the superior method, while in the remaining dataset, data fusion and binary kernel discrimination in combination with Unity fingerprints is the method of choice. Binary kernel discrimination in combination with Unity fingerprints generally comes second in performance overall. The difference in performance can largely be attributed to the different molecular descriptors used. Atom environments outperform Unity fingerprints by a large margin if the combination of these descriptors with the Tanimoto coefficient is compared. The naive Bayesian classifier in combination with information-gain-based feature selection and selection of a sensible number of features performs about as well as binary kernel discrimination in experiments where these classification methods are compared. When used on a monoaminooxidase dataset, atom environments and the naive Bayesian classifier perform as well as binary kernel discrimination in the case of a 50/50 split of training and test compounds. In the case of sparse training data, binary kernel discrimination is found to be superior on this particular dataset. On a third dataset, the atom environment descriptor shows higher retrieval rates than other 2D fingerprints tested here when used in combination with the Tanimoto similarity coefficient. Feature selection is shown to be a crucial step in determining the performance of the algorithm. The representation of molecules by atom environments is found to be more effective than Unity fingerprints for the type of biological receptor similarity calculations examined here. Combining information prior to scoring and including information about inactive compounds, as in the Bayesian classifier and binary kernel discrimination, is found to be superior to posterior data fusion (in the datasets tested here).

In this study, two probabilistic machine-learning algorithms were compared for in silico target prediction of bioactive molecules, namely the well-established Laplacian-modified Naïve Bayes classifier (NB) and the more recently introduced (to Cheminformatics) Parzen-Rosenblatt Window. Both classifiers were trained in conjunction with circular fingerprints on a large data set of bioactive compounds extracted from ChEMBL, covering 894 human protein targets with more than 155,000 ligand-protein pairs. This data set is also provided as a benchmark data set for future target prediction methods due to its size as well as the number of bioactivity classes it contains. In addition to evaluating the methods, different performance measures were explored. This is not as straightforward as in binary classification settings, due to the number of classes, the possibility of multiple class memberships, and the need to translate model scores into "yes/no" predictions for assessing model performance. Both algorithms achieved a recall of correct targets that exceeds 80% in the top 1% of predictions. Performance depends significantly on the underlying diversity and size of a given class of bioactive compounds, with small classes and low structural similarity affecting both algorithms to different degrees. When tested on an external test set extracted from WOMBAT covering more than 500 targets by excluding all compounds with Tanimoto similarity above 0.8 to compounds from the ChEMBL data set, the current methodologies achieved a recall of 63.3% and 66.6% among the top 1% for Naïve Bayes and Parzen-Rosenblatt Window, respectively. While those numbers seem to indicate lower performance, they are also more realistic for settings where protein targets need to be established for novel chemical substances.